# San Joaquin San Joaquin San Joaquin Valle y Valle
Air Basin Plan Air Basin Plan Demonstrating Demonstrating Attainment Attainment Attainment
Of Federal

1- hour Ozone Standards hour Ozone Standards 

# Extreme

Ozone Attainment Attainment

Demonstration Demonstration Plan

Oc October 8, 2004 tober 8 tober 8, 2004San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue

Fresno, California 93726

(559) 230-5800

www.valleyair.org

### San Joaquin Valley

Air Pollution Control District

Governing Board, 2004

Barbara Patrick, Chair Supervisor, Kern County

Thomas W. Mayfield, Vice Chair Supervisor, Stanislaus County

Mike Maggard Councilmember, City of Bakersfield Michael G. Nelso n Supervisor, Merced County

Susan B. Anderson Supervisor, Fresno County Jack A. Sieglock Supervisor, San Joaquin County

Tony Barba Supervisor, Kings County Ronn Dominici Supervisor, Madera County

Sam Armentrout Councilmember, City of Madera J. Steven Worthley Supervisor, Tulare County

Dan Prince Councilmember, City of Ripon

Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer

David L. Crow

Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer Seyed Sadredin

### CONTRIBUTORS

The following individuals contributed to the preparation of the main document. Many members of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

staff as well as staff from the California Air Resources Board and the San Joaquin Valley Councils of Government were involved in various aspects of developing the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan. Names of contributing staff are listed alphabetically.



### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

David L. Crow

Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer

Seyed Sadredin Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer

David L. Jones Director, Planning Division

David Mitchell Planning Manager

Scott Nester Planning Manager

Contributing Staff

Jennifer Barba, Air Quality Specialist Elena Nuño, Air Quality Specialist Cynthia Echavarria, Air Quality Specialist Steve Shaw, Project Planner George Heinen, Supervising Air Quality Engineer Evan Shipp, Supervising AQ Meteorologist Don Hunsaker, Supervising Air Quality Planner Jim Sweet, Project Planner David Nunes, Project Planner



### California Air Resources Board

Ravi Ramalingam Adjith Kaduwela

Kurt Karperos



### Councils of Government

Cari Anderson, CA Consulting, IncEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised October 20, 2005

SJVUAPCD Table of Contents

i 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ vii

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN ....................................................................... 1-1

1.2 REGULATORY ASPECTS........................................................................ 1-2

1.2.1 Attainment Classification.............................................................. 1-2 1.2.2 Agency Responsibilities ............................................................... 1-3 1.2.3 Sanctions, FIP and penalties ....................................................... 1-4 1.2.4 Conformity.................................................................................... 1-4

1.3 SJVAB PLANNING HISTORY................................................................... 1-5
1.4 SERIOUS AREA REQUIREMENTS.......................................................... 1-8

1.5 PLAN DEVELOPMENT............................................................................. 1-10

1.5.1 Process........................................................................................ 1-10
1.5.2 Schedule...................................................................................... 1-11

1.5.3 Content ........................................................................................ 1-11

2 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR QUALITY ............................................................. 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 AIR QUALITY DETERMINANTS IN THE SJVAB...................................... 2-2

2.2.1 General ........................................................................................ 2-2 2.2.2 Geography and Topography ........................................................ 2-2

2.2.3 Climate......................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.4 Ozone Transport .......................................................................... 2-6 2.2.5 Population.................................................................................... 2-7 2.2.6 Development Patterns.................................................................. 2-8
2.3 OZONE...................................................................................................... 2-9 2.3.1 Background.................................................................................. 2-9

2.3.2 Adverse Effects............................................................................ 2-9

2.3.3 Precursors and Formations.......................................................... 2-11 2.3.4 Design Value Determinations from Ozone Levels........................ 2-12 2.3.5 Area Classification for the One (1)-Hour Ozone Standard ........... 2-13 2.3.6 One (1)-Hour Ozone Exceedance Trends.................................... 2-13

2.3.7 Status of Federal 8-Hour Standard .............................................. 2-15

2.4 OZONE MONITORING ............................................................................. 2-16 2.4.1 Monitoring Network ...................................................................... 2-16 2.4.2 Other Ozone Monitoring............................................................... 2-18

2.4.3 Conclusion ................................................................................... 2-26EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised October 20, 2005

SJVUAPCD Table of Contents

ii 2.5 OTHER POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN IN THE SAN JOAQUIN

VALLEY..................................................................................................... 2-26

2.5.1 Particulate Matter......................................................................... 2-26
2.5.2 Carbon Monoxide......................................................................... 2-28

2.5.3 Toxic Air Pollutants ...................................................................... 2-28
2.6 REFERENCES.......................................................................................... 2-29

3 EMISSIONS INVENTORY ................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 INVENTORY TYPES................................................................................. 3-1 3.2.1 Modeling Inventory....................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2 Planning Inventory ....................................................................... 3-3 3.2.3 Data Sources and Accuracy......................................................... 3-3 3.2.4 Emission Source Types ............................................................... 3-4

3.3 BASELINE YEAR EMISSIONS ................................................................. 3-6

3.4 FUTURE INVENTORIES........................................................................... 3-12

3.4.1 Growth Factors ............................................................................ 3-12

3.4.2 Control Factors ............................................................................ 3-13

3.4.3 Inclusion of Emission Reduction Credits...................................... 3-13

3.5 CONFORMITY BUDGETS ........................................................................ 3-23

3.6 EMISSIONS INVENTORY UNCERTAINTIES........................................... 3-24

3.7 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 3-25

4 CONTROL STRATEGY ....................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 DISTRICT RULE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE....................................... 4-1

4.2.1 District Control Measures............................................................. 4-4

4.2.2 Control Measures Table............................................................... 4-5

4.2.3 2004-2007 Control Measures....................................................... 4-8 4.2.4 Potential Control Measures Requiring Further Study................... 4-28 4.2.5 Reasonably Available Control Technologies................................ 4-35 4.2.6 Clean Fuels or Advanced Control Technologies .......................... 4-37

4.3 FUTURE STUDY MEASURES.................................................................. 4-37

4.3.1 Mobile Source Measures............................................................. 4-38

4.3.2 Other Sources ............................................................................. 4-39

4.3.3 Sustainable Incentives................................................................. 4-40

4.4 DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAMS........................................................ 4-41 4.4.1 Heavy-Duty Engine Incentive Program ........................................ 4-42

4.4.2 Electric Lawn Mower Incentives................................................... 4-42 4.4.3 Future Programs .......................................................................... 4-43EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised October 20, 2005

SJVUAPCD Table of Contents

iii 4.5 PUBLIC EDUCATION ............................................................................... 4-43 4.5.1 Outreach Program........................................................................ 4-44

4.5.2 District Publications...................................................................... 4-45

4.5.3 Youth Education........................................................................... 4-45
4.5.4 Events/Activities........................................................................... 4-46

4.6 OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL TPA RACM .................................................. 4-46

4.6.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 4-46 4.6.2 Overview of existing measures .................................................... 4-47 4.6.3 Suggested measures ................................................................... 4-50 4.6.4 Adopted measures....................................................................... 4-51 4.6.5 Public Participation....................................................................... 4-51
4.7 STATE EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR THE SJVAB............................... 4-53

4.7.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 4-53 4.7.2 Current Implementation Status .................................................... 4-54

4.7.3 ARB Commitments for Extreme OADP for SJVAB....................... 4-55

4.8 CONTINGENCY MEASURES................................................................... 4-57

4.9 LONG-TERM MEASURES........................................................................ 4-58

5 FUTURE OZONE AIR QUALITY ......................................................................... 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY ................................................................ 5-1

5.2 PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................ 5-1

5.3 MODEL CHOICE....................................................................................... 5-1

5.4 MODEL BASE CASE ................................................................................ 5-2

5.5 FUTURE YEAR PROJECTIONS............................................................... 5-5

5.6 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION ........................................................... 5-9

5.7 MODELING CAVEATS AND FUTURE WORK ......................................... 5-13

6 OUTREACH ......................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 PRE-DRAFT PLAN WORKSHOPS........................................................... 6-1

6.3 CITIZEN’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ....................................................... 6-2
6.4 DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD ............................................................. 6-2

6.5 WEB SITE POSTINGS.............................................................................. 6-3

6.6 STUDY AGENCY ...................................................................................... 6-3

6.7 DRAFT EXTREME OADP ......................................................................... 6-3

6.8 PROPOSED EXTREME OADP................................................................. 6-4

7 RATE OF PROGRESS (ROP) DEMONSTRATION ............................................ 7-1
7.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 1990 RATE OF PROGRESS BASELINE INVENTORIES......................... 7-1 7.3 FUTURE YEAR (2008 AND 2010) INVENTORIES ................................... 7-3 7.4 1990-2008 MILESTONE (51 PERCENT) DEMONSTRATION.................. 7-3 7.4.1 Required 51 Percent Reduction for 2008..................................... 7-4 7.4.2 2008 Rate of Progress Demonstration......................................... 7-4EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised October 20, 2005

SJVUAPCD Table of Contents

iv 7.5 1990-2010 MILESTONE (57 PERCENT) DEMONSTRATION.................. 7-6 7.5.1 Required 57 Percent Reduction for 2010..................................... 7-6 7.5.2 2010 Rate of Progress ................................................................. 7-9
7.6 PRIOR ROP & MILESTONE COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION ............ 7-13

7.6.1 Prior ROP .................................................................................... 7-13 7.6.2 Milestone Compliance Demonstration ......................................... 7-15

7.7 REFERENCES.......................................................................................... 7-16

8 CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR ACT TRIENNIAL PROGRESS REPORT AND

PLAN REVISION ................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 8-1

8.1.1 Attainment Demonstration............................................................ 8-2 8.1.2 Air Basin Description.................................................................... 8-2
8.2 OZONE AIR QUALITY INDICATORS ....................................................... 8-3 8.2.1 Air Quality Indicators.................................................................... 8-3 8.2.2 Expected Peak Day Concentration (EPDC)................................. 8-3 8.2.3 Exposure Indicators ..................................................................... 8-4
8.3 PROGRESS TOWARD AIR QUALITY STANDARD ATTAINMENT.......... 8-6

8.4 TRANSPORT MITIGATION ...................................................................... 8-13

8.5 CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION ............................................. 8-16 8.5.1 Stationary Source Control Measures ........................................... 8-16

8.5.2 Mobile Source Control Measures................................................. 8-19 8.5.3 Land Use Programs ..................................................................... 8-22
8.6 PLAN REVISION....................................................................................... 8-23

8.6.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 8-23 8.6.2 Control Strategy ........................................................................... 8-23 8.6.3 Updated Strategy and Expected Reductions ............................... 8-25 8.6.4 Further Study Measures............................................................... 8-26

8.7 REFERENCES.......................................................................................... 8-27

9 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY .......................................................................... 9-1
9.1 ACRONYMS ............................................................................................. 9-1

9.2 GLOSSARY .............................................................................................. 9-4

APPENDICES A. County Emission Inventories for On-Road Motor Vehicles .................................. A-1

B. Current List of Emission Reduction Credits.......................................................... B-1 C. Regional Transportation Planning Agency Commitments .................................... C-1 D. Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations ........................................................... D-1 E. Cap on Stationary Source Growth by Pollutant.................................................... E-1 F. Suggested Control Measures............................................................................... F-1 G. Clean Air Act Requirements................................................................................. G-1 H. Comments and Responses: Public Review of Draft Extreme OADP ................... H-1EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised October 20, 2005

SJVUAPCD List of Tables

v 

### LIST OF TABLES

Table # Title Page #

Table 1-1 Nonattainment Classifcation and Design Value Assignment.....................1-2 Table 1-2 Requirements for Severe versus Extreme Nonattainment Areas ..............1-9 Table 2-1 SJVAB Populations and Land Area...........................................................2-8 Table 2-2 Ozone Monitoring Stations in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin................2-19 Table 3-1 SJVAB 2000, 2008 and 2010 Planning Emissions Inventories..................3-7 Table 3-2 Estimated NOx Growth, Control and Estimated Offset Use for Stationary Sources ....................................................................................3-15 Table 3-3 Estimated VOC Growth, Control and Estimated Offset Use for Stationary Sources ....................................................................................3-18 Table 3-4 Transportation Conformity Budgets...........................................................3-24 Table 4-1 District Control Measure Schedule (2004-2007)........................................4-2 Table 4-2 Potential Control Measures Requiring Further Study ................................4-6 Table 4-3 Defined State Measures from the 2003 Statewide Strategy......................4-56 Table 5-1 SJVAB Federal 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Concept ..................................5-11 Table 7-1 1990 ROP Baseline Year Inventory...........................................................7-2 Table 7-2 1990 Adjusted Base Year VOC Inventory Calculations (Tons/Day) ..........7-3 Table 7-3 Reductions from Adopted Rules and Regulations Not Included in the 2008 and 2010 Projected Inventories..................................................7-4 Table 7-4 2008 Rate of Progress Demonstration Summary ......................................7-7 Table 7-5 2010 Rate of Progress Demonstration Summary ......................................7-11 Table 7-6 Comparison of Unadjusted Emissions Inventories used in Amended

2002/2005 ROP Plan and Extreme OADP ................................................7-14 Table 8-1 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Ozone Exceedances...................................8-7

Table 8-2 BARCT Rules ............................................................................................8-15 Table 8-3 2001-2003 Rulemaking Schedule..............................................................8-16 Table 8-4 Actual Emissions Reductions for District Rules Affecting Ozone Precursor Emissions (2000-2002) .............................................................8-19 Table 8-5 Rulemaking Schedule for 2003-2005 ........................................................8-25 Table 8-6 Planning Emissions Inventories (summer, tons/day).................................8-26EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised October 20, 2005

SJVUAPCD List of Figures

vi 

### LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page #

Figure 2-1 Counties Comprising the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin ............................ 2-1 Figure 2-2 San Joaquin Valley Wind Patterns During Ozone Season ........................ 2-4 Figure 2-3 Basin 1-Hour Design Value for 1986-2003................................................ 2-13 Figure 2-4 Number of Days Over the 1-Hour Federal Ozone Standard...................... 2-14 Figure 2-5 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Exceedances.................................................. 2-15 Figure 2-6 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Air Quality Monitoring Network ................... 2-17 Figure 4-1 Overview of Local Government Control Measure Process for the

Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan ....................................... 4-49 Figure 5-1 Wind Field for July 30, 2000 at 5:00 AM and 3:00 PM PST....................... 5-4 Figure 5-2 Maximum Ozone Concentration, 2000 CCOS Episode............................. 5-6 Figure 5-3 Change in Maximum Ozone Concentration due to Wildfires ..................... 5-7 Figure 5-4 Maximum Ozone Concentration, 2010, without Additional Controls.......... 5-8 Figure 5-5 Carrying Capacity Diagram for Bakersfield on July 30, 2010 .................... 5-10 Figure 7-1 Graphical Summary of 2008 ROP Demonstration for San Joaquin Valley Ozone ............................................................................................. 7-8 Figure 7-2 Graphical Summary of 2010 ROP Demonstration for San Joaquin Valley Ozone ............................................................................................. 7-12 Figure 8-1 Expected Peak Day Concentration at Arvin-Bear Site............................... 8-8 Figure 8-2 Expected Peak Day Concentration at the Bakersfield Golden State

Site ............................................................................................................ 8-9 Figure 8-3 Expected Peak Day Concentration at the Bakersfield 5558

California Ave Site..................................................................................... 8-9 Figure 8-4 Expected Peak Day Concentration at the Clovis N. Villa Ave. Site ........... 8-10 Figure 8-5 Expected Peak Day Concentration at the Fresno 1 st Street Site ............... 8-10 Figure 8-6 Expected Peak Day Concentration at the Hanford-Irwin Site .................... 8-11 Figure 8-7 Expected Peak Day Concentration at the Maricopa-Stanislaus

Street Site.................................................................................................. 8-11 Figure 8-8 Expected Peak Day Concentration at the Merced-South Coffee

Ave. Site.................................................................................................... 8-12 Figure 8-9 Area Weighted Exposure per Square Kilometer........................................ 8-12 Figure 8-10 Population Weighted Exposure per Person............................................... 8-13SJVUAPCD Executive Summary

vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (OADP) sets forth the emission reductions and timeline for attaining the federal 1-hour ozone ambient air quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) by November 15, 2010. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District), in conjunction with the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the eight regional Transportation Planning Agencies (TPAs) in the Valley, developed this plan to provide healthy air for all of the Valley’s people and to meet federal and state requirements for ozone planning documents.

For the purposes of this Extreme OADP , ozone is a colorless, odorless reactive gas found near the earth’s surface. Ozone is formed during summer months when pollutants emitted from society’s activities and natural sources react in the presence of light winds, sunlight and warm temperatures. Principal pollutants involved in these reactions are nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs); NOx and VOCs are termed ozone precursors.

Ozone is the prime ingredient of smog, and adversely affects human health and environmental resources. When inhaled, even at very low levels, ozone can cause acute respiratory problems, aggravate asthma, significantly decrease lung capacity in healthy adults, inflame lung tissue, and impair the defenses of the body’s immune system. Ozone also interferes with the ability of plants to make and store food; compromises growth, reproduction and overall plant health; and makes plants more susceptible to diseases, pest and other environmental stressors. In addition, ozone can also damage materials such as rubber, paper, and plastics, thereby generating additional costs to society.

Because ozone is an air pollutant that can adversely affect human health, damage vegetation, and degrade materials, EPA has established ambient air quality standards under the authority of the Federal Clean Air Act that identify safe levels for ozone in the atmosphere to prevent and minimize these impacts. Ozone levels measured in the atmosphere at levels lower than the standards are viewed as safe, whereas levels above the standards represent a reasonable danger to public health and welfare (non-health related damages), and thus require action to reduce emissions of ozone precursors. EPA has issued two different standards for ozone: a 1-hour average of 0.12 parts per million and an 8-hour average of 0.08 ppm; each of these is subdivided into primary standards that protect public health and secondary standards that protect public welfare (for each of the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards, the numeric value of the standard is the same for primary and secondary standards). This Plan addresses only the 1-hour standards.

In 1997, EPA determined that the 1-hour standards were not needed to protect public health given the promulgation of the 8-hour standards. On April 15, 2004 EPA issued a final rule revoking the 1-hour standards, effective June 15, 2005.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Executive Summary

viii Areas in the United States where ozone levels measured in the ambient air exceed the 1-hour standards of 0.12 ppm are said to be in nonattainment of the standards. An area complies with the federal 1-hour ozone standards when measured 1-hour average ozone levels at any given monitoring station do not exceed 0.12 ppm more than one day per year over any consecutive three-year period (40 CFR 50.9). Thus an area that has a monitoring station with measured 1-hour average ozone levels greater than 0.12 ppm on four or more days over a three-year period has not attained the standards, even if all of the days occurred in only one of the three years.

The severity or magnitude of a given area’s ozone nonattainment problem is given by the 1-hour ozone design value, which is based on the fourth highest measured 1-hour ozone level in excess of 0.12 ppm in a three-year period at a given monitoring station. In accordance with the federal Clean Air Act, EPA uses the design value at the time of standard promulgation to assign nonattainment areas to one of several classes that reflect the severity of the nonattainment problem; classifications range from marginal nonattainment to extreme nonattainment. The Federal Clean Air Act contains provisions for changing the classifications using factors such as clean air progress rates and requests from States to move areas to a higher classification. On April 16, 2004 EPA issued a final rule classifying the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment, effective May 17, 2004 (69 FR 20550). Under this rulemaking, the SJVAB’s attainment date is November 15, 2010.

This Extreme OADP is a roadmap that identifies emission reductions needed to attain the federal 1-hour ozone standards by November 15, 2010. According to the final rule reclassifying the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for the federal 1- hour ozone standards, the Extreme OADP is due to the EPA on November 15, 2004. The principal components of an ozone attainment demonstration plan consist of data describing measured ozone levels in the atmosphere for the area in question, baseline and future emissions inventories, descriptions of emissions controls that will reduce future emissions, and a description of results from a photochemical model relating emissions to ambient ozone levels and demonstrating attainment of the appropriate standards at a future date. This

Extreme OADP meets federal requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone plans.

Ozone levels measured in the SJVAB’s atmosphere in 2003 exceeded the federal 1-hour ozone standards on 37 days, which was a slight increase above 2002 levels. In addition, for the period 2001—2003, eight monitoring sites experienced more than three exceedances of the federal 1-hour ozone standards, with one site (Arvin) experiencing more than 50 exceedances and another site (Parlier) experiencing more than 40 exceedances. The overall 1- hour ozone design value for the SJVAB in 2003 was 0.15 ppm. These data reflect the pervasiveness of the SJVAB’s 1-hour ozone nonattainment problem.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Executive Summary

ix The Extreme OADP presents an emissions inventory developed under the Central California Ozone Study that describes the baseline (2000) and future (2008 and 2010) emissions rates for VOC and NOx, the pollutants that combine in the atmosphere to form ozone. The Plan includes transportation conformity emissions budgets for the years 2008 and 2010, which affect the planning activities of the Valley TPAs. Information provided by the TPAs, the mobile source emissions model EMFAC2002 (Version 2.2), and emission reductions calculated by ARB and the District form the basis of the conformity budgets.

The Extreme OADP presents emissions reductions sufficient to demonstrate attainment of the federal 1-hour standards by November 15, 2010 and to meet federal rate of progress emission reduction milestones for the years 2008 and 2010. The District and ARB will implement the control measures achieving these reductions. Many of the District measures used in the Extreme OADP were presented in the 2003 PM10 Plan that EPA approved effective June 25, 2004. In addition, the District developed other emission control measures to meet federal and state requirements outside of this Extreme OADP , and identified them in the January 2004 Extreme OADP Status Report . Many of the ARB emission control

measures also stem from the 2003 PM10 Plan . Additional ARB measures for

this Extreme OADP were first described in the January 2004 Extreme OADP Status Report , and before that in the State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) , adopted by ARB on October 23, 2003.

The District and ARB evaluated the potential for these reductions to reduce 1- hour ozone levels in the SJVAB by using a gridded photochemical model in accordance with EPA-approved procedures. This model uses a series of computer programs to relate VOC and NOx emissions to ozone levels. All of the reductions described in the previous paragraph, combined with minor reductions from incentive programs and other state mobile source emission control programs, were almost sufficient to demonstrate attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standards in the SJVAB by November 15, 2010. To provide the needed additional reductions, the District, in accordance with federal Clean Air Act provisions for extreme nonattainment areas, identified additional emission reductions to be provided by long-term measures that will be identified no later than spring of 2007. The total reductions identified as being needed to demonstrate attainment in the SJVAB represent about 14.5% of 2010 VOC emissions and about 14.5% of 2010 NOx emissions, beyond those reductions planned or committed to as of 2002. These percent reductions translate to about 53 tons/day of VOC emissions and about 58 tons/day of NOx emissions that must be reduced using future emission reduction control measures (including 5 tons per day each of VOC and NOx emissions reductions to be achieved by the long-term measures). Emission reductions implemented by ARB and EPA are

critical to the SJVAB’s demonstration of attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard by November 15, 2010. The resulting 2010 emissions inventory thatEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Executive Summary

x demonstrates attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standards in the SJVAB is about 314 tons per day of VOC and about 344 tons per day of NOx.

An additional important function of this Extreme OADP is to is to determine if planned emissions reductions meet federal requirements for rate of progress in reducing emissions of ozone precursors for the specified years of 2008 and

2010. The emission reductions identified in this Extreme OADP as needed to demonstrate attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standards, exclusive of the long-term measures, were more than sufficient to meet federal rate of progress emission reduction milestones for 2008 (a 51% reduction compared to 1990 emissions) and 2010 (a 57% reduction compared to 1990 emissions). A

combination of VOC and NOx emission controls were needed to meet the milestones. In addition, the District used the emissions inventory in the Extreme

OADP to show that the most recent prior rate of progress evaluations for the SJVAB (2002 and 2005) are still valid.

In addition, this plan fulfills requirements of the California Clean Air Act regarding the development of a triennial progress report and California Air Quality Attainment Plan revision that examines air pollutant exposure data, control measure implementation, and other air quality information with emphasis on meeting California ambient air quality standards. The California Clean Air

documents in this Extreme OADP focus on the historical time period of 2000-2002, and project, where recommended by ARB guidance, into the next threeyear planning period (2003-2005). The California Clean Air Act components of this plan meet state requirements for triennial progress reports and plan

revisions.

For state requirements, the Extreme OADP presents trends in ozone air quality indicators developed by ARB for reporting progress towards attaining the California 1-hour ozone standard and discusses the implementation of all feasible emission control measures. The information presented in this part of the plan shows that the SJVAB trends for most of the ARB-mandated ozone air quality indicators showed either a downward trend (improvement) or little movement up or down for the period of interest (2000—2002), although the overall long-term trend for most of the indicators in the SJVAB is one of improving air quality. The District continues to be actively involved in determining and implementing all feasible control measures, and works closely with downwind adjacent districts to evaluate control measures implemented and planned.

## Chapter 1 - Introduction

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 1

- Introduction

1-1 

### 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN

The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) does not currently meet the federal primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) one-hour national ambient air quality standards (standards or NAAQS) of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) by volume for the air pollutant ozone. At levels above the federal standards, ozone adversely affects public health, diminishes the production and quality of many agricultural crops, reduces visibility, degrades man-made materials, and damages native and ornamental vegetation.

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District), which is responsible for air quality management in the SJVAB, has been implementing emissions control measures to reduce 1-hour ozone levels, and has shown demonstrable progress over the past fifteen years. However, additional emission reductions are needed to bring the SJVAB into attainment with the federal 1-hour ozone standards. Because the District has authority over only a portion of the variety of air pollution sources in the SJVAB, it does not have the ability to put in place all of the emissions controls needed to bring the SJVAB into attainment. Additional emission reductions to be implemented by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are needed to achieve attainment. The federal Clean Air Act requires that the SJVAB attain the standard by November 15, 2010. 1

This plan was prepared to fulfill the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act for demonstrating attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard by November 15, 2010. As such, it describes the factors contributing to the SJVAB’s persistent ozone air quality problem, quantifies air pollutant emissions that cause ozone to form in the SJVAB, identifies control measures (past, present and future) needed to reduce these emissions, and projects future air quality based on implementation of these controls. In addition, this plan meets other requirements of the federal Clean Air Act that address the rate of progress (ROP) in reducing emissions of ozone precursor emissions by specified milestone years, which are 2008 and 2010 for extreme nonattainment areas. Lastly, this plan fulfills California Health and Safety Code requirements for the California Clean Air Act Plan Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision, both of which address progress towards meeting the state 1-hour ozone ambient air quality standard.

1 On April 30, 2004 EPA issued a final rule revoking the federal 1-hour ozone standard, effective June 15, 2005 (69 FR 23858). Effective June 15, 2005 the SJVAB would no longer be nonattainment for the federal 1-hour standard and the November 15, 2010 date for attainment would be eliminated. Focus would then shift to the attainment of the 8-hour standard, and District

and state emission control measures committed to in this Extreme OADP would be implemented for their contribution toward reducing 8-hour ozone levels.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 1

- Introduction

1-2 

### 1.2 REGULATORY ASPECTS

1.2.1 Attainment classification

Measured levels of pollutants in the atmosphere determine whether or not a given area is classified as attaining the standards (measured levels are lower than the standards) or nonattainment (measured levels are greater than the standards). For attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard, the principal statistic of interest is the number of times measured pollutant levels exceed the ozone NAAQS (also termed the number of exceedances). An area is in compliance with the primary and secondary federal 1-hour ozone NAAQS when measured 1-hour ozone levels at any given station do not exceed on average 0.12 parts per million by volume more than one day per year over any three year period (40 CFR 50.9). Thus an area with four or more exceedances at a given monitor over a three-year period has not attained the standard. Numerous sites in the SJVAB typically experience four or more exceedances, over any given three-year period (see section 2 for details). For the SJVAB to be classified as attainment for the federal 1-hour ozone standard, it would have to have no sites with four or more exceedances over a three-year period.

Once an area is designated as nonattainment for the federal 1-hour ozone standard, an air quality statistic termed the “design value” helps determine the magnitude of the nonattainment problem, as indicated below in Table 1-1 (Section 181(a) of the Federal Clean Air Act): 2

Table 1-1 Nonattainment Classification and Design Value Assignment

Nonattainment classification Design Value (ppm)

Marginal 0.121 up to 0.138

Moderate 0.138 up to 0.160

Serious 0.160 up to 0.180

Severe 0.180 up to 0.280

Extreme 0.280 and above

As can be seen, the extreme areas on the bottom have the worst ozone air pollution problem and the highest design value. The “design value” can be thought of as the pollutant concentration in the atmosphere at which we have healthy air for that pollutant. It is the concentration for which we design our air pollution control programs. A design value is calculated for each monitor

2 Typically, nonattainment area classification based on design value is done in conjunction with implementing a new standard, such as EPA did in 2004 with the 8-hour ozone standard.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 1

- Introduction

1-3 measuring the pollutant in a given air basin. For the overall basin, the design value is defined as the highest for that basin. For the federal 1-hour ozone standard, the design value is based on the fourth highest exceedance in a 3-year period at a given monitoring station.

Two principal events that have triggered nonattainment area classification based on design value are the passage of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (at which time the above table was created) and in conjunction with implementing a new standard, such as EPA did in 2004 with the new 8-hour ozone standard.

An air basin’s nonattainment classification is not always based only on design value. If an area fails to attain the standard by the date given for the classification, EPA can bump up an area to the next highest nonattainment category, if it fails to attain the standard by the date specified in the Federal Clean Air Act, even though the design value may not have changed or may have changed only marginally. An air basin’s nonattainment classification can also change by state request in accordance with Section 181(b)(3) of the Federal Clean Air Act. Factors driving such requests include the severity and complexity of a nonattainment problem, the need for emissions controls beyond the authority of the entity responsible for clean air planning, and the types of sources playing key roles in creating high pollutant levels.

1.2.2 Agency responsibilities

The reduction of ozone precursor emissions in the SJVAB requires the cooperation of local, regional, state, and federal governments. At the federal level, the EPA is responsible for setting the NAAQS and establishing federal motor vehicle emission standards. The EPA is also responsible for reducing emissions from locomotives, aircraft, heavy duty vehicles used in interstate commerce, and other sources such as off-road engines that are either preempted from state control or best regulated at the national level. The EPA also has the authority under the FCAA to require preparation of state plans for air quality and may approve or disapprove state air quality plans.

The ARB is the lead state agency for air quality. It is responsible for preparing and submitting a state air quality plan to the EPA. In preparing a state plan, the ARB reviews and approves regional air quality plans and incorporates them intoa SIP. Under state authority, ARB also establishes emission standards for onroad motor vehicles and some off-road sources; it also establishes fuel specifications and develops “consumer product” standards for meeting air quality goals in California. Other state agencies such as the Department of Pesticides and the Bureau of Automotive Repair also have responsibility for certain emission sources. The air pollution control districts and air quality management districts are responsible for developing the portion of the SIP that deals with stationary and area source controls in their respective geographic areas; they also cooperate with Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) to develop local government control measures.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 1

- Introduction

1-4 1.2.3 Sanctions, FIP and penalties

The FCAA [Title I, Part D, Section 179(b)] directs the EPA to impose sanctions on any area that fails to comply with the requirements of the law. The two mandatory sanctions consist of the following: (1) increased emissions offsets for major stationary sources, and (2) a prohibition on the use of federal highwayfunds. The offset sanction applies to major stationary sources. In a severe nonattainment area, a major source is defined as any source that emits, or has the potential to emit, 25 tons per year or more of VOC or NOx. Under the FCAA [Title I, Part D, Section 173(a)], the owner/operator of a major source must obtain construction and operation permits from the District for constructing a new major source or for making a major modification to an existing source. To obtain these permits, the source must reduce emissions within the District by more than the emissions created by the new or modified source on a 1.5 to 1 ratio for extreme areas. If the mandatory offset sanction is imposed, the offset ratio will become 2 to 1, which means that for every one ton of emissions produced, two tons must be reduced from an applicable source in the SJVAB.

The highway construction sanction, when implemented, prohibits the federal Secretary of Transportation from approving or awarding transportation projects or grants, except for projects designed to improve a demonstrated safety problem or intended to minimize air pollution. Air quality exceptions to this sanction include the following types of programs: (1) programs for public transit, (2) bus and high-occupancy lanes, (3) employer trip reduction programs, (4) ramp metering and signalization, (5) parking facilities for multiple occupancy vehicles, (6) road use charges, (7) programs for breakdown and accident scene management, and (8) other programs improving air quality.

In the event that a state is unable to enact emission controls sufficient to attain a federal standard, EPA can promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) until such time that state and local planning actions are back on track to achieve attainment. FIPs are not common and are developed on a case-by-case basis as needed. FIPs are not required to meet the same planning deadlines as the SIPs they are temporarily replacing.

1.2.4 Conformity

Conformity requirements date back to the 1977 amendments to the FCAA, but the 1990 FCAA Amendments substantially broadened their coverage and made them more specific. Under the conformity requirements, the Valley RTPAs cannot approve any activity unless it conforms to the SIP’s purpose of eliminating the severity and number of violations of the federal standards and achieving expeditious attainment of these standards.

Transportation plans refer to Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) prepared and adopted by Transportation Planning Agencies. A RTP is normally a 20-year master plan for each county that provides policies, actions, and financialEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 1

- Introduction

1-5 projections to guide investment decisions. Transportation programs refer to Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). A TIP is a financially constrained set of highway and transit projects to be funded over a multi-year period. It includes all projects requiring federal funding, permits, or other approvals, as well as regionally significant, non-federally funded projects. A transportation project is any highway or transit project that is included in the RTP and TIP, requires federal funding or action, or is regionally significant, and is submitted to the RTPAs for project review and fund application approval.



### 1.3 SJVAB PLANNING HISTORY

After passage of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA classified the SJVAB as “serious” nonattainment for the federal 1-hour ozone standards, based on the SJVAB’s design value for the 1987—1989 time period of data collection used for the original classification (56 FR 56694). As such, the SJVAB was required to attain the standard by November 15, 1999. In accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act, the District prepared and submitted in 1994 a plan demonstrating attainment by the required date.

The SJVAB failed to attain the federal 1-hour ozone standard by November 15, 1999 as required in the Federal Clean Air Act. 3 Consequently, in November 2001 EPA reclassified the SJVAB from “serious” to “severe” nonattainment (66

FR 56476); at the same time, EPA also changed the boundary of the SJVAB by removing a portion of eastern Kern County, required implementation of six emission control measures from the 1994 Plan, and required submittal by May 31, 2002 of a severe area ozone nonattainment plan meeting the specific provisions of Section 182 (d) of the federal Clean Air Act. In 2002, the District and ARB provided all required items to EPA except for a plan demonstrating attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard by November 15, 2005 (rules were submitted in late 2001/early 2002, and a 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress

Plan was adopted by the District on May 16, 2002 and transmitted by ARB to EPA on September 6, 2002) 4

. On October 2, 2002, EPA issued a final rule specifying “severe” area requirements that had not yet been met for the SJVAB (67 FR 61784). These items, which included a plan demonstrating attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard by November 15, 2005, were required to be submitted to EPA no

3 The SJVAB’s failure to reach attainment by 1999 is due to a number of factors, including: (1) the emission inventory was not fully developed and understood in 1994, and as a result the attainment strategy did not adequately account for all emissions in the inventory; and (2) emissions from sources outside the District that are transported into the air basin and contribute to exceedances of the ozone standard were not adequately addressed.

4 ARB transmitted the 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan to EPA on September 6, 2002 primarily to incorporate specific enforceable District control measures into the SIP. The motor vehicle emissions inventories in this plan were not used to set conformity budgets because they were based on dated modeling techniques and vehicle activity data not suited for budgets.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 1

- Introduction

1-6 later than March 18, 2004. This EPA action [which was effective on September 18, 2002] triggered an 18-month clock for imposing emissions offset sanctions, a 24-month clock for imposing highway funding sanctions, and a 24-month clock for preparing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the SJVAB. 5 Failure to submit the required items by March 18, 2004 would trigger the offset sanctions; failure to submit the required items by September 18, 2004 would trigger the highway fund sanctions and EPA promulgation of the FIP. Stopping the clocks required submittal of the necessary revisions by the dates specified; these revisions are (1) a demonstration of attainment of the 1-hr ozone standard by no later than November 15, 2005 [an ozone attainment demonstration plan (OADP)]; (2) a demonstration of creditable emission reductions of ozone precursors at a rate of at least 3%/yr until November 2005; (3) a rule addressing Reasonably Available Control Technology for lime kilns; (4) an inventory; and (5) contingency measures. In 2003, the District and ARB provided all of the required items to EPA except for the plan demonstrating attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard by November 15, 2005. 6

The District and ARB began work on a severe ozone attainment demonstration plan in late 2001, which included photochemical modeling to determine the magnitude of emissions reductions needed to attain the standard in the SJVAB by November 15, 2005. This modeling indicated that the emissions reductions needed for attainment were beyond what the District, ARB, or EPA could accomplish individually; consequently, attainment depended upon the District’s continued control of sources within its authority, in addition to ARB’s implementation of their own emission control measures on sources outside the authority of the District to regulate (primarily mobile sources). Most of ARB’s rules were scheduled to go into effect in the post-2007 time frame 7 , which did not help the District demonstrate attainment for the SJVAB by 2005. In addition, EPA was developing regulations to reduce emissions from sources under their control (e.g., locomotives, aircraft, diesel engines, etc.), but the federal implementation schedule for these rules was in the post-2005 time frame also.

5 Under the Federal Clean Air Act, EPA may develop and implement its own federal emission control measures if it finds that state and local measures do not meet requirements. This Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) is thus a temporary activity that supersedes the State Implementation Plan; it remains in effect until such time as EPA turns the attainment demonstration program back to state and local agencies.

6 On April 10, 2003, California submitted to EPA the District’s Amended 2002/2005 Rate of Progress (ROP) Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone , which provides all of the severe area SIP revisions required by EPA in the October 2002 Federal Register notice, except for the OADP. This Amended ROP Plan is based on ARB’s updated motor vehicle emissions model and updated activity data, and thus could be used to set conformity budgets. On July 10, 2003 EPA found the conformity budgets to be adequate. On September 4, 2003, EPA found the Amended

ROP Plan to be complete, and it is under review at EPA.

7 ARB’s rulemaking activities are heavily influenced by the attainment planning schedule for the South Coast Air Basin, which as an extreme ozone nonattainment area must attain the federal 1- hour ozone standard by November 15, 2010.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 1

- Introduction

1-7 The District and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) have acknowledged that emission reductions stemming from new state and federal controls (which are outside of the District’s authority to implement) are needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hr ozone standards in the SJVAB, and that these controls will not go into effect until after 2005. The District needed a mechanism to allow time

for state and federal measures to come into effect in order to attain the standard. Since the District could not accelerate implementation of state and federal measures, other options were explored. Section 181(b)(3) of the Federal Clean Air Act allows states to request EPA to reclassify an area to a higher classification. Higher classes reflect a more substantial nonattainment problem that in turn requires more time to solve. The District’s only option for pursuing a higher classification, with a later attainment date, was to request classification as

extreme nonattainment. 8

The District held numerous workshops and other public discussions (e.g., staff reports at Governing Board meetings) during the period 2001—2003 on the subject of requesting EPA to reclassify the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for the federal 1-hour ozone standards. Consequently, on December 18, 2003, after extensive public debate and stakeholder discussion, the District’s Governing Board voted unanimously to request EPA through ARB to classify the SJVAB as

extreme nonattainment for the federal 1-hour ozone standards.

ARB forwarded this request to EPA on January 9, 2004. On February 23, 2004 EPA proposed approval of the request (69 FR 8126) and on April 18, 2004, EPA signed the final rule approving the request. The classification as extreme nonattainment became final on May 17, 2004 (69 FR 20550). This classification changes the SJVAB’s attainment date for the federal 1-hour ozone standard to November 15, 2010, thereby providing time for critical state and federal emissions controls to come into effect in the post-2005 time frame. The classification to extreme also removes all prior “severe” area requirements and

associated sanctions and FIP clock because once a nonattainment area is reclassified, the Federal Clean Air Act requirements of the new classification supersede those of the previous classification, and the previous attainment requirements (and any associated deficiencies) are moot (69 FR 8127). No sanctions or FIP clock for planning deficiencies for the Federal 1-hour ozone standard apply to the SJVAB as of May 17, 2004. 9

8 In May 2001, The District requested EPA to designate the SJVAB as “Severe-17”, which would have extended the attainment date to November 15, 2007. In November 2001, EPA denied the request because the “Severe-17” category can be assigned based only on design value, and the SJVAB’s 1-hour design value at the time of the request was not high enough for classification as “severe-17.” (66 FR 56476)

9 EPA has an obligation to issue a FIP if they do not approve the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone that was submitted to them in April 2003. The

District owes this Plan to EPA whether the District’s classification is extreme or severe.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 1

- Introduction

1-8 

### 1.4 EXTREME AREA REQUIREMENTS

Extreme nonattainment areas must meet all requirements specified in Section 182(d) of the FCAA for a “severe” area plus the requirements for extreme areas specified in Section 182(e). Table 1-2 compares key federal Clean Air Act provisions for severe and extreme nonattainment areas.

When it transitioned from severe to extreme nonattainment, the District’s attainment date changed to November 15, 2010, and it also picked up two additional ROP milestone years of 2008 and 2010 for which it must demonstrate that SJVAB emissions reductions are meeting the targets established by the federal Clean Air Act for these years. In addition to these general planning requirements, the District must begin to implement the other extreme area requirements shown in Table 1-2.

The federal Clean Air Act requires extreme nonattainment areas to define a major source as one whose emissions of ozone precursors meet or exceed 10 tons per year. The lower major source definition also affects implementation of two other programs: New Source Review (NSR) and Title V permitting. For the SJVAB, the lower major source threshold under extreme would require an estimated 150 more sources to obtain Title V permits 10 (exclusive of agricultural sources). For NSR, the lower major source threshold is expected to have a minimal effect on SJVAB sources because the District’s NSR program requirements already meet “extreme” levels (10 tons per year) due to California Clean Air Act requirements. The offset ratio would change to the higher level of 1.5:1, with the option of a 1.2:1 ratio if the District is able to demonstrate use of best available control technology on all major sources. The District is committed to submitting revised NSR and Title V rules reflecting “extreme” classification to EPA by May 16, 2005, as required by the Final Rule reclassifying the SJVAB to extreme nonattainment (69 FR 20552). 11 The District already complies with the “clean fuels” part of the extreme area requirements (Section 4.2). The traffic control measures are optional, as is the new technologies provision that is used in Chapter 5 of this plan. Lastly, the District adopted a rule on May 16, 2002 implementing a nonattainment fee of $5000 per ton of emissions, and submitted the rule through ARB to EPA for approval. EPA has not yet taken final action on the rule, which was written to apply to either a severe or extreme nonattainment

area. 12 This Extreme OADP meets all federal requirements for extreme area plans, as is shown in Appendix G.

10 The District issues permits to about 7000 facilities, exclusive of agricultural operations.

11 The District could revisit the NSR rule again after EPA revokes the federal 1-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005, due to the effects of revocation on new source review as specified in Phase I of the final rule implementing the federal 8-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 51.905(e)(4)) [NSR thresholds are growth measures that change with an area’s classification].

12 This rule, if trigged by nonattainment, would generate an estimated $4 million to $ 36 million per year in the SJVAB, but federal law does not mandate how the funds should be spent.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 1

- Introduction

1-9 TABLE 1-2

Provisions for Severe vs. Extreme Nonattainment Areas [FCAA Sections 182(d) and (e) and section 185]

Category Severe Area Provisions Extreme Area Provisions

Major Stationary

Source Includes any stationary source or group of sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits, or has the potential to emit, at least 25 tons per year of VOCs or NOx. Includes any stationary source or group of sources

located within a continuous area and under common control that emits, or has the potential to emit, at least 10 tons per year of VOCs or NOx.

Modifications to

Sources Not applicable Any change at a major stationary source that results in any increase in emissions from any discrete operation, unit, or other pollutant-emitting activity at the source shall be considered a modification from the standpoint of permit requirements unless the increase is offset by reductions in the same pollutant from other discrete operations within the same source at an offset ratio of

at least 1.3 to 1.

Clean

Fuels/Advanced

Control Technologies

for Boilers Not applicable Extreme areas shall submit plan revisions that require each new, modified, and existing electric utility and industrial/commercial boiler emitting >25 tons per year of NOx to burn as its primary fuel, natural gas, methanol, or ethanol or use advanced technology for reducing NOx emissions.

Traffic Control

Measures Not applicable Extreme plans may contain provisions establishing traffic control measures applicable during heavy traffic hours to reduce the use of heavy-duty or high-polluting

vehicles.

New Technologies Not applicable EPA may approve extreme area SIP provisions that anticipate development of new control techniques or improvement of existing control technologies, and attainment based on these provisions, if the state can demonstrate that such provisions are not needed to

achieve the emission reductions in the 1990—2000

time frame and if the state has submitted enforceable commitments to develop and adopt contingency measures to be implemented if the new technologies do not produce the intended emission reductions.

Offset Requirement Emission offset requirement is at

least 1.3 to 1 for new or modified

sources as the ratio of total emission

reductions of VOCs to total increase emissions of such air pollutants, except if all existing major sources in

the nonattainment area use best available control technology for the control of VOCs and NOx, the ratio

remains at least 1.2 to 1. The ratio of total emission reductions of VOCs to total increased emissions of such air pollutant shall be at least 1.5 to 1, except that if the State plan requires all existing major sources in the nonattainment area to use best available control technology for the control of volatile organic compounds, the ratio shall be at least

1.2 to 1.

Failure to attain

fee If area fails to attain the standard by November 15, 2005, major stationary source of VOCs in the area shall pay a fee to the state of $5000/ton of VOC emissions per calendar year in

excess of 80% of a baseline defined

as the actual or allowable emissions. Same requirements except for attainment date of November 15, 2010.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 1

- Introduction

1-10 

### 1.5 PLAN DEVELOPMENT

1.5.1 Process

In June 2002, recognizing the likelihood of eventually requesting classification to extreme nonattainment, the District Governing Board directed staff to begin preparation of a plan that demonstrates attainment of the federal one-hour ozone standard by November 15, 2010. Work on the Extreme OADP has been ongoing since June 2002; most of the initial effort was directed at preparing the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone. Consequently work focused on updating emissions inventories and control measures, and examining emissions trends over time.

Independent of the Ozone Rate of Progress Plan , work was also ongoing in this time frame on analysis of meteorological and atmospheric chemistry data collected during the summer 2000 Central California Ozone Study (CCOS). This data analysis supported selection of ozone episodes from the summer of 2000, and the simulation of ozone levels for the episodes as the basis for attainment

demonstrations in the Extreme OADP . The District and ARB developed this

Extreme OADP with the best CCOS information available through March 2004. As CCOS work continues and new information becomes available, it will be incorporated into future revisions of the Extreme OADP or in future plans for attaining the federal 8-hour ozone standard. At a minimum, the District is committed to revising the Extreme OADP in 2007 (assuming EPA is still requiring states to conduct planning activities for the federal 1-hour ozone standard, which they plan to revoke in June 2005); this revision would include updated ozone air quality information, updated or new control measures as appropriate, updated emissions inventories, and revised modeling as appropriate. If EPA does not require the Extreme OADP to be revised in 2007, any updated analyses and control measure evaluations would be presented in the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan that is due to EPA by June 15, 2007.

Section 6 provides more information on the public process used to develop this

Extreme OADP . The District conducted public workshops on the Extreme OADP in July 2003, January 2004, and in August 2004. Monthly coordination meetings among District staff, ARB, and the transportation planning agencies helped guide the plan development over the 2003—2004 time period. Many regularly scheduled technical meetings among staff from ARB and other districts addressed emissions inventory and photochemical modeling issues (see Section 5 and Appendix D for more information).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 1

- Introduction

1-11 1.5.2 Schedule

In its final rule reclassifying the SJVAB to extreme nonattainment, EPA specified a due date of November 15, 2004 for the SJVAB Extreme OADP (69 FR 20550). This rule became effective on May 17, 2004 13 . The Draft Extreme OADP was released to the public for review on July 30, 2004; the public comment period closed on August 27, 2004. The District Governing Board is scheduled to

consider the Extreme OADP for adoption on October 8, 2004. Following adoption, the Extreme OADP would be sent to ARB for approval on October 28, 2004, and then on to EPA by November 15, 2004.

1.5.3 Content

This Extreme OADP is organized into the following chapters. Chapter 2 presents an overview of SJVAB ozone air quality, including air quality monitoring data, air quality determinants, ozone effects, and trends in ozone air quality. Chapter 3 presents the planning emissions inventories used as the foundation for this plan. Current and future emission control measures are discussed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 is the heart of this Extreme OADP , and uses emissions and air quality data to project future air quality and provide the basis for projecting future attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard. Chapter 6 summarizes public outreach conducted during plan development, while Chapter 7 fulfills Rate of Progress requirements in the federal Clean Air Act. Chapter 8 is included to meet separate State of California requirements for a triennial progress report and California Air Quality Attainment Plan revision, and Chapter 9 defines acronyms and other terms used throughout the document. Lastly, a series of appendices performs two important functions: presenting detailed and technical information that supports the plan, and allowing the main body of the plan to be shorter and easier to understand for the lay audience.

As shown in Appendix G, the federal elements in the Extreme OADP meet all federal requirements for extreme nonattainment area plans. Also as shown in Appendix G, the state elements in the Extreme OADP (principally Chapter 8) meet all state requirements for air quality attainment plans.

13 In its Final Phase I Rule implementing the federal 8-hour ozone standard, EPA specified that unmet obligations for 1-hour attainment plans could be met using one of three options, any of which would be due on June 15, 2005 (69 FR 23998). One of the options is to prepare a 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan. The Final Phase I Rule for 8-hour ozone became effective on June 15, 2004. As of the date of this document, this apparent discrepancy in due dates for the SJVAB’s 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan has not been clarified.

# ❖

## Chapter 2

– San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-1 

### 2 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR QUALITY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The SJVAB consists of eight counties: Fresno, Kern (western and central), Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare (see Figure 2-1). Cumulatively, these counties represent approximately 16 percent of California’s geographic area, making the SJVAB the second largest air quality basin (based on area) as delineated by ARB. The current population within the SJVAB is approximately 3.4 million people. Based on California State Department of Finance projections, the population in the SJVAB is expected to grow to 3.6 million by 2005, to 4 million by 2010 and to 4.9 million by 2020.

FIGURE 2-1 Counties Comprising the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

S a n J o a q u i n

Stanislaus

Merced Madera

Fresno

Tulare

Kings

KernEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-2 

### 2.2 AIR QUALITY DETERMINANTS IN SJVAB

2.2.1 General

Air pollution in the SJVAB can be attributed to human-related (anthropogenic) activities that produce emissions. Air pollution from significant anthropogenic activities in the SJVAB includes a variety of industrial-based sources as well as on- and off-road mobile sources. Activities that tend to increase mobile activity include increases in population, increases in general traffic activity (including automobiles, trucks, aircraft, and rail), urban sprawl (which will increase commuter driving distances), and general local land management practices as they pertain to modes of commuter transportation. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of unhealthy air. The geography of mountainous areas to the east, west and south, in combination with long summers and relatively short winters, contributes to local climate episodes that prevent the dispersion of pollutants. Transport, as affected by wind flows and inversions, also plays a role in the creation of air pollution. These conditions are described in the following sections.

2.2.2 Geography and Topography

California is divided into regional air basins according to topographic air drainage features. The SJVAB consists of a continuous intermountain valley approximately 250 miles long and averaging 80 miles wide (Figure 2-1). On the western edge of the Valley is the Coast Mountain range, with peaks reaching 5,020 feet, and on the east side is the Sierra Nevada range with some peaks exceeding 14,000 feet. The Tehachapi Mountains form the southern boundary of the Valley. This mountain range includes peaks over 6,000 feet, and contains mountain passes to the Los Angeles basin and the Mojave Desert. The SJVAB floor is only open to the north.

Although marine air generally flows into the basin from the San Joaquin River Delta, the region’s topographic features restrict air movement through and out of the basin. The Coastal Range hinders wind access into the valley from the west, the Tehachapi Mountains prevent southerly passage of airflow, and the high Sierra Nevada range forms a significant barrier to the east. Additionally, most of the surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversion layers (1,500-3,000 feet). These topographic features result in weak airflow. The wind pattern produces conditions that result in poor horizontal dispersion of pollutants. During high-pressure events over the SJVAB, pollutant dispersal is also limited vertically by inversions, as explained in 2.2.3. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-3 2.2.3 Climate

Warm, dry summers and cool winters characterize the SJVAB floor. The average mean temperature over a thirty-year period is 65°F. High daily temperature readings in summer average around 95°F. The SJVAB also experiences mild winters, where the average daily low temperature is 45°F. In general, the SJVAB averages 106 days a year with 90°F or hotter, and 40 days a year with 100°F or hotter. The daily summer temperature variation can be as high as 30°F. The SJVAB has an “inland Mediterranean” climate that averages over 260 sunny days per year, primarily because semi-permanent high pressure systems establish themselves over the SJVAB and deflect low-pressure systems that might otherwise bring rain and winds.

Precipitation in the SJVAB is confined primarily to the winter months with some usually occurring in late summer and fall. Average annual rainfall for the valley floor of the SJVAB is 9.25 inches, but varies from over 20 inches in the north part of the Valley to less than 5 inches in the south.

For the purposes of transport, wind flows and inversion layers will be discussed. Wind speed and direction play an important role in the dispersion and transport of air pollutants. Wind moves ozone precursors and ozone downwind from source areas of emissions or areas where ozone is formed. Figure 2-2 depicts typical wind flow patterns for day and night during the ozone season in the SJVAB. As can be seen, the dominant wind flow pattern (day or night) in the SJVAB is from the northwest to the southeast, along the axis of the Valley.

During the daytime, surface winds enter the SJVAB primarily from the north through the San Francisco Bay area; they also enter at other locations through passes in the coastal range. The air picks up ozone precursors emitted in the Bay Area and transports them down the valley where they eventually form ozone in the SJVAB. Precursor emissions from SJVAB source areas (Stockton, Modesto, Merced, etc.) are also transported down the valley where they are converted to ozone. This general transport moves air near the surface south from Stockton to Bakersfield. The effect of the transport is seen to the southeast of Fresno and Bakersfield. The city of Parlier (near the city of Fresno), and the communities of Edison and Arvin near Bakersfield, often experience the highest ozone levels in the SJVAB. Air leaves the southern end of the Valley during the day by flowing over the Tehachapi Mountains (southeast of Bakersfield) into the Mojave Desert, thereby transporting ozone and other pollutants out of the SJVAB. Also during the daytime, heated air rises into the mountains and transports ozone and other pollutants up the Sierra Nevada and coastal

mountains.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-4 FIGURE 2-2

San Joaquin Valley Wind Patterns During Ozone Season

Source: SJVAQSPC 1996

At night, the same general wind flow pattern continues, with some important exceptions. First, the air is no longer able to exit the southern end of the SJVAB because it encounters cooler drainage winds from the surrounding mountains. Consequently, it is forced back north to set up a circular flow pattern (Figure 2-2) known as the Fresno eddy. The eddy circulates pollutants in a counterclockwise pattern, and returns polluted air to urban areas where more precursors are added the next day. Another important difference about the nighttime winds in the SJVAB is that they typically are caused by a jet stream of fast moving air at anEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-5 altitude of about 1000 ft and a speed of up to 30 mph. Lastly, some of the pollutants transported to higher altitudes from daytime heating return to the valley at night because of drainage winds from the mountains.

Inversions affect air pollutant transport by limiting vertical dispersion of pollutants. An inversion occurs in the atmosphere when air temperature increases with height rather than decreases. Pollutants emitted to the atmosphere will rise and disperse as long as they are warmer than the surrounding air. When pollutants encounter air that is the same temperature or that is warmer, they are no longer able to rise and thus they remain at the elevation of the warmed air. Inversions limit vertical movement of air because displacement of air up or down in an inversion results in the air returning to its original level. This is called a stable atmosphere and results in little vertical air movement and therefore poor vertical pollutant dispersion. The inversion thus acts like a lid on the atmosphere. The SJVAB experiences two common types of inversions: radiation and subsidence

inversions.

Nocturnal cooling of an air layer near the earth’s surface is the principal cause of radiation inversions. The radiation inversion extends upward several hundred feet from the ground and occurs during the evening and early morning hours. During a radiation inversion, little vertical mixing occurs, which minimizes pollutant dispersal. At daybreak, the sun begins to heat the ground, which in turn heats the lower layers of air and eventually lifts and breaks the inversion, thereby facilitating pollutant dispersal. During summer months, daytime heat from the sun lifts the inversion to heights anywhere from 2,000 to over 5,000 feet (even higher over mountain ranges due to heating of the slopes), which helps disperse pollutants and lowers their concentrations. However, these same summer daytime conditions also increase ozone production, which can neutralize or offset the effects of enhanced vertical dispersion. Studies have shown that radiation inversions tend to persist longer into daylight hours in the southern part of the SJVAB due to a lack of marine air intrusion and associated atmospheric mixing. On the worst dispersion days the inversion may remain only a few hundred feet

above the surface of the SJVAB.

Subsidence inversions are caused by downward motion (subsidence) high in the atmosphere, typically in association with a high-pressure area positioned along the coast of California. As air descends under the influence of the high pressure system, it compresses and heats up, and as a result becomes warmer than the air beneath it. This limits vertical mixing, as the warm air aloft restricts air

movement from below.

During inversion events, air pollutant emissions build up in the atmosphere below the inversion; ozone precursors then react to form ozone, and levels increase from day to day. One-hour concentrations of ozone that exceed federal standards generally occur in the SJVAB during strong inversions. During many high ozone level events, the SJVAB is likely experiencing a combination of

radiation and subsidence inversions.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-6 2.2.4 Ozone Transport

Ozone transport refers to the movement of ozone and ozone precursors from other basins to the SJVAB, from the SJVAB to other air basins, and within the SJVAB. Transport can occur at ground level and also at higher altitudes (e.g., movement of polluted air up mountain slopes during the day). Although improvements have been made in the SJVAB’s ozone air quality over the last decade, the basin continues to violate the federal 1-hour ozone standard on numerous days. Furthermore, in recent years, the location of the highest measured ozone levels has changed from northern Kern County to southeastern Fresno County. ARB’s 2001 assessment of ozone transport found that pollutants transported from other air basins affect the SJVAB’s ozone air quality, but the magnitude of the effect declines from north to south (ARB 2001). Local emissions are thought to be primarily responsible for the SJVAB’s worst ozone air quality. Attaining the federal 1-hour ozone standard by 2010 will require implementation of emission control measures in other basins, as governed by ARB’s Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations, as well as reductions in the SJVAB’s precursor emissions.

Transport of pollutants within the SJVAB plays a significant role in violations of the federal 1-hour ozone standard in the SJVAB. As discussed above, prevailing winds blow from the northern part of the SJVAB to the south, and can carry pollutants from San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced counties to the Fresno area. Pollutants transported from the San Francisco Bay Area south to Fresno and Bakersfield must pass through the northern SJVAB, so transport from the San Francisco Bay Area to Fresno is combined with a northern SJVAB contribution. Further south, eddy currents can carry pollutants along the east side of the SJVAB from Tulare County and northern Kern County to the Fresno

area.

Ozone and precursors are transported from other basins to the SJVAB. On some days, according to the ARB study referenced above, pollutants transported from the San Francisco Bay Area affect ozone air quality in the northern SJVAB, mixing with local emissions to contribute to violations of the federal 1-hour ozone standard. On other days, violations of the standard are due entirely to local emissions. The effect of Bay Area transport diminishes with distance so that the ozone air quality in Fresno and Bakersfield is affected less. Overall, ARB rates the Bay Area’s impact on SJVAB ozone air quality as ranging from inconsequential to overwhelming (by itself can cause violations of the state standard) depending on meteorological conditions occurring at the time of transport evaluation and in the receptor area. ARB also identifies the broader Sacramento area as a source of ozone and precursor transport to the SJVAB, but the effect only ranges from significant (contributes to a violation of the standard when combined with local emissions) to inconsequential.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-7 The SJVAB is also a source area for pollutants transported to other air basins. According to the ARB, the SJVAB can be a source area affecting ozone air quality in the broader Sacramento area, the Great Basin valleys, the mountain counties, the Mojave Desert, and the north central and south central coasts, depending on meteorological conditions. ARB rates the SJVAB’s contributions as ranging from inconsequential to overwhelming, depending on the receptor

area.

The above discussion is based upon a somewhat dated transport assessment that was limited in scope and limited by information on ozone behavior in the atmosphere. Work continues under CCOS to update our understanding of transport using improved emissions inventories, improved databases on meteorological behavior and atmospheric chemistry, and improved grid-based photochemical models. Consequently, findings and conclusions regarding transport may change from those presented above. Future development of CCOS episodes and modeling tools will provide updated and improved information to evaluate transport. Future plans addressing state or federal ozone standard attainment will incorporate significant advances in knowledge regarding transport.

2.2.5 Population

The SJVAB is a major geographic, population, and agricultural sub-region of California. Agriculture and agriculture-related businesses have thrived as a result of the Valley’s climate, excellent soil, extensive irrigation network, and its location between the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California markets.

The SJVAB represents approximately 16 percent of the geographic area of California. It extends from the northern boundary of SJVAB south through the Valley to the SJVAB portion of Kern County (not including Eastern Kern County). From east to west, the SJVAB extends from the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains including the entire San Joaquin River watershed, down across the valley floor and up to the crest of the Coast Range Mountains.

The SJVAB is California’s second largest air basin in land area. It has a population of approximately 3.4 million persons with expected growth projections of nearly 30 percent in a period of twenty years. As a result of this population growth, activities associated with an increased population base, particularly the major population centers within the SJVAB represent a significant contributor to the high levels of pollutants in the area.

Increased population growth, in itself, is a source of ozone precursors. New residents emit ozone precursors from activities such as driving, recreation, home maintenance, hot water heating, industrial and agricultural activities, etc. Chapter 3 presents information on the ozone precursor emission rates for various categories of sources. Table 2-1 shows the most recent published estimates of population levels and projections within the SJVAB.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-8 Table 2-1 SJVAB Population and Land Area



### County 1990 1 

### 2000 1 

### 2010 1 

### 2020 1 

### Land Area 2

Fresno 667,490 803,401 949,961 1,114,654 5,963

Kern 3 446884 545049 663223 779091.84 4,355

Kings 101,469 129,823 156,334 184,751 1,391

Madera 88,090 124,372 150,278 183,966 2,136

Merced 178,403 210,876 277,715 360,831 1,929 San Joaquin 480,628 567,798 747,149 989,462 1,399

Stanislaus 370,522 449,777 559,051 653,841 1,494

Tulare 311,921 369,355 447,315 543,749 4,824

Total 2,645,407 3,200,451 3,951,026 4,810,346 23,490

1 As of May 2004. State of California, Department of Finance, Intercensal Estimates of the Population of California Counties, updated revised report 90-00.

2 Area in square miles. Air Resources Board, The 2004 California Almanac of EMISSIONS & AIR QUALITY, California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, 2004. The surface areas shown reflect land portions of air basins only

and exclude water bodies.

3 Kern County has portions located outside of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Populations are adjusted based upon a 17% total population reduction to account for the portion of Kern County outside of the air basin.

The Valley is the home of the nation’s most productive agriculture industry. According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA 2002), eight of the top ten agricultural producing counties in the United States are located in California and six of California’s top ten counties are located in the SJVAB. The top two counties, Tulare and Fresno, produced over $6.7 billion in commodities in 2001. Over 27,000 farms are located in the region. Harvested acreage exceeds 5.1 million acres per year. Another 5.4 million acres is used as rangeland and irrigated pasture. Although farmland is being reduced by urbanization, agriculture will continue to play a key role in the region’s economy.

2.2.6 Development Patterns

Population growth can affect ozone air quality, but the effect can be exacerbated by development patterns and the technology used by the population to support its economic activities. For example, sprawl development increases commute distances; if the vehicles used for these commutes contain an increased percentage of high emission vehicles, emissions could increase. The jobs/housing imbalance can contribute to longer commutes and increased emissions; for example, increasing numbers of workers in the Bay Area are moving to the SJVAB for affordable housing, yet keep their jobs in the Bay Area and commute longer distances. For these reasons, control measures developed and studied by local governments are increasingly important, because local governments have land use authority to effect changes, whereas the District, ARB, and EPA do not.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-9 

### 2.3 OZONE

2.3.1 Background

Ozone is a highly reactive gas molecule comprised of three oxygen atoms (O 3 ); it has a light blue color at very high concentrations. Ozone occurs naturally at altitudes high in the stratosphere (35,000 to 65,000 feet, depending on latitude and season) where it shields life on earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Depletion of stratospheric ozone by chemical reactions involving anthropogenic chemicals (principally chlorofluorocarbons) allows this radiation to reach the earth’s surface, thereby endangering the biosphere. For this reason, the FCAA (Title VI) addresses protection of the stratospheric ozone layer to maintain the crucial function of ultraviolet radiation filter. Ozone is also present in the first few hundred feet of elevation above ground level (in the troposphere) due to chemical reactions between hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides from natural and anthropogenic sources in the presence of sunlight. Because of its reactivity, tropospheric ozone present in high enough concentrations as an air pollutant adversely affects human health and damages crops and materials (see Section 2.3.2). Consequently, Title I, Part D of the FCAA addresses the control of emissions to reduce tropospheric ozone concentrations to safe levels. This plan focuses only on tropospheric ozone and does not address protection of the stratospheric ozone layer. All references to “ozone” in this plan refer to tropospheric ozone.

2.3.2 Adverse Effects

Ozone is a major component of “smog”, and it affects human health, vegetation/crops, and materials. In humans, ozone can irritate and inflame the respiratory tract, particularly during heavy physical activity, which results in heavy coughing, throat irritation, and breathing difficulty. Ozone damages vegetation and agricultural crops by interfering with the photosynthesis process. Studies have shown reductions of up to 20 percent in yields of grapes, cotton, oranges, alfalfa, and tomatoes. The ARB estimates that the SJVAB’s agricultural crop losses exceed $150 million due to exposure to ozone. According to the National Park Service, up to half the Ponderosa and Jeffrey Pine in the Sierra Nevada Mountains show ozone injury. Ozone also damages a number of materials widely used in commerce such as rubber, cotton, nylon, polyester, dyes, paints and coatings. Exposure to ozone is of principal interest due to its health effects, as described in the following paragraphs.

Over the years, research studies of ozone in animal laboratories, human clinical studies and epidemiological studies have produced a multitude of evidence that correlates exposure to ozone and adverse health effects (ALA 2002). Ozone, acting as a strong oxidizer, has proved to significantly harm the respiratory system, thereby leading to the permanent damage of lung tissues. These damaged lung tissues result in decreased lung capacity. Chronic exposure toEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-10 high levels of ozone have also been established to negatively impact the immune system, making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia (Burnett 2001). Ozone also accelerates aging, and increases susceptibility to other infections (EPA 1999). Furthermore, ozone exposure exacerbates pre-existing asthma and bronchitis conditions, and in areas of high concentrations can lead to the development of asthma among active children (Gent 2003).

Recent research continues to highlight the extent and severity that ozone exposure poses to human health. Exposure to ozone begins to adversely impact human health even before birth. Studies have shown that ozone exposure may be potentially related to cardiac birth defects during vulnerable pregnancy periods (Ritz 2002). Children are one of the groups most sensitive to ozone. They are more vulnerable than adults because of their size and physical immaturity and their tendency to be more active and to spend more time outdoors (where ozone levels are higher). Children also breathe in more air per pound of body weight than adults, thus exposing them even more to ozone toxicity (EPA 1997). Children who grow up in environments with high levels of ozone may also be expected to show diminished lung growth and capacity, making ozone a risk factor for premature respiratory morbidity later in life (ALA 2002). In areas of elevated summertime ambient concentrations of ozone, a positive association with increases in emergency or urgent hospital admissions for respiratory problems in children less than 2 years of age was detected (McConnell). Asthmatic children using maintenance medication are especially vulnerable to ozone, even at levels below the EPA standards (Gent 2003).

Asthma severity as measured by symptoms, medication use, restrictions in activity, or use of medical services, has been discovered to be affected by ozone exposure. With over 20 million Americans suffering from asthma, and only 60% of those Americans having it under control, ozone exposure has the possibility to affect many people (NHI 2003). Between 1980 and 1995, the percentage of children in the United States with asthma doubled, from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 7.5 percent in 1995. The percentage dropped in 1996 to about 6 percent, but by 2001 it had risen again, this time to 8.7 percent (6.3 million children) (CNN 2003). Hospital admissions for all respiratory causes including asthma show a consistent increase as ambient ozone, sulfate, or sulfur dioxide levels increase in a community (SCAQMD 2003). Fourteen Americans die every day from asthma, a rate three times greater than just 20 years ago (EPA 1997). Ozone greatly aggravates asthma by making asthma sufferers more sensitive to allergens, which are the most common triggers for asthma attacks. In addition, those suffering from asthma are more severely affected by the decreased lung capacity and irritation that ozone provokes upon the respiratory system (EPA 1999). Recent studies have also begun to demonstrate a causal link between ozone exposure and asthma. Results show that playing multiple team sports in a high ozone environment is associated with the development of physician-diagnosed asthma. The results were consistent with a large increased risk both for new-EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-11 onset asthma and for the exacerbation of previously undiagnosed asthma (McConnell). These findings suggest that new incidences of asthma diagnoses can be associated with heavy exercise in communities with high concentrations of ozone. Children who participate in three or more outdoor sports and live in high ozone environments have a risk 3.3 times greater of developing asthma than those who did not play sports (McConnell).

Another potentially significant finding is that animals in ozone studies have demonstrated possible chronic effects from ozone exposure, including permanent functional and structural changes of the lung (Burnett 2001). Repeated inflammation associated with ozone exposure over a lifetime may result in sufficient damage to lung tissues that individuals would then experience lower quality of life in terms of respiratory function and activity level (SCAQMD 2004). In fact, living in an area of high levels of ozone and related co-pollutants for four or more years is associated with diminished lung function and more frequent reports of respiratory symptoms (Galizia 1999).

Active children are considered to be most at risk from ozone exposure. Those children spend a significant part of their time outdoors, engaged in physical activity. Children are also more likely to have asthma or other respiratory illnesses. Asthma is the most chronic common disease for children (McConnell). Active adults are also at a significant risk. Healthy adults of all ages who exercise or work strenuously outdoors are considered a “sensitive group” because they have a higher level of exposure to ozone than less physically active people (EPA 1999) Individuals with respiratory diseases such as asthma are also considered at risk because ozone aggravates their condition. Asthma and other chronic respiratory diseases make an individual’s lungs more

vulnerable to the effects of ozone. These individuals will suffer the effects of ozone at lower levels than sensitive people. Others are unusually susceptible to ozone. Scientists have yet to explain why certain people are more sensitive to ozone than others. Finally, elderly people will be at higher risk from ozone exposure if they already suffer from respiratory disease, are active outdoors, or are one of those unusually susceptible to ozone exposure.

2.3.3 Precursors and Formation

Ozone is the product of a series of chemical reactions involving sunlight, reactive organic gases [also called volatile organic compounds (VOCs)] and nitrogen oxides (NOx). VOCs and NOx are “ozone precursors” and are considered primary pollutants because they are emitted directly into the atmosphere. ARB originally expressed the December 5, 2001 hydrocarbon emissions data as reactive organic gases (ROG) rather than the currently used volatile organic compounds (VOC). Since ARB now considers the terms to be synonymous, “ROG” has been renamed as “VOC” in this plan. VOC emissions are a subset of ROG emissions. ROG is composed of hydrocarbon compounds that may contribute to the formation of smog by their involvement in atmospheric chemicalEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-12 reactions. Ozone is considered a secondary pollutant because it is formed in the atmosphere from primary pollutants via photochemical reactions.

Because solar energy is required to form ozone and the chemical reactions are not instantaneous, the greatest concentrations of ozone are usually downwind of urban centers and usually occur on summer afternoons when sunlight is most intense. In summer, as weather systems move through the area, a cycle of stable and less-stable air masses over the valley results in alternating periods of higher and lower ozone concentrations. During the winter months, a number of factors contribute to reduced ozone concentrations: clouds and fog block the required solar radiation at ground level, the sun angle is lower, the days are shorter, wintertime storms produce good dispersion conditions that inhibit the buildup of pollutants, and temperatures are not high enough to produce ozone in great quantities.

2.3.4 Design Value Determinations from Ozone Levels

Section 1.2.1 described the term “design value” for the federal 1-hour ozone standard. In general, the design value is the pollutant concentration in the atmosphere at which healthy air exists. Ambient air quality standards for which

attainment is defined in terms of the number of instances in which a numeric value is exceeded in a given time frame are called “exceedance-based” standards. For standards such as these, which includes the federal 1-hour ozone standard, the design value must therefore be calculated. 1 The design value is currently calculated for the federal 1-hour ozone standard by taking the fourth highest 2 daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentration at a given monitoring station during the three-year compliance period. The design value for a geographic area with more than one monitor, such as an air basin or county, is the same as the highest monitoring station’s design value.

The design value for the SJVAB in 1994 (when the previous OADP was prepared) was 0.160 ppm (160 ppb). The SJVAB’s current design value, based on 2003 air quality monitoring data, has dropped to 0.151 ppm (151 ppb). Figure 2-3 illustrates the SJVAB’s trend in 1-hour design value.

1 The calculation is needed to “translate” the exceedance-based information (e.g., number of times pollutant levels are higher than the numeric value of a standard) to a concentration (because design values are concentrations). In contrast to the federal 1-hour ozone standard, the federal 8-hour ozone standard is concentration-based, not exceedance-based, such that the design value is the same as the standard.

2 Since an area can be in attainment with three exceedances of the federal 1-hour ozone standard in three years, the fourth highest value is of interest for the design value.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-13 Figure 2-3

Basin 1-Hour Design Value for 1986 - 2003

100 120 140 160 180 200

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

YearOzone ppb

Basin Design Value

2.3.5 Area Classification for the One (1)-Hour Ozone Standard

Attainment for the one-hour ozone standard requires that the concentration of 0.12 ppm by volume not be exceeded, on average, more than one day per year at any one monitoring station over any three-year period. If there are four or more exceedance days at a single monitor during a three-year period, the average number of exceedance days per year exceeds one and the air basin has not attained the standard. The EPA’s finding (November 2001) that the SJVAB

did not attain the 1-hour ozone standard on schedule was based on the area’s design value (it is greater than 0.12 ppm) and the average number of exceedance days per year during the 1997 to 1999 period.

2.3.6 One (1)-Hour Ozone Exceedance Trends

Figure 2-4 shows the long-term trends in the SJVAB for the number of days over the federal 1-hour ozone standard, by region in the SJVAB (northern, central, southern), as well as by the basin as a whole. The Northern Region consists of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced counties. The Central Region consists of Madera, Fresno and Kings counties. The Southern Region consists of the western part of Kern County as well as Tulare County. As can be seen, theEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-14 number of days over the standard overall has decreased basinwide from a peak of over 70 in the late 1980’s to a level of 37 in 2003. However, short-term trends show an increase in the number of days over the standard basinwide: from below 30 days in 1999 to 37 in 2003. A similar trend is observed for the Southern Region. Northern and Central Regions show a downward trend in this time frame. Trends in other ozone statistics primarily with respect to the State Ozone

Standard are shown in Section 8.

Figure 2-4

Number of Days Over the Federal 1-hour Ozone Standard in the

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin by Region

Number of One-Hour Ozone Exceedances from 1984-2003

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

YearNumber of Days

Northern Central Southern Basin

Figure 2-5 summarizes the SJVAB monitoring sites with more than three exceedances during 2001-2003. Compliance is achieved when this number is three or less for a three year period. As shown in Figure 2-5, eight monitoring sites experienced more than three exceedances, with one site (Arvin) experiencing more than 50 exceedances and another (Parlier) more than 40 exceedances. These data reflect the pervasiveness of the SJVAB’s 1-hour ozone nonattainment problem.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-15 Figure 2-5

SJV Ozone Exceedances

2.3.7 Status of Federal 8-Hour Ozone Standard

The federal 8-hour ozone standards adopted by EPA in 1997 (0.08 ppm by volume for primary and secondary standards) were overturned in the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1999 on the grounds that the agency had overstepped its authority and unlawfully usurped Congress’ legislative power. However, the EPA appealed the case to the US Supreme Court. In February 2000, the Supreme Court found that that EPA had not overstepped its authority and had not unlawfully usurped Congress’ legislative power; however, the Court did find that the implementation policy was unlawful. The Court confirmed that the Clean Air Act does not bar EPA from implementing the ozone standard. On November 13, 2002, the American Lung Association and eight other public interest groups filed a complaint alleging that EPA failed to designate areas for the 8-hour ozone standard. In response to this complaint, EPA published a proposed consent decree establishing April 15, 2004 as the date for promulgating attainment designations for the 8-hr ozone standard (67 FR 70070). EPA issued these designations on April 15, 2004. In addition, EPA also issued the Phase I of the implementation rule for the 8-hour standard on April 15,2004, which includes provisions on revocation of the 1-hour standard, antibacksliding, and area classifications. The effective date of the 8-hour ozone designation is June 15, 2004. EPA designated the SJVAB as nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, and classified the SJVAB, based on its 2001- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

A rvin C lovis E dison F resno-D

r ummo

n d F resno-First F resno-Shaver L

a k e F resno-SSP P arlier SJVAB Sites with More Than Three Exceedances, 2001-2003EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-16 2003 design value, as serious nonattainment. As such, the SJVAB’s attainment date for the federal 8-hour ozone standard is June 15, 2013. EPA will require

submittal of the 8-hour OADP for the SJVAB in 2007.

Phase I of the Final Rule also gives the District the option of preparing an early 8- hour ozone increment of progress report or an early 8-hour OADP in lieu of submitting this Extreme OADP for the 1-hour ozone standards. Because EPA has found the 1-hour ozone standard is not necessary to protect public health, EPA has instructed states to focus resources on planning and implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard. (69 FR 23858)



### 2.4 OZONE MONITORING

2.4.1 Monitoring Network

EPA requires ARB and the District to measure the ambient levels of air pollution to determine compliance with the NAAQS. To comply with this mandate, the District and the ARB operate an ambient monitoring network that consists of 28 sites located throughout the SJVAB (see Figure 2-6). Not all stations monitor the same air quality or meteorological parameters, as indicated. Stations identified by a “G” designation in Figure 2-6 measure levels of ozone in the SJVAB’s atmosphere.

Federal regulations require State and Local Air Monitoring System (SLAMS) networks to meet four basic monitoring objectives:

• monitoring the highest concentration of a pollutant

• monitoring representative concentrations in areas of high population density

• monitoring the impact of major pollutant sources, and

• monitoring pollutant background concentrations.

Each monitor must be capable of representing a spatial scale consistent with its monitoring objective. Categories of spatial scale are: 1) Microscale - An area of uniform pollutant concentrations with a radius ranging from several meters up to 100 meters. 2) Middle Scale - Uniform pollutant concentrations in an area with a radius of approximately 100 meters to 0.5 kilometers. 3) Neighborhood Scale - Uniform pollutant concentrations in an area with a radius of approximately 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers. 4) Urban Scale - Citywide pollutant concentrations in an area with a radius ranging from 4 to 50 kilometers. 5) Regional Scale - Uniform pollutant concentrations that would be characteristic of a very large (for example, rural) area that has a radius

from tens to hundreds of kilometers.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-17 Locations for the physical siting of air quality monitors are selected based on the objectives of the monitoring. All ozone monitoring in the Valley is directed toward measuring representative population exposures and maximum concentrations. As a result, most ozone monitors in the Valley are scaled for either neighborhood

or urban scale measurements.

FIGURE 2-6 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Air Quality Monitoring Network

The SJVAB has 23 ozone monitoring stations, with eleven operated by District personnel, three by the National Park Service, and nine by ARB. All ozone monitors are continuous analyzers and operated on the principle of ultraviolet absorption (40 CFR Part 50). Table 2-2 lists all ozone monitoring sites in the

SJVAB.

As indicated by Table 2-2, all ozone monitoring in the Valley is directed toward measuring representative population exposures and maximum concentrations. As a result of these monitoring objectives, most ozone monitors in the Valley are scaled for either neighborhood or urban scale measurements.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-18 The four major metropolitan areas within the SJVAB, (Stockton, Modesto, Fresno, and Bakersfield), each have ozone monitors to better characterize the ozone distribution in the metropolitan area. The Fresno and Bakersfield areas each have ozone monitors to measure upwind transport (Madera-Pump Yard andShafter-Walker Street), middle-city concentrations (Fresno-First, BakersfieldCalifornia, and Bakersfield-Golden State), downwind city-edge concentrations (Fresno-Drummond and Edison-Johnson Ranch), and downwind maximum concentrations (Parlier and Arvin). The upwind transport and middle-city ozone monitors measure representative concentrations while the downwind city-edge

and downwind maximum monitors measure maximum concentrations. The Clovis-Villa and Oildale-Manor ozone monitors, located in the northeast quadrant of the Fresno and Bakersfield metropolitan areas, respectively, are sited for maximum concentrations. The remaining ozone monitors are located in smaller

urban areas and several remote locations. These monitors are located for representative concentrations (with the exception of the Merced-Coffee Avenue station) since the areas where they are located are not capable of producing high

concentrations of ozone.

2.4.2 Other ozone monitoring In addition to the permanent monitoring network described above, the District has participated in a number of special studies directed at ozone monitoring in the

SJVAB.

2.4.2.1 Fresno oxidant study

In the period from June through November, 1976, ARB conducted a saturation study to determine ozone concentrations within the Fresno metropolitan area and produced a report entitled " The Areal Representativeness of Air Monitoring Stations - Fresno Study Phase I (Oxidant) ". Questions posed for the study included whether the Fresno-Olive site measurements represented average population exposure, the extent which ozone concentrations vary along an upwind to downwind traverse of the city, where the highest concentrations occurred, and how many stations were necessary to assure that the highest population exposures were measured.

The monitoring for this study was performed with mobile vans as well as fixed monitoring stations. Parameters measured include O 3 , NO X , CO, CH 4 , THC (total hydrocarbons), and meteorological parameters including wind speed and direction, temperature, and relative humidity. The stations were placed in an approximate line from the northwest to southeast edge of Fresno to document pollutant concentrations along an upwind-downwind traverse of the city.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality2-19Table 2-2Ozone Monitoring Stations in the San Joaquin Valley Air BasinSite Name SamplingInterval/FrequencyScale MonitoringObjectiveType AgencyArvin 1 Hour/Continuous Urban Representative Conc. PAMS1/NAMS2ARB3Bakersfield-California 1 Hour/Continuous Neighborhood Representative Conc. SLAMS4ARBBakersfield-Golden State 1 Hour/Continuous Neighborhood Representative Conc. PAMS/SLAMS SJVUAPCD5Clovis-Villa 1 Hour/Continuous Neighborhood High Concentration PAMS/NAMS SJVUAPCDEdison-Johnson Ranch 1 Hour/Continuous Urban High Concentration SLAMS ARBFresno-Drummond 1 Hour/Continuous Neighborhood High Concentration SLAMS SJVUAPCDFresno-First Street 1 Hour/Continuous Neighborhood Representative Conc. SLAMS ARBFresno-Sky Park 1 Hour/Continuous Urban Representative Conc. SLAMS SJVUAPCDHanford-Irwin 1 Hour/Continuous Neighborhood Representative Conc. SLAMS SJVUAPCDMadera-Pump Yard 1 Hour/Continuous Urban Representative Conc. PAMS/SLAMS SJVUAPCD1PAMS- Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Systems2NAMS-National Air Monitoring Systems3ARB – California Air Resources Board4SLAMS- State and Local Air Monitoring Systems5SJVUAPCD- San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control DistrictEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality2-20Table 2-2Ozone Monitoring Stations in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (cont.)Site Name SamplingInterval/FrequencyScale MonitoringObjectiveType AgencyMaricopa-Stanislaus 1 Hour/Continuous Urban High Concentration SLAMS SJVUAPCDMerced-Coffee Avenue 1 Hour/Continuous Urban High Concentration SLAMS SJVUAPCDModesto-14th Street 1 Hour/Continuous Neighborhood Representative Conc. SLAMS ARBOildale-Manor 1 Hour/Continuous Urban High Concentration NAMS ARBParlier 1 Hour/Continuous Urban High Concentration PAMS/NAMS SJVUAPCDSequoia Nat’l. Park-Ash Mtn. 1 Hour/Continuous Regional Representative Conc. SPM6NPS7Sequoia Nat’l. Park-LookoutPoint1 Hour/Continuous Regional Representative Conc. SPM NPSSequoia Nat’l. Park-LowerKaweah1 Hour/Continuous Regional Representative Conc. SPM NPSShafter-Walker Street 1 Hour/Continuous Urban Representative Conc. PAMS/SLAMS ARBStockton-Hazelton 1 Hour/Continuous Neighborhood Representative Conc. SLAMS ARBTracy-Patterson Pass 1 Hour/Continuous Urban Representative Conc. SLAMS SJVUAPCDTurlock-Minaret 1 Hour/Continuous Neighborhood Representative Conc. SLAMS SJVUAPCDVisalia-Church Street 1 Hour/Continuous Neighborhood Representative Conc. SLAMS ARB6SPM- Special Purpose Monitoring Stations7NPS- National Park ServiceEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-21 Conclusions drawn from this study include:

1 Meteorology plays a major role in ozone formation in the Valley. Long, hot, dry summer days with morning subsidence inversions and light winds are

ideal conditions for ozone formation. 2 Under normal meteorological conditions, the ozone concentrations recorded at Fresno-Olive are representative of average population exposure. Under adverse conditions, the concentrations at the downwind edge of the city are much higher than at Fresno-Olive. A new station located at the downwind edge of the city was recommended. This site is

Fresno-Drummond. 3 The incremental increase in ozone concentration per mile downwind across the city on an average day is much greater than the increase per mile downwind from the city. A measure of this "city effect" is the amount of increase in the max-hour concentration downwind along the resultant wind direction line. Max-hour oxidant concentrations increased, on the average, approximately forty percent across the city from air entering the city to the northwest. 4 Under the most adverse meteorological conditions, the max-hour concentrations at the downwind edge of the city were approximately 15 pphm greater than at the upwind edge.

Though these statements may not be totally accurate today because of better emissions control, the results of this study are included to demonstrate the general characteristics of ozone formation in the Fresno metropolitan area.

2.4.2.2 San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Study

Air pollution control officials, local elected officials, and industry representatives agreed in late 1986 to undertake a cooperative air quality study. The policy makers’ ultimate goal was to identify and adapt well-founded, cost-effective ways to reduce air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Study was initiated to provide technical tools to enable decision makers to develop and evaluate control strategies. The Study’s original charter describes the challenges:

• To provide an improved understanding of the conditions that lead to high ozone levels in the Valley.

• To provide policy makers with the necessary tools and information to develop sound regional plans for equitable and effective

emission controls to reduce ozone levels to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-22 Field Measurements

An extensive field measurement program was carried out during the summer of 1990 with some additional fieldwork in 1991. The field program collected data on air pollutant concentration and weather conditions from July 1 through August 31. During the period continuous measurements were taken at 339 surface sites, which collected upper air data.

The data from these monitors were transmitted to the Study headquarters on a real time basis. This allowed the Study to know immediately whether all sites were operational. It also provided the Study with the ability to forecast the onset of high ozone conditions.

During these high ozone periods, of which there were 14 days comprising five episodes, additional special monitoring was conducted to enhance both the spatial and temporal density of measurements. This included over 1,000 hours of data recorded over the Valley by nine research aircraft; weather patterns aloft; and the collection of speciated hydrocarbon measurements.

Several tracer studies were also conducted during the summer of 1990. In these studies, a tracer gas is released at a fixed location in known amounts. The movement of the tracer gas is then tracked to provide information on air movement and the rate of dilution by the air.

Emission Inventory

Emission data were also collected to characterize the magnitude and location of emissions occurring during each ozone episode day. This was particularly important as a number of ozone episodes occurred on weekends, a time when emission patterns are often significantly different than during weekdays. Studies were also conducted to develop estimates of emissions from natural and cultivated vegetation, assess motor vehicle traffic patterns, and update estimates from several categories of emission sources believed to be represented by

outdated or inaccurate estimates.

Data Analysis

Team members assembled a comprehensive archive of the air quality and weather data collected during the field program for distribution to project scientists for analysis. The data analyses included: 1) an examination of the spatial and temporal distribution of ozone and ozone causing chemicals, 2) an assessment of the specific weather conditions associated with high ozone concentrations, and 3) an evaluation of air pollution concentrations aloft from the data collected via aircraft. These analyses provided an improved understanding of ozone patterns in the Valley as well as provided information crucial for understanding the performance of the air quality and weather models.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-23 Findings

Ozone concentrations were found to be highest in and around the major urban areas of Fresno and Bakersfield, and in the Stockton/Modesto area. Monitors detected peak ozone concentrations of 0.15 ppm at Fresno and Edison (south east of Bakersfield) during the August 3-6, 1990, ozone episode; these levels exceed the federal 1-hr ozone standards of 0.12 ppm. Much of the remainder of the San Joaquin Valley experienced ozone concentrations at or above the more restrictive California state standard, but did not exceed the federal standards.

The general, weather conditions that led to high ozone levels in the Valley included large-scale high pressure systems that developed over the Western United States, low wind speeds and high temperatures. Theses conditions occur frequently in the Valley between May and September, and may persist for several days. The dominant wind flow pattern is from the northwest to the southeast along the axis of the Valley. Air leaves the southern end of Valley during the daytime by flowing over the Tehachapi Mountains (southeast of Bakersfield) into the Mojave Desert. Pollutants on the Valley floor are also transported up the Sierra Nevada and Coastal Mountains as heated air raises into the mountains during the daytime. Some pollutants may also be returned as cooler air sinks into the Valley during the nighttime.

At night, a jet stream (of fast moving air) forms at an altitude of about 1,000 feet, with winds coming from the northwest at speeds of up to 30 mph. Because of nighttime stability conditions, air transported by this jet stream can’t exit the Valley and is partially forced back northward along the eastern edge of the Valley, resulting in a counterclockwise flow known as the “Fresno eddy.” The Fresno eddy circulates pollutants within the Valley, returning polluted air to urban areas where additional emissions are added to it. Air pollution trapped at higher elevations at night can contribute to high ozone levels on subsequent days.

The August 3-6, 1990 ozone episode (which occurred over a weekend) is representative of the weather conditions associated with historical high ozone periods, including those observed during the 1980’s. August 3 and 4 were favorable for moderate ozone concentrations; August 5 and 6 were favorable for the occurrence of high ozone concentrations.

2.4.2.3 Central California Ozone Study (CCOS)

The Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is an extensive project designed toimprove our understanding of the transport, formation, and fate of loweratmosphere ozone throughout a large portion of central and northern California. The project will and has guided decision-makers in determining the amount, timing, and placement of emissions controls to attain ambient ozone standards. CCOS was planned during 1998 and 1999, and the field research began in the summer of 2000. CCOS was timed so that researchers could take advantage of staff and equipment that were already in place for the California RegionalEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-24 Particulate Air Quality Study (CRPAQS). CCOS and CRPAQS collected voluminous data, and are now continuing with data analysis.

The CCOS area of study (domain) includes most of northern California and all of central California. The northern boundary extends through Redding, thus representing the entire Central Valley of California. The eastern boundary extends past Barstow and includes a large part of the Mojave Desert and all of the southern Sierra Nevada. The southern boundary extends below Santa Barbara and into the South Coast Air Basin. The western boundary extends approximately 200 kilometers west of San Francisco (measurements were needed to characterize ozone levels in the air moving into California).

The CCOS field measurement program was conducted during a four-month period from 6/1/2000 to 9/30/2000, a study period corresponding to the time of year the majority of the high ozone level episodes occurred in northern and central California during previous years. CCOS field staff from multiple agencies collected continuous surface air quality measurements and surface and upper-air meteorological measurements throughout the study period to provide sufficient data to model any day of the study period. They also collected data during episodes of high ozone levels to better understand the dynamics and chemistry of the formation of high ozone concentrations, and the contribution of transport to

exceedances of federal and state ozone standards in downwind areas. CCOS field staff collected additional continuous surface air quality measurements at sites downwind of the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, and Fresno to characterize ozone formation, carbon and nitrogen chemistry variations by time, day, and pollutant transport pattern. Additional work is ongoing to complete the project with analysis and modeling of the collected information, to improve the performance of modeling, and to guide actions to improve air quality for an extensive geographic region.

A variety of organizations, including member agencies, universities, research institutes, and private consultants, conduct CCOS work, primarily under contracts administered by ARB and the San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency (Study Agency). Funding comes from the federal budget (e.g., EPA, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense), the state budget (e.g., ARB and the California Energy Commission), and from contributions provided by air districts and other organizations such as industry. CCOS has a Policy Committee to provide overall strategic direction and to help define the types of questions that need answering, and a Technical Committee to oversee the technical work and provide peer review. These committees are comprised of representatives from federal agencies, state agencies and industry. To date, funding of about $41 million for CCOS and CRPAQS has produced voluminous atmospheric data and numerous peer-reviewed studies describing ozone formation in Central California. These studies have improved the understanding of ozone behavior, and have resulted in validated models that can predict the amount of ozone precursor reductions needed to attain the federal 1-hour ozone standards (including work supporting this Extreme OADP ). The findings of these studiesEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-25 will benefit the future health of millions of citizens and extensive areas of sensitive agricultural production and federally protected forests and parks.

District and ARB staff examined several CCOS episodes for use in this Extreme

OADP . As discussed in Chapter 5, modeling staff ultimately selected the CCOS episode from July 30 through August 2, 2000 for the plan. A typical Great Basin high-pressure system occurred during this episode, with a strong ridge that brought moderately high ozone levels to the SJVAB. The high-pressure system persisted for four days, before a trough off the Pacific Northwest coast moved the high-pressure system eastward, leaving approximately zonal flow over most of the SJVAB by August 3, 2000 (DRI 2003). The Bay Area and Sacramento Area also recorded moderately high ozone levels during this episode, with each experiencing 1-hour ozone levels slightly above the standard.

Staff members from the District, ARB, other northern/central California districts, and consultants to the Study Agency, will continue to analyze CCOS episodes to improve model performance for use in future revisions to SIPs for the 1-hour ozone standard (as appropriate) and for use in future SIPs for the federal 8-hour

ozone standard.

2.4.2.4 PAMS Sampling

The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments include a provision in Title I, Section 182 requiring States to begin a program of enhanced ozone monitoring. On March 4, 1992, EPA promulgated regulations as revisions to Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 58 for the establishment and operation of Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS). EPA finalized these regulations on February 12, 1993. The regulations require enhanced monitoring of ozone, ozone precursors including oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds, and meteorological parameters in areas designated as serious, severe, or extreme ozone nonattainment.

The District's PAMS network consists of two smaller networks that are focused on monitoring PAMS parameters in the Bakersfield and Fresno Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Each focused network consists of one Type 1 PAMS, one Type 2 PAMS, and one Type 3 PAMS. The Type 1 PAMS is sited to monitor morning upwind ozone and ozone precursor concentrations, the Type 2 PAMS is sited to monitor morning ozone and ozone precursor concentrations at the downwind edge of the central business district, and the Type 3 PAMS is sited to monitor peak afternoon ozone concentration downwind of the MSA.

Currently, all six of the PAMS in the network are operational. The Fresno MSA Type 1 PAMS is located at Madera-Pump Yard, Type 2 is located at Clovis-Villa, and the Type 3 is located at Parlier. The Bakersfield MSA Type 1 is located at Shafter-Walker, Type 2 is located at Bakersfield-Golden State and the Type 3

PAMS is located at Arvin.

The District’s PAMS activities typically consist of collecting VOC and carbonyl (another type of chemical that reacts in the atmosphere to produce ozone)EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-26 samples on specified schedules. For example, the 2001 PAMS Program for VOC and carbonyl sampling was operated in accordance with the "California Alternative Sampling Schedule" (CAP III), for the July-September period. During these months sampling was scheduled for every 3 rd day and called for the collection of at least four (4) three-hour integrated samples per day, plus additional samples surrounding suspected high ozone days (episodes). An episode is defined as a time frame in which a maximum hourly average ozone concentration exceeds the federal one-hour standard of 125 parts per billion. In terms of the number of episode days sampled, the Districts’ CAPIII proposal established a goal of capturing at least 3 episodes during the three-month

season.

The PAMS Site Types #1, #2, and #3 are pre-established SLAMS sites. Continuous monitoring for ozone, oxides of nitrogen, and surface meteorology is ongoing at these sites, and the data are routinely submitted to AIRS throughout the year. From July 1 to September 30 the District collects and ships samples related to VOC and carbonyl species for the PAMS season. VOC canisters and carbonyl cartridges are collected and sent to a contracted lab for analysis.

2.4.3 Conclusion

Ozone air quality in the SJVAB is extensively monitored. A permanent monitoring network continuously samples the air at various locations in the SJVAB to measure ozone levels in the atmosphere. During the ozone season, these data are supplemented by special ozone precursor samples collected during episodes of anticipated high ozone levels. In addition, federal, state and local governments have collaborated in the past on a number of special air quality studies, components of which have included measurements of ozone air quality and meteorological and other parameters that affect ozone formation. The most recent and most extensive of these special studies, the Central California Ozone Study, provided data that was used to develop this Extreme

OADP (see Chapter 5).



### 2.5 OTHER POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN IN THE SAN JOAQUIN

VALLEY AIR BASIN

2.5.1 Particulate Matter

PM10 is composed of very small particulate matter measuring less than 10 microns (one one-millionth of a meter) in diameter. These small particles are comprised of finely divided solids or liquids such as dust, soot, aerosols, fumes, and mists. The PM10 problem in the SJVAB is partially caused by the same compounds that produce ozone: VOCs and NOx. These compounds react in the atmosphere to form aerosols, which make up a significant fraction of PM10 in the SJVAB. Particulate matter is also directly emitted by society’s activities, including agricultural operations, industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion,EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-27 agricultural and prescribed fires, construction and demolition, and entrainment of road dust into the air. PM10 is also derived from natural sources, including

windblown dust and wildfires.

Community studies of air pollution effects on health have linked particulate matter, alone or in combination with other air pollutants, with a number of significant respiratory and cardiovascular-related effects. These effects include increased mortality and aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases as evidenced by increased hospitalization, school absences, and increased work loss days. Populations at general risk for suffering adverse health effects from exposures to particulate matter include children, asthmatics, the elderly, individuals with influenza, and individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary cardiovascular disease. Particulate matter can also alter the body’s immune system and affect removal of foreign materials from the lung, and in children this can result in decreased lung capacity.

The federal standards for PM10 are 50 micrograms per cubic meter for the annual average (primary and secondary standards) and 150 micrograms per cubic meter for the 24-hour average (primary and secondary standards). Exceedances of the 24-hour standard usually occur between October and February in the SJVAB.

EPA originally classified the SJVAB as moderate non-attainment, but bumped it up to serious non-attainment in 1993 because the District was not able to demonstrate attainment by 1994 in its Moderate Area Plan.

On August 19, 2003 California submitted a serious nonattainment area plan for PM10 to EPA (the 2003 PM10 Plan ). After an initial review, EPA determined that amending the plan in a few key areas would facilitate its ultimate approval; consequently, the District and ARB amended the 2003 PM10 Plan . In December 2003, the District Governing Board adopted the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan . On December 30, 2003, California submitted the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan to EPA. On January 9, 2004, EPA found the 2003 PM10 Plan Amendments to be complete. On May 26, 2004, EPA issued a final rule approving the plan, with an effective date of June 25, 2004 (69 FR 30006). All references to 2003 PM10

Plan in this Extreme OADP refer to the amended plan approved by EPA effective June 25, 2004.

Air quality data show an overall improvement for the SJVAB’s PM10 nonattainment problem. The peak 24-hour PM10 exceedance value was 439

μ g/m 3 in 1990 and 150 μ g/m 3 in 2003 (150 μ g/m 3 is the standard). The estimated number of days exceeding the 24-hour PM10 standard has decreased from 56 days in 1990 to 0 days in 2003. Lastly, the three year annual average PM10 level at the peak station was 78 μ g/m 3 in 1991 but dropped to 56 μ g/m 3 in 2003 (50 μ g/m 3 is the federal PM10 annual average NAAQS). The SJVAB is still nonattainment for PM10, but substantial progress has been made.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-28 2.5.2 Carbon Monoxide

CO is an odorless, tasteless, and colorless gaseous air pollutant. It is a directly emitted byproduct of incomplete fuel combustion. The largest portion of CO emissions comes from gasoline-fueled motor vehicles. Other contributors are fires (forest, residential, and agricultural), industrial processes, solid waste disposal, and fuel combustion at stationary sources. Most occurrences of unhealthful levels of CO are found in major urban areas in conjunction with high traffic levels and limited dispersion.

Inhaled CO has no direct toxic effect on the human lungs; however, once it enters the human bloodstream through gas exchange in the lungs, it readily combines with hemoglobin, which is the substance that carries oxygen to cells in the body (the CO/hemoglobin affinity is about two hundred times stronger than the oxygen/hemoglobin affinity). Consequently, the hemoglobin becomes tied up with CO and is not available to transport oxygen to the body. Effects include dizziness, nausea, lack of coordination, headaches, impaired perception, and weakened heart functions; prolonged exposures to high levels can lead to death. People especially sensitive to CO include children (and the human fetus), the elderly, smokers, and those with respiratory/heart illnesses and anemia.

Carbon monoxide usually does not persist in the atmosphere and is depleted and diluted through chemical reactions and dispersion. Exceedances of the federal standard are most likely to occur in the winter, due to lowered inversion levels (that trap this pollutant and cause elevated concentrations), increased fuel combustion for heating, and reduced atmospheric chemical reactivity due to low temperatures. Since CO is somewhat soluble in water, normal winter precipitation removes the pollutant from the atmosphere. Carbon monoxide also participates in the overall photochemical reaction mechanism leading to the production of ozone and smog.

The federal standard for CO is 9 ppm for the 8-hour average and 35 ppm for the 1-hour average (primary standard only). In the past, four urbanized areas in the SJVAB were designated as nonattainment for the carbon monoxide (CO) standards. The last of the four areas were redesignated to attainment in 1998 for both Federal and state standards. In June 2004, ARB published a draft CO

Maintenance Plan for the attainment areas.

2.5.3 Toxic Air Pollutants

Other ozone precursors include various VOCs, some of which may also beconsidered toxic air contaminants (TAC). The FCAA required the District to reevaluate its existing TAC regulatory program alongside the technology-based standards for 189 hazardous air pollutants identified by the EPA. The federal TAC standards [Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards] affect over 170 source categories nationwide, many of which are already subject to state regulation. The District has ensured that only appropriate source categories in the SJVAB are subject to federal enforcement action.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-29 

### 2.6 REFERENCES

ALA 2002 American Lung Association. Annotated Bibliography of Recent Studies on the Health Effects of Air Pollution, 2001-

2002.

ARB 2001 California Air Resources Board, Ozone Transport, California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, California, April 2001.

Burnett 2001 Burnett,R., Smith-Doiron, M., Stieb, D., Raizenne, M., Brooke, J.R., Dales, R., Leech, J., Cakmak, S., and Krewski, D., “Asociation between Ozone and Hospitalization for Acute Respiratory Diseases in Children Less than 2 years of Age,” American Journal of Epidemiology , v153, no.5. 2001, pp. 444-452.

CDFA 2002 California Department of Food and Agriculture, Agricultural Statistical Review, California Department of Food and Agriculture Resource Directory, 2002, pp. 31.

CNN 2003 CNN.com. Report Child Asthma Rates Double. Accessed 4/9/04, at the following web address: http:// www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/02/24/children.pollution.a p/index.html . Posted February 24, 2003.

DRI 2003 Desert Research Institute. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Planning Service for the Sacramento Ozone Nonattainment Area. Task 4.1: Episode Selection for SIP Modeling. Prepared for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Sacramento, CA. April 2003.

EPA 1997 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Health and

Environmental Effects of Ground Level Ozone. Accessed 4/9/04, at the following web address: www.epa.gov/rgytgrnj/programs/artd/air/quality/o3health.htm

. Posted July 17, 1997.

EPA 1999 United States Environmental Protection Agency. What You

Need to Know About Ozone and Your Health. EPA-452/K99-001, July 1999.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 2 - San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

2-30 Galizia 1999 Galizia, A. and Kinney,P.L. “Long Term Residence in Areas of High Ozone: Associations with Respiratory Health in a Nationwide Sample of Nonsmoking Young Adults,” Environmental Health Perspectives , v107, no.8, 1999. pp.

675-679.

Gent 2003 Gent, J., Triche, E., Holford, T., Belanger, K., Bracken, M., Beckett, W., Leaderer, B., “Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles with Respiratory Symptoms in Children with Asthma”, JAMA , v290, no.14, 2003, pp. 1859-1867.

McConnell McConnell, R., Berhane, K., London, S., Islam, T., Gauderman, J., Avol, E., Margolis, H., and Peters, J., “Asthma in Exercising Children Exposed to Ozone: A Cohort Study,” The Lancet , v359, 2002, pp. 386-391.

NHI 2003 National Institutes of Health. Health News. Accessed 4/9/04, < http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/new/press/03-06-13.htm> Posted June 13, 2003.

Ritz 2002 Ritz, B., Yu, F., Fruin, S, Chapa, G., Shaw, G.M. and Haris, J.A., “Ambient Air Pollution and Risk of Birth Defects in Southern California,” American Journal of Epidemiology

, v155, no.1, 2002, pp 17-25.

SCAQMD 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final 2003 AQMP. Accessed 4/9/04, <http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/docs/2003AQMP_AppI.pdf>. Posted August 2003

## Chapter 3 - Emission Inventory

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-1 

### 3 EMISSIONS INVENTORY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the emissions inventory (EI) as related to ozone attainment demonstrations for the SJVAB. The two principal components of OADP EIs are a baseline year and future year projections. The projections reflect emissions reductions stemming from implementation of controls as well as emissions increases stemming from growth. Future year emissions are used as input to a grid-based photochemical computer model that simulates physical and chemical processes in the atmosphere and predicts future ozone levels. Comparison of the magnitude and frequency of the predicted future ozone levels with the national ambient air quality standards allows a demonstration of attainment from the emission controls. The baseline year and future year EIs were developed to reflect emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) during the ozone season (May through October). Ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere, and thus it does not appear in an emissions inventory. Ozone is created through a photochemical reaction between VOCs and NOx in the presence of sunlight. NOx and VOCs, which are termed ozone precursors, are directly emitted and can be measured as emitted or estimated using parameters that can be easily measured; therefore, they are included in the EI. The EI identifies the sources and quantities of these precursors. VOC emissions from society’s activities generally result from evaporation of liquids, release of gaseous VOCs, and incomplete combustion. NOx emissions are primarily the result of high temperature combustion.

Section 3.2 describes the types of emission inventories, Section 3.3 describes the baseline year inventory, and Section 3.4 describes development of the future year inventory. Section 3.5 discusses conformity, and Section 3.6 discusses emission inventory uncertainties. Conclusions are presented in Section 3.7.



### 3.2 INVENTORY TYPES

An EI is a compilation of emission sources and corresponding quantities of air pollutants emitted per unit time (e.g., tons/day) for a specified time period (e.g., 1990, ozone season 2002, etc.). The two basic types of EIs are modeling and planning inventories; each has a different purpose in the overall air quality planning process, and each reflects a different compilation of emission sources.

3.2.1 Modeling Inventory

The modeling inventory typically represents emissions that occurred on specific days when ambient ozone levels exceeded the NAAQS at locations within the SJVAB. Modeling inventories are used to help understand the conditions that create the high ozone levels and to evaluate emission control measures neededEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-2 to attain the ozone NAAQS. Modeling EIs therefore include all sources of VOCs and NOx that could be contributing to the problem: anthropogenic (caused by human activity), biogenic (e.g., caused by plants, molds, and animals) and geogenic (e.g., caused by earth processes such as oil seeps). Biogenic and geogenic sources can emit significant quantities of pollutants. Modeling inventories, meteorological conditions, and emission control effectiveness are all used as input to photochemical models to demonstrate that implementation of specified emission control programs will result in attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Also, the spatial coverage of modeling inventories extends beyond the SJVAB boundaries to capture transport and other processes affecting high ozone levels on specific days.

EIs used in the District’s attainment demonstration plans are based on data contained in the ARB’s California Emission Inventory Development and Reporting Air System (CEIDARS), the California Emission Forecasting System (CEFS), and the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS). The emissions inventory used for model calibration is “day specific.” It represents the emissions

that occurred when the federal standard for ozone was exceeded in the SJVAB. The use of day specific emissions allows model results to be compared to and

calibrated with measured ozone levels.

Modeling inventories encompass an area larger than the SJVAB. The modeling domain is divided into a grid system composed of 4 Km by 4 Km grid cells defined by Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates (see Chapter 5). Modelers allocate stationary and mobile source emissions to individual grid cells within this system. They locate area source emissions using readily measured parameters whose behavior would correlate with emissions (e.g., population density). In general, the modeling emission data features episodic-day emissions for the base year. Seasonal variations in activity levels are taken into account in developing gridded stationary point and area source emissions. Variations in temperature, hours of operation, speed of motor vehicles, or other factors are considered in developing gridded motor vehicle emissions. Finally emissions used for modeling are assigned to chemical classes depending on their reactivity in producing ozone in the atmosphere. Hence, “gridded” emissions data used for ozone modeling applications differ from the average annual day or planning inventory emission data in two respects: 1) the modeling region covers larger geographic areas than the SJVAB; and 2) emissions represent day-specific estimates instead of average or seasonal conditions for the base year.

For seasonal sources, emissions were determined by calculating the number of operating days in 1999 during the ozone season and dividing the total emissions for the season by the number of days that the activity occurred during the season. For non-seasonal point sources, emissions for an average operating day were calculated by dividing the facility’s total emissions for 1999 by the number of operating days throughout 1999 that the facility operated.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-3 Unlike area and point sources, the motor vehicle emissions inventory was temperature adjusted to represent a typical “summertime” day. Emissions factors for motor vehicles reflect temperature and activity data (vehicle miles traveled, speed, etc.) for six daily time periods. The emissions accounted for in the District’s planning inventories are based on the California mobile emission

model EMFAC2002.

3.2.2 Planning Inventory

The planning inventory represents a “typical” summer day during the seasonal time period in which ambient air quality standards are violated. For example, the ozone planning inventory is based on daily emissions that occurred during the ozone season, May through October. Although the modeling and planning inventories are based on the same data, the planning inventory is better suited for summary representation of emissions and for fulfilling regulatory requirements. The planning inventory is geared towards complying with emission reduction requirements and the role of control measures in meeting those requirements; it therefore includes only anthropogenic emission sources and does not include biogenic or geogenic emissions. The planning inventory also only includes sources within the SJVAB boundaries.

3.2.3 Data Sources and Accuracy

The bulk of the SJVAB EI is actually estimated rather than directly measured. Multiplying an emission factor by an activity level produces an estimated emission; if the source has a pollutant control device or technique applied, emission estimates are reduced to reflect the efficiency of the pollution control. Emission factors relate air pollutant emission rates (usually mass per unit time) to an easy-to-measure activity level for various types of sources (typically the factors are available for major air pollutant sources found in many regions and states). For example, emission factors for engine operation may use horsepower or gallons of fuel consumed to determine emissions. The emission estimates for most point sources (specific facilities) are more reliable than the estimates for generic classes of sources because emissions from point sources are usually tested, and the test results are used to generate the emission factors. Furthermore, facility operators can inform the District of their actual production figures or fuel burned, thereby eliminating the need for the District to estimate this type of data. In addition, some major sources are equipped with automated emissions monitoring equipment that directly measures emissions to the atmosphere and eliminates the needs for estimations.

Estimating area source emissions is more difficult. Point source estimating techniques are often used, but with less reliability. For example, determining the amounts of specific consumer products used within the SJVAB entails making estimates and assumptions and consulting a variety of data sources that might describe an easily-measured parameter (such as regional sales for a class ofEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-4 product) but do not provide needed information such as location and quantity of use of individual products. Consequently, the resultant quality of the data is not as good as data from point sources and point source tests. Area source emissions estimates often are based on total activity during a season and do not provide much information about typical use, daily activity, or exact location of the

source.

Because of the variety of data used to compile EIs and the calculations performed on these data, emissions estimates vary in their accuracy. For example, emissions directly measured by a continuous emissions monitor are generally more accurate than emissions estimated from activity levels, emission factors and control efficiencies. Emissions data in this OADP are reported to the nearest 0.1 tons (200 lbs)/day (with one or two exceptions), even though this level of accuracy may not be representative of all of the inventory source types.

3.2.4 Emission Source Types

3.2.4.1 Stationary Sources

Theoretically, stationary sources are divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. However, for EI purposes, only point sources are categorized as stationary sources. Point sources are generally large emitters with one or more emissions points at a permitted facility with an identified location. Examples include food processing facilities, oil production and refinery facilities, steam generators, boilers, process heaters, stationary piston engines, glass manufacturing, and mining operations. The emissions from point sources are generally calculated using emission factors obtained from direct measurements (e.g., source testing), EPA’s document entitled, Compilation of Air Pollutant

Emissions Factors (AP-42), or ARB’s material balance formula. The simplest method of calculating emissions is to multiply the process rate (how much or how often an activity occurs) by an emissions factor (mass of air pollutant emitted per unit time of activity) and a control factor (percent of emissions not allowed to reach the atmosphere). For most point sources, facility operators provide the process rates (activity levels) that are necessary for emission calculations. Some point sources are equipped with continuous emissions monitoring equipment that provides direct measurement of selected pollutants as they are emitted from a stack to the atmosphere. For these sources, emissions are directly measured and need not be estimated using emission factors and activity levels.

3.2.4.2 Area Sources

ARB and the District jointly develop the area source emission inventories, with the ARB responsible for about two-thirds of the sources and the District for the remaining one-third. Area source categories are divided into two types: aggregated point and area-wide. Aggregated point sources are many small point sources, or facilities, that are not inventoried individually, but are estimated as a group and reported as a single source category. Examples of aggregated pointEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-5 sources include residential water heaters, dry cleaning operations, and automobile service stations. Area-wide sources include many dispersed sources that emit pollutants over a broad geographic area and are not reported in the stationary source inventory. Examples of area-wide sources include consumer products (e.g., nail polish, hair spray, aftershave, household cleaners, paints,windshield washer fluid); home-use pesticides; asphalt paving; pavementmarking paints; off-gassing of manufactured products; residential fuel combustion; farming operations; construction and demolition; road dust; fires; waste burning; and utility equipment.

3.2.4.3 Mobile Sources

ARB develops on-road and non-road mobile source emissions estimates, and maintains a comprehensive compilation of emission factors. These factors are combined with appropriate activity levels and estimates of control measure effectiveness to calculate the emissions (the computer tool used to calculate mobile emissions is referred to as “EMFAC”, although the term “EMFAC” is often used to also describe the final calculated emission estimates). As ARB releases new versions of EMFAC, they are named with the year of release and usually version number within a given year (e.g., EMFAC2002, v. 2.2).

The mobile source category “on-road motor vehicles” includes light duty passenger vehicles, light- and medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks (gas and diesel), heavy-duty urban buses (diesel) and motorcycles. Motor vehicle emissions occur both through the exhaust pipe and from fuel evaporation. ARB uses a complex methodology to calculate the number of motor vehicles, their age and speed distribution, and the resulting emissions of NOx, total organic gases (TOG), reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), and particulate matter (PM10). ARB uses EMFAC to develop on-road motor vehicle emission estimates using estimated vehicle miles traveled.

Non-road mobile sources include off-road vehicles such as construction equipment, farm tractors, trains, ships, aircraft (both government, commercial, and private), mobile equipment (forklifts, etc.), and utility equipment (lawn and garden equipment and chain saws).

3.2.4.4 Natural Sources

In addition to man-made air pollution, there are natural sources of emissions, also known as biogenic sources (i.e., plants, molds, and animals,) and geogenic sources (such as oil seeps and other earth processes). These natural sources emit significant quantities of pollutants. For example, certain types of vegetation emit large amounts of isoprene, terpenes, and other organic compounds that are VOC. Emission rates depend upon plant species, season, biomass density, time of day, local temperature, moisture, and other factors.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-6 The SJVAB biogenic VOC emissions inventory, currently estimated at 380 tons per day, has been the subject of recent research and refinements. Seasonal or annual estimates have not been prepared using this updated methodology, but it provides a sense of the magnitude of biogenic emissions during the summer.



### 3.3 BASELINE YEAR EMISSIONS

The District and ARB developed a well-characterized emissions inventory for 1999 and projected it to years of interest given information on growth trends and control measures that occurred in specific source categories over the time periods of interest. SJVAB emissions for 2000 establish a baseline for evaluating trends out to selected future years (Table 3-1). 1 Carbon monoxide (CO) is included in Table 3-1 because CO can help produce ozone (though it is not typically described as an ozone precursor). The CO emissions in Table 3-1 do not set an emissions budget for conformity (the SJVAB is no longer nonattainment for CO).

Planners calculate the seasonal point source emissions in the EI by applying the fractional monthly throughputs during the ozone season and then dividing the total emissions by the number of days that the activity occurred during the season. Planners calculate non-seasonal point source emissions (average operating day) by dividing the facility’s total emissions for a given year by the number of days per year of interest that the facility operated.

Unlike area and point sources, the motor vehicle emissions inventory was temperature adjusted to represent a typical “summertime” day. Emission factors for motor vehicles reflect temperature and activity data (vehicle miles traveled, speed, etc.) for six daily time periods. EMFAC2002, Version 2.2 was used in this document to compute on-road motor vehicle emissions in the planning inventories. Table 3-1 includes the EMFAC2002, Version 2.2 results.

Table 3-1 presents the planning EI for 2000 as well as for 2008 and 2010 (2008 is a Rate of Progress milestone year and 2010 is the target attainment year; note that ROP uses 1990 as a baseline—see Chapter 7). Summer 2000 emissions represent the overall magnitude of emissions that led to the ozone levels occurring during the CCOS episode (see Section 2.4.2.3) used in this Extreme

OADP

. 2 Appendix A presents the county-by-county 2008 and 2010 planning onroad motor vehicle emissions inventories, of which VOC and NOx emissions form the basis of conformity budgets developed later in this chapter.

1 Note that different baselines are used in this plan for different purposes. Chapter 7 uses 1990 as a baseline for Rate of Progress calculations as required by the Federal Clean Air Act. Chapter 5 uses day-specific emissions from the July/August 2000 CCOS episode as a base case to establish model performance.

2 As discussed in Section 3.2.1, the modeling inventory gives day-specific emissions by grid cell in the SJVAB and by reactivity class for VOC; because of its complexity and volume, it is not suitable for reproduction or inclusion in this Extreme OADP in either tabular or text form.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-7 Table 3-1 SJVAB 2000, 2008 and 2010 Planning Emissions Inventories
(Summer, tons/day, 1999 Base Year)

Source Categories 2000 1

VOC 2008

VOC 2010

VOC 2000 1

CO 2008

CO 2010

CO 2000 1

NOx 2008

NOx 2010

NOx

STATIONARY SOURCES: FUEL COMBUSTION

Electric Utilities 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.4 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.0 3.1

Cogeneration 0.8 0.9 1.0 7.0 9.3 9.6 9.0 6.1 6.3

Oil and Gas

Production (Combustion) 2.7 3.2 3.2 14.4 15.9 15.7 39.6 25.9 25.4

Petroleum Refining (Combustion) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.5 1.5

Manufacturing and

Industrial 0.3 0.4 0.4 5.7 6.7 6.8 36.5 38.7 39.7

Food and Agricultural Processing 2.7 2.6 2.6 11.1 10.9 10.9 26.9 24.5 23.6

Service and

Commercial 1.2 1.3 1.3 3.3 3.4 3.5 13.7 14.2 14.4

Other (Fuel Combustion) 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 1.8 1.4 1.2

TOTAL FUEL

COMBUSTION 8.4 9.1 10.2 45.0 49.8 50.1 132.1 115.3 115.3

STATIONARY SOURCES: WASTE DISPOSAL

Sewage Treatment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Landfills 2.8 3.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Incinerators 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Soil Remediation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL WASTE

DISPOSAL 3.3 3.9 4.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

STATIONARY SOURCES: CLEANING AND SURFACE COATING

Laundering 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Degreasing 11.1 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Coatings & Related

Process Solvents 13.8 16.5 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Printing 1.5 1.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Adhesives and

Sealants 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 2.8 3.8 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL CLEANING

AND SURFACE

COATINGS 29.9 24.1 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-8 Table 3-1: SJVAB 2000, 2008 and 2010 Planning Emissions Inventories- (cont.)

Source Categories 2000 1

VOC 2008

VOC 2010

VOC 2000 1

CO 2008

CO 2010

CO 2000 1

NOx 2008

NOx 2010

NOx

STATIONARY SOURCES: PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND MARKETING

Oil & Gas

Production 31.6 32.1 31.4 0.1 0.1 0.12 0.2 0.2 0.2

Petroleum Refining 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

Petroleum Marketing 6.6 7.1 7.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other (Petroleum

Production and

Marketing) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL

PETROLEUM

PROD./MKTG

. 39.6 40.6 40.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3

STATIONARY SOURCES: INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES

Chemical 1.9 2.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2

Food/Agricultural 10.7 11.5 11.8 2.2 2.1 2.1 9.2 9.0 9.0

Mineral Processes 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.7 1.7

Metal Processes 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wood and Paper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Glass and Related

Products 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 12.0 9.6 10.1

Electronics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other (Industrial Processes) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTALINDUSTRIAL

PROCESSES 13.3 14.6 15.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 22.9 20.5 21.0

TOTAL

STATIONARY

SOURCES 94.3 92.3 94.6 48.1 53.1 53.5 155.2 136.2 136.6EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-9 Table 3-1: SJVAB 2000, 2008 and 2010 Planning Emissions Inventories- (cont.)

Source Categories 2000 1

VOC 2008

VOC 2010

VOC 2000 1

CO 2008

CO 2010

CO 2000 1

NOx 2008

NOx 2010

NOx

AREA SOURCES: SOLVENT EVAPORATION

Consumer Products 25.2 25.7 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Architectural Coatings and

Related Process

Solvents 14.1 12.9 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pesticides/Fertilizers 27.8 24.0 23.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Asphalt Paving/Roofing 2.8 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL SOLVENT

EVAPORATION 70.0 65.6 66.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

AREA SOURCES: MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES

Residential Fuel

Combustion 0.5 0.5 0.5 5.4 5.6 5.6 3.3 3.0 3.0

Farming Operations 59.8 68.8 71.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Construction and

Demolition 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Paved Road Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Unpaved Road Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fugitive Windblown

Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fires 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Waste Burning and Disposal 33.8 32.8 32.6 423.1 414.1 412.2 2.9 2.9 2.8

Cooking 0.4 0.5 0.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other (Misc.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL

MISCELLANEOUS

PROCESSES 94.6 102.7 104.7 429.6 420.9 419.1 6.2 5.9 5.8

TOTAL AREA

SOURCES 164.6 168.3 171.1 429.6 420.9 419.1 6.3 5.9 5.9EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-10 Table 3-1: SJVAB 2000, 2008 and 2010 Planning Emissions Inventories- (cont.)

Source Categories 2000 1

VOC 2008

VOC 2010

VOC 2000 1

CO 2008

CO 2010

CO 2000 1

NOx 2008

NOx 2010

NOx

MOBILE SOURCES: ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 4

Light Duty Passenger (LDA) 47.2 23.0 19.2 459.1 240.3 202.5 40.6 19.4 16.1

Light Duty Trucks-1 (LDT1) 23.7 14.5 12.5 291.0 163.7 138.6 24.9 13.1 11.0

Light Duly trucks-2 (LDT2) 15.7 10.4 9.4 195.5 117.4 103.5 21.4 12.6 11.0

Medium Duty Trucks 6.8 4.5 4.1 82.8 51.0 45.7 10.3 6.4 5.6

Light Heavy Duty

Gas Trucks-1

(LHDV1) 4.7 1.5 1.4 34.1 8.4 7.0 2.3 2.3 2.4

Light Heavy Duty

Gas Trucks-2

(LHDV2) 0.6 0.5 0.5 5.4 2.9 2.5 0.7 0.7 0.7

Medium Heavy Duty Gas Trucks (MHDV) 4.4 2.7 2.4 39.2 19.9 16.7 2.7 2.1 1.9

Heavy Heavy Duty Gas Trucks (HHDV) 2.4 1.6 1.4 42.6 21.1 17.8 4.4 2.8 2.4

Light Heavy Duty

Diesel Trucks-1 (LHDV1) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.7 2.0 2.4 2.1

Light Heavy Duty

Diesel Trucks-2 (LHDV2) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.2 1.8 1.6

Medium Heavy Duty

Diesel Trucks (MHDV) 0.6 0.6 0.6 3.8 4.1 4.0 18.0 15.9 14.1

Heavy Heavy Duty

Diesel Trucks (MHDV) 4.2 3.7 3.4 18.4 15.3 14.2 85.4 69.6 60.9

Motorcycles 2.3 2.0 1.9 16.0 18.3 16.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

Heavy Duty Urban Diesel Buses (UB) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 3.6 3.5 3.5

Heavy Duty Gas Urban Buses (UB) 1.0 1.1 1.1 11.5 9.9 9.6 0.9 1.0 1.0

School Buses 0.3 0.3 0.3 4.9 3.3 3.2 2.1 2.6 2.6

Motor Homes 0.9 0.8 0.7 25.1 18.3 15.7 1.9 1.8 1.7

TOTAL ON-ROAD

MOTOR VEHICLES 115.3 67.8 59.5 1230.8 695.8 599.3 223.8 158.5 139.1EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-11 Table 3-1: SJVAB 2000, 2008 and 2010 Planning Emissions Inventories- (cont.)

Source Categories 2000 1

VOC 2008

VOC 2010

VOC 2000 1

CO 2008

CO 2010

CO 2000 1

NOx 2008

NOx 2010

NOx

OTHER MOBILE SOURCES

Aircraft 6.9 7.2 7.3 63.6 71.4 72.7 2.3 2.4 4.0 3

Trains 1.2 1.2 1.1 4.3 4.8 5.0 32.6 21.3 20.8

Ships and

Commercial Boats 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3

Recreational Boats 18.6 12.5 10.4 108.5 98.5 98.0 3.7 5.3 5.3

Off-Road

Recreational Vehicle 1.8 1.1 1.1 15.9 16.4 16.9 0.3 0.3 0.3

Off-Road Equipment 20.2 12.8 11.7 6 165.9 132.2 127.5 51.5 39.6 34.9 6

Farm Equipment 12.4 9.2 8.3 72.6 61.5 60.0 80.9 59.1 54.5

Fuel Store/Handle 8.0 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL OTHER

MOBILE SOURCES 69.2 46.5 42.4 430.9 385.0 380.2 171.5 128.4 120.1 3

TOTAL MOBILE

SOURCES 184.5 114.3 101.9 1661.7 1080.8 879.5 395.3 287.0 259.2 3

TOTAL
SAN JOAQUIN

VALLEY 443.5 374.9 367.6 2139.4 1554.8 1352.1 556.8 429.1 401.7

1 Emissions data for all source categories came from the ARB emissions inventory spreadsheet prepared by the California Air Resources Board for the San Joaquin Valley, v2.11_RF932PEI as accessed from the Central California Ozone Study website in January 2004. This inventory reflects control measures in place as of September 2002. Adjustments as noted below.

2 An entry of “0.0” means that emissions data are available but are equal to or less than 0.04 tons/day, and thus have been rounded to 0.0 in accordance with the rounding protocol described in Appendix A. Totals of columns may not match sum of entries due to rounding.

3 Includes line item increase of 1.5 tpd for increased aircraft operations at Lemoore Naval Air Station (2010 NOx only).

4 For the purposes of consistency, the on-road motor vehicle emissions inventory from the January 2004 CCOS inventory was replaced with the actual emissions data used in deriving the 2008 and 2010 conformity budgets presented later in this Chapter (Table 3-4).

5 VOC and NOx emissions in 2010 were increased by 1.0 tpd VOC and 0.1 tpd NOx to account for ARB lawn and garden equipment control measures whose emissions reductions were inadvertently reflected in the planning inventory before ARB adopted the Statewide Strategy

. 6 VOC and NOx emissions in 2010 were increased by 0.04 tpd VOC and 0.1 tpd NOx to account for an adopted ARB control measure for stationary internal combustion engines whose emission reductions were inadvertently reflected in the planning inventory prior to adoption of the measure.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-12 

### 3.4 FUTURE INVENTORIES

Demonstrating attainment of ambient air quality standards at a future date requires development of future year inventories that are based on assumptions of current levels of controls on sources, growth in activity in the District, use of emission reduction credits (ERCs), and implementation of future programs that affect emissions of air pollutants. These factors are discussed in the following

subsections. Table 3-1 summarizes the 2008 and 2010 emission inventories.

3.4.1 Growth Factors

Changes in the baseline emissions inventory over time result from emissions growth (or decline) and/or emissions control. Predicting future ozone precursor emission rates is traditionally accomplished by assuming that VOC and NOx emissions are directly related to social and economic activities and control levels. If social and economic activity levels increase, it is generally assumed that emissions will similarly increase. Indicators representing social and economic activity levels include population, housing, employment, barrels of oil produced, cubic feet of natural gas produced, and vehicle miles traveled. These indicators are referred to as “surrogates.” The ratio of the projected surrogate each year to the actual 1999 level of activity for each surrogate is referred to as its growth factor. Growth factors are multiplied by 1999 emissions to project future year emissions. A growth factor of less than one indicates a decline in an activity over the planning period, while a growth factor of more than one indicates an increase in activity.

ARB and the District compiled growth factor estimates for the years 2008 and 2010 for each of the eight counties within the District using the best data available. Although using growth factors is a standard method for projecting emissions, their use cannot account for all activities that might occur in an area during a given time frame. Moreover, they tend to be more accurate when applied to the Valley as a whole, rather than on a county-by-county basis. For example, one facility might gain in market share while another loses its market share even though production increases at both facilities. While the overall growth factor is correct, each facility had very different growth rates.

On-road mobile source emissions growth is estimated for each class of vehicle by ARB based on estimates of vehicle miles traveled provided by Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) located within the District, and Caltrans. ARB then disaggregates this information by vehicle class and estimates on-road mobile source emissions using the most current version of EMFAC. Also, enhanced inspection and maintenance programs for motor vehicles are factored into the mobile source projections. These data collectively represent the best available estimates on a county-by-county basis of future activity level for stationary and mobile sources within the District.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-13 3.4.2 Control Factors

After the baseline EI is multiplied by a growth factor, it is then multiplied by a control factor. A control factor is a weighted average that represents the level of controls of one or more rules and regulations and/or programs for a group of

sources. This control factor takes into account information other than control levels stated in a rule or program. Rule penetration, compliance rates, public awareness, and participation are considered in determining a control factor. Control factors need to be updated on a continuing basis as the production levels, industry types and size, programs, public awareness, and other conditions change over time. The District and ARB compiled control factor estimates using the best data available for each of the eight counties in the SJVAB, based on rule adoption schedules and program changes stated in this and other plans.

3.4.3 Inclusion of Emission Reduction Credits (ERCS)

3.4.3.1 Introduction

The District requires all new and modified stationary sources that increase

emissions in amounts in excess of emission offset thresholds to obtain emission reduction credits (ERCs) to offset the growth in emissions. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) contains the offset requirement. Offsets represent either on-site reductions or the use of banked ERCs. The District expects that some pre-baseline (pre-2000 for this Extreme

OADP ) credits will be used to allow growth from permitted stationary sources. Appendix B presents the current list of ERCs for the SJVAB for NOx and VOC.

The General Preamble to the Federal Clean Air Act (57 FR 13498) states that “the pre-baseline ERCs must be reflected as growth and included in the

attainment demonstration “ to the extent that the State expects that such credits will be used as offsets or netting prior to attainment of the ambient standards. ” The August 26, 1994 memorandum from John Seitz, EPA’s Director of Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to David Howekamp of EPA Region IX provides two ways for inclusion of these ERCs as growth by stating that “ A state may choose to show that the magnitude of the pre-1990 ERCs (in absolute tonnage) was included in the growth factor, or the state may choose to show that it was not included in the growth factor, but in addition to anticipated general growth. ”

By including the pre-baseline ERCs in the growth factor, the District has selected the first methodology provided in Seitz’s memorandum. However, in either case, the purpose is to show that

baseline inventory + growth + ERCs (pre-baseline) - offsets - reductions will result in a projected inventory adequate to attain the federal 1-hour ozone standard and any applicable rate of progress, where

growth = non-permitted growth + permitted growth offsets = ERCs (post-baseline) + ERCs (pre-baseline) reductions = reductions required by the measures in the PlanEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-14 3.4.3.2 Growth Estimate

The District used reports from the California Emission Forecasting System (CEFS) to generate emissions trends and growth estimates in this Extreme

OADP . The California Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) jointly developed the SIP/CCOS emissions inventory and associated emissions projections. Staff used the CEFS’s computer tools to develop projections and the emission estimates based on the most currently available growth and control data available at the time of the forecast runs. The CEFS was developed in the 1990s to assist in the development of air quality plans, determining how and where air pollution can be reduced, tracking progress towards meeting plans goals and mandates, and in constructing emission trends.

A key component of CEFS is the growth data. In preparation for CCOS, the growth factors were enhanced in 2001. The February 26, 2001 report titled “Development of Emissions Growth Surrogates and Activity Projections Used in Forecasting Point and Area Source Emissions” describes efforts undertaken to identify the most appropriate growth surrogates for stationary and area sources. The growth estimates generated by CEFS include growth in emissions requiring

offsets under New Source Review Rule as well those that can be accommodated without triggering offsets. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 show total growth rates of 15 tons/day of NOx, and 9.8 tons/day of VOCs. These tables also show the expected reductions for each pollutant from the measures contained or relied on in this Plan. As shown in Tables 3-2 and 3-3, the projected inventory for 2010 incorporates the projected growth as well as the expected controls from the measures contained in the Plan. Notwithstanding slight rounding errors, the projected 2010 inventory equals the baseline inventory plus the projected growth minus the expected reductions from the controls contained in the Plan.

3.4.3.3 Pre-Baseline Offset Use

Under District’s New Source Review Rule 2201, new sources with emissions exceeding the following level must offset their emissions:
NOx ................................... 20,000 lbs/year VOC.................................... 20,000 lbs/year PM10.................................. 29,200 lbs/year SOx.................................... 54,750 lbs/year CO (attainment area) ............. 200,000 lbs/year CO (non-attainment area) ....... 30,000 lbs/year

Additionally, for existing facilities with emissions meeting or exceeding the above levels, any increase in emissions must be offset. The amount of offsets required was estimated by establishing the percentage of permitting actions for each source category that would be subject to offset requirements under Rule 2201.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCDChapter 3-Emission Inventory3-15Table 3-2Estimated NOx Growth, Control, and Estimated Offset Use for Stationary Sources1SUMMARYCATEGORY NAME2000EmissionsTons/dayGrowth Factor (%)EstimatedGrowth(tons/day)ControlFactor (%)RequiredReductions(tons/day)2010EmissionsTons/dayPercentRequiringOffsetsEstimatedOffsets(tons/day)STATIONARY SOURCESFUEL COMBUSTIONELECTRIC UTILITIES3.1 15.3% 0.5 11.2% 0.4 3.1 80 0.5COGENERATION9.0 38.5% 3.5 46.8% 5.8 6.3 80 3.9OIL AND GASPRODUCTION(COMBUSTION)39.6 2.3% 0.9 39.4% 16.0 25.4 80 1.0PETROLEUMREFINING(COMBUSTION)1.5 0.1% 0.0 2.8% 0.04 1.5 80 0.0MANUFACTURINGAND INDUSTRIAL36.5 19.0% 7.0 9.5% 4.1 39.7 30 2.9FOOD ANDAGRICULTURALPROCESSING26.9 -2.5% -0.7 10.1% 2.6 23.6 10SERVICE ANDCOMMERCIAL13.7 11.7% 1.6 5.9% 0.9 14.4 50 1.1OTHER (FUELCOMBUSTION)0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0TOTAL FUELCOMBUSTION130.2 114.0EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCDChapter 3-Emission Inventory3-16Table 3-2Estimated NOx Growth, Control, and Estimated Offset Use for Stationary Sources1(cont.)SUMMARYCATEGORY NAME2000EmissionsTons/dayGrowth Factor (%)EstimatedGrowth(tons/day)ControlFactor (%)RequiredReductions(tons/day)2010EmissionsTons/dayPercentRequiringOffsetsEstimatedOffsets(tons/day)WASTE DISPOSALSEWAGE TRTMNT0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0LANDFILLS0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0INCINERATORS0.1 13.9% 0.0 0.2% 0.0 0.1 25 0.0SOIL REMEDTN0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0OTHER0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0* TOTAL WASTE DISP0.1 0.2% 0.0 0.1CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGSLAUNDERING0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0DEGREASING0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0COATINGS & REL.PROCESS SOLV0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0PRINTING0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0ADHESIVES &SEALANTS0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0OTHER (CLEANING &SFC COATINGS)0.0 109.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 10 0.0* TOTAL CLN/SFC0.0 0.0PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND MARKETINGOIL/GAS PROD.0.2 40.4% 0.1 0.1% 0.0 0.2 80 0.1PET. REFINING0.1 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.1 80 0.0PET. MARKETING0.0 39.7% 0.0 0.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0* TOTAL PETROLEUMPROD.& MARKETING0.3 0.4EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCDChapter 3-Emission Inventory3-17Table 3-2Estimated NOx Growth, Control, and Estimated Offset Use for Stationary Sources1(cont.)SUMMARYCATEGORY NAME2000EmissionsTons/dayGrowth Factor (%)EstimatedGrowth(tons/day)ControlFactor (%)RequiredReductions(tons/day)2010EmissionsTons/dayPercentRequiringOffsetsEstimatedOffsets(tons/day)INDUSTRIAL PROCESSESCHEMICAL0.1 20.6%0.00.2% 0.0 0.2 25 0.0FOOD ANDAGRICULTURE9.2 -3.0% -0.3 -0.1% -0.0 9.0 10 0.0MINERALPROCESSES1.5 17.4% 0.3 0.0% 0.0 1.7 25 0.1METAL PROCESSES0.0 6.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0WOOD AND PAPER0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0GLASS AND RELATEDPRODUCTS12.0 18.0% 2.2 28.9% 4.1 10.1 80 2.4ELECTRONICS0.0 107.7% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 25 0.0OTHER (INDUSTRIALPROCESSES)0.0 36.8% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 25 0.0* TOTAL INDUSTRIALPROCESSES22.9 21.0** TOTALSTATIONARYSOURCES153.4 135.4GRAND TOTAL FORSJVUAPCD153.4 15.0 135.4 12.11This table represents a subset of the emissions inventory data used elsewhere in this Extreme OADP, and is used only for the purposes ofestimating emission reduction credit use. It reflects only changes that are projected to occur from 2000 to 2010 in the stationary sourcecomponent of the overall inventory. Also, it was derived from an ARB emissions inventory that is different from the Central California Ozone Study(CCOS) emissions inventory Version 2.11 used for the remainder of this document, but that was developed with data consistent with the CCOSinventory. Consequently, emissions data presented in Table 3-2 may show minor differences from those in Table 3-1 for some subcategories, andshould not be directly compared with Table 3-1 or with other emissions data derived from Table 3-1.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCDChapter 3-Emission Inventory3-18Table 3-3Estimated VOC Growth, Control, and Estimated Offset Use for Stationary Sources1SUMMARYCATEGORY NAME2000EmissionsTons/dayGrowth Factor (%)EstimatedGrowth(tons/day)ControlFactor (%)RequiredReductions(tons/day)2010EmissionsTons/dayPercentRequiringOffsetsEstimatedOffsets(tons/day)STATIONARY SOURCESFUEL COMBUSTIONELECTRIC UTILITIES 0.4 37.7% 0.1 -0.1% 0.0 0.5 80 0.2COGENERATION 0.7 27.0% 0.2 -0.0% 0.0 1.0 80 0.2OIL AND GASPRODUCTION(COMBUSTION)2.7 15.6% 0.4 0.0% 0.0 3.2 80 0.5PETROLEUMREFINING(COMBUSTION)0.1 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.1 80 0.0MANUFACTURINGAND INDUSTRIAL0.3 26.3% 0.1 0.1% 0.0 0.4 25 0.03FOOD ANDAGRICULTURALPROCESSING2.7 -2.7% -0.1 -0.1% 0.0 2.6 10SERVICE ANDCOMMERCIAL1.2 10.5% 0.1 -0.0% 0.0 1.3 25 0.0OTHER (FUELCOMBUSTION)0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0* TOTAL FUELCOMBUSTION8.1 9.0WASTE DISPOSALSEWAGETREATMENT0.0 22.0% 0.0 0.6% 0.0 0.0 25 0.0LANDFILLS 2.8 21.8% 0.6 0.0% 0.0 3.4 50 0.4INCINERATORS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0.0EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCDChapter 3-Emission Inventory3-19Table 3-3Estimated VOC Growth, Control, and Estimated Offset Use for Stationary Sources1(cont.)SUMMARYCATEGORY NAME2000EmissionsTons/dayGrowth Factor (%)EstimatedGrowth(tons/day)ControlFactor (%)RequiredReductions(tons/day)2010EmissionsTons/dayPercentRequiringOffsetsEstimatedOffsets(tons/day)WASTE DISPOSAL (cont.)SOIL REMEDIATION0.0 13.6% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 25 0.0OTHER (WASTEDISPOSAL)0.5 26.3% 0.1 0.0% 0.0 0.6 25 0.0* TOTAL WASTEDISPOSAL3.3 -0.0% 4.0CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGSLAUNDERING0.1 23.6% 0.0 0.4% 0.0 0.1DEGREASING11.1 -7.7% -0.9 86.4% 8.8 1.5COATINGS &RELATED PROCESSSOLVENTS13.8 29.0% 4.0 2.1% 0.4 17.5 50 2.8PRINTING1.5 16.9% 0.2 -0.0% 0.0 1.7 25 0.1ADHESIVES ANDSEALANTS0.7 -16.8% -0.1 -0.0% 0.0 0.6 25OTHER(CLEANING &SURFACE COATINGS)2.8 43.3% 1.2 -0.0% -0.0 4.0 50 0.9*TOTAL CLEANING &SURFACE COATINGS29.9 25.4PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND MARKETINGOIL/GAS PROD. 31.6 0.4% 0.1 0.9% 0.3 31.4 80 0.1PET. REFINING 1.4 0.3% 0.0 2.1% 0.0 1.4 80 0.0PET. MARKETING 6.6 21.9% 1.5 9.6% 0.8 7.3 80 1.6* TOTAL PETROLEUMPROD. & MARKETING39.6 40.1EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCDChapter 3-Emission Inventory3-20Table 3-3Estimated VOC Growth, Control, and Estimated Offset Use for Stationary Sources1(cont.)SUMMARYCATEGORY NAME2000EmissionsTons/dayGrowth Factor (%)EstimatedGrowth(tons/day)ControlFactor (%)RequiredReductions(tons/day)2010EmissionsTons/dayPercentRequiringOffsetsEstimatedOffsets(tons/day)INDUSTRIAL PROCESSESCHEMICAL 1.9 31.7% 0.6 0.0% 0.0 2.5 25 0.2FOOD &AGRICULTURE 10.7 13.0% 1.4 2.7% 0.3 11.8 50 1.0MINERALPROCESSES 0.3 22.8% 0.1 0.0% 0.0 0.4 25 0.0METAL PROCESSES 0.2 0.4% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.2WOOD & PAPER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0GLASS & RELATEDPRODUCTS 0.1 15.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.1 80 0.0ELECTRONICS 0.0 105.9% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 25 0.0OTHER (INDUSTRIALPROCESSES) 0.1 10.0% 0.0 -0.1% 0.0 0.1 25 0.0* TOTAL INDUSTRIALPROCESSES13.3 15.1** TOTALSTATIONARYSOURCES94.2 93.5GRAND TOTAL FORSJVUAPCD94.2 9.8 93.5 8.11This table represents a subset of the emissions inventory data used elsewhere in this Extreme OADP, and is used only for the purposes ofestimating emission reduction credit use. It reflects only changes that are projected to occur from 2000 to 2010 in the stationary sourcecomponent of the overall inventory. Also, it was derived from an ARB emissions inventory that is different from the Central California Ozone Study(CCOS) emissions inventory Version 2.11 used for the remainder of this document, but that was developed with data consistent with the CCOSinventory. Consequently, emissions data presented in Table 3-2 may show minor differences from those in Table 3-1 for some subcategories, andshould not be directly compared with Table 3-1 or with other emissions data derived from Table 3-1.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-21 For each source category, this percentage was established based on past permitting history, the fraction of sources in the category with emissions at or above the offset trigger levels, and the historical permitting activity for the source category. The District used the following factors in estimating the potential need

for offsets:

• All increases from modifications to existing sources with potential emissions at or above the above offset thresholds would require offsets (District Rule 2201).

• New sources with emissions exceeding the above offset thresholds would require offsets (District Rule 2201).

• The percentage of sources that meet any of the above criteria was estimated by examining past permitting history and by projecting future permitting based on the estimated growth. For instance, the majority of permitting actions with increases in emissions from oil production facilities come from sources with potential emissions in excess of the above offset thresholds. Therefore, for that source category, it was assumed that 100% of increase in overall emissions would require offsets.

The quantity of required offsets was then established by multiplying the expected growth in emissions for each source category by this percentage and the expected offset ratio. District rule 2201 establishes offset ratios ranging from

1.3:1 to 1.5:1 based on the distance from the source of ERCs to the source with the increase in emissions. An offset ratio of 1.5:1 applies to all transactions where the distance is greater than 15 miles. Historically, most transactions in the District involve a distance of greater than 15 miles. For calendar years 2000— 2003, the average offset ratio for all permitting actions was slightly higher than 1.4:1. Therefore, the District used an average offset ratio of 1.4:1 for these

calculations.

Tables 3-2 and 3-3 contain the expected growth, percentage of activities subject to offset requirements, and the expected quantity of offsets for each pollutant.

Although some offsets are expected to come from post-baseline reduction, this Plan conservatively assumes that all offsets will be pre-baseline. The expected pre-baseline offset usage after 2000 through 2010, as shown in Tables 3-2 and 3-3, is estimated as follows:

NOx .......................................12.1 tons/day VOC ....................................... 8.1 tons/day

As shown above, the quantities of pre-baseline offsets that are expected to be used between 2000 and 2010 are less than the estimated growth in emissions for each pollutant. As currently adopted, if growth in new and modified sources occurs at the rate estimated in this Plan, the use of offsets as provided in Rule 2201 will ensure that permitted increases in major source emissions will not interfere with progress towards attainment of federal 1 hour ozone standards orEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-22 the achievement of the 3 percent per year reduction in ozone precursor emissions. As discussed in Chapter 7, the District satisfies the requirement for rate of progress with above-mentioned projected inventories and without taking credit for the ERCs required of and provided by new and modified stationary

sources.

3.4.3.4 Safeguards

In order to assure the use of pre-baseline ERCs do not interfere with attainment effort and the applicable rate of progress, this Extreme OADP incorporates the following safeguards:

• The District will place a cap on the amount of pre-baseline credits that can be used. Although the District has relied on a number of conservative assumptions in estimating the usage quantity of pre-baseline credits, some degree of uncertainty exists. For instance, unexpected growth or irregular permitting activity may occur for one or more source categories. The cap on the use of pre-baseline ERCs will be enforced by tracking the use of such credits and disallowing such credits, through permitting actions when the above-specified levels are reached. The District Rules and Regulations will be amended to require tracking and enforcement of the above referenced cap within 12 months after EPA approval of this

Extreme OADP . Appendix E lists the cap on stationary source growth by pollutant.

• Although some ERCs will come from post-baseline reductions, this

Extreme OADPconservatively assumes that all offsets will come from prebaseline reductions. As discussed earlier, federal law only requires the pre-baseline ERCs to be included in the growth and the attainment

demonstration. This Extreme OADPassumes that all ERCs will be prebaseline ERCs and, therefore, includes them all in the projected inventory as growth. Using a larger than permissible projected inventory leads to conservative conclusions relating to the attainment and rate of progress

demonstrations.

• Although permissible, this plan does not take credit for reductions and mitigations required under the District’s New Source Review Rule. In particular, this Plan does not reduce the future years emissions by taking credit for the amount of ERCs provided through permitting actions. This conservative approach assures that the attainment demonstration is not affected by the use of pre-baseline ERCs.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-23 

### 3.5 CONFORMITY BUDGETS

Section 176(c) of the FCAA outlines the conformity provision of the Clean Air Act. Federal actions are required to conform to the SIP’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of exceedances of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of these standards. The FCAA distinguishes transportation actions [those undertaken by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)] from all other federal

actions.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) must make findings that the regional transportation plans (RTPs) and transportation improvement programs (TIPs) conform to the SIP. They submit this conformity finding along with the RTP and TIP, to FHWA and FTA for approval. The conformity finding must

demonstrate that the emissions associated with the RTP and TIP do not exceed “emission budgets” that are contained in the SIP.

The District’s Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone established subarea emissions budgets for each county for ROG and NOx for 2005; in addition, the 2003 PM10 Plan established subarea emissions budgets for each county for NOx and PM for 2005, 2008 and 2010.

This Extreme OADP establishes new subarea county emissions budgets for ROG and NOx for 2008 and 2010, as provided in Table 3-4 for the purposes of conformity. After an adequacy finding by EPA, these new budgets will apply for subsequent years, unless these budgets are superseded by new budgets or by budgets set for later years.

Efforts have been made to incorporate the SJVAB MPO’s updated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) [submitted as comments in response to the release of EMFAC

2002 and used in the Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan ] into the emissions budgets. ARB staff conducted model runs to match the VMT data through adjustments to vehicle population. With this approach, emissions budgets reflect not only the latest VMT data, but also reflect the additional impact of those data on emissions from vehicle starting and from vehicle fuel evaporation. After reviewing the EMFAC results, District, ARB and TPA staff reduce the emissions estimates to account for any emissions controls that were not included in the model runs, and to make other adjustments as warranted to project emissions for future years. Table 3-4 reflects emissions reductions benefits of the California Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program, statewide measures affecting mobile sources (Chapter 4), and reductions from the District’s Indirect Source Rules (ISR) and incentive programs (Chapter 4).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-24 Table 3-4 Transportation Conformity Budgets 1

VOC Emissions (tons/day) NOx Emissions (tons/day) County 2008 2010 2008 2010

Fresno 15.8 13.0 33.7 27.7 Kern (SJVAB) 11.5 9.6 32.7 27.2 Kings 2.5 2.1 6.2 5.4

Madera 3.9 3.3 8.4 7.2

Merced 5.0 4.0 11.4 9.1 San Joaquin 9.3 7.7 22.4 17.9

Stanislaus 8.5 7.0 17.4 14.0

Tulare 8.5 6.9 18.8 15.3

Total 65.0 53.6 151.0 123.8

1 All emissions are expressed as summer tons/day, and were derived using EMFAC2002, Version 2.2 (April 2003) with updated vehicle population and vehicle miles traveled data. Emissions totals reflect the emissions reductions benefits from motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M), state measure reductions, and reductions from the District’s Indirect Source Rules (ISR) and mobile source incentive programs; consequently, totals will not match those in Table 3-1 which do not reflect these additional control measures. The budget was established by taking the EMFAC results, subtracting the emissions reductions benefits, rounding up to the nearest tenth if the hundredths place was “1” or higher. See Appendix A for county-specific breakdown of on-road motor vehicle emissions and emissions reductions benefits.



### 3.6 EMISSIONS INVENTORY UNCERTAINTIES

A substantial amount of staff work goes into developing emissions inventories for SIPs. In order to prepare a plan in time to meet deadlines, many times the inventory used as a basis for modeling must be “frozen” in time at some point 3 so that modeling can proceed and so that control measures can be evaluated. As staff works with the inventory, they often identify issues that need to be addressed to make the inventory more accurate, such as possible overestimates of source categories, underestimates of source categories, seasonal or other temporal changes in emissions that may not be reflected, or spatial distribution issues addressing how the emissions are distributed over the modeled area.

For this Extreme OADP , the following uncertainties were identified after the inventory was frozen for use in plan development: inclusion of emissions from heavy duty trucks used to haul produce from fields to processing locations; spatial distribution of on-road motor vehicle emissions in the northern four counties vs. the southern four counties; discrepancies between two different methods of estimating heavy duty truck emissions in the SJVAB; the effects of temperature discrepancies on biogenic emissions and resultant predicted ozone levels; and the effects of fires on base case ozone levels and whether or not fires should be included in future scenarios for control measure evaluation (See Chapter 5). Work continues under CCOS to evaluate these and other uncertainties so that their magnitude can be evaluated and their effect on future ozone trends quantified. ARB conducts periodic multi-agency meetings to evaluate and discuss SIP emissions inventory issues (see Appendix D).

3 For this Extreme OADP, the inventory was frozen in November 2003.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 3

- Emission Inventory

3-25 3.7 CONCLUSION

Emissions inventory data reflect the best estimates that can be made of the rates and chemical composition of air pollutants entering the atmosphere. Although some emissions are directly measured (usually those from large stationary sources equipped with continuous emissions monitors), most of the inventory is estimated using standardized techniques and methodologies. Inventories can change over time due to a number of factors including changes in source activity level, changes in emissions factors, or changes in the spatial distribution, chemical composition, or rate of the emissions.

This Extreme OADP is based on two types of inventories: a planning inventory and a modeling inventory. Air quality planners use the planning inventory to study and propose control measures, to track trends in emissions for meeting federal Rate of Progress requirements (Chapter 7) and to track the use of ERCs, and to assist in demonstrating attainment (Chapter 5). In addition, the on-road motor vehicle emissions component of the planning inventory has special importance for establishing conformity budgets for transportation planning purposes. The modeling inventory provides day-specific information used as input for the photochemical model that predicts future ozone levels in the SJVAB. The planning and modeling inventories each have cutoff dates for the inclusion of control measures (i.e., control measures adopted past the cutoff date are not reflected in the inventories and must be subtracted from the results of inventory runs and model runs).

This Extreme OADP uses the most accurate and up to date emission inventories possible within the time allowed to meet Federal Clean Air Act requirements. Many emission categories within the inventories were updated to reflect current data and emission factors. While changes and improvements to the SJVAB’s inventories are ongoing, at some point in time the planning and modeling inventories must be “frozen” to allow plan development to proceed (i.e., the inventory must be frozen so that potential future emission control measures can be evaluated for their effectiveness in attaining the federal 1-hour ozone standard). Many emission inventory improvement projects are in process or are planned, and the results of these and other studies will be reflected in the

inventories used in future SIP submittals.

# ❖

## Chapter 4 - Control Strategy

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-1 

### 4 CONTROL STRATEGY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Federal law requires the District, as an extreme nonattainment area for the federal 1-hour ozone standard, to include certain provisions in the attainment plan. Specifically, the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that this plan must

• “provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable”, (Section 172(c)(1))

• make “reasonable further progress.” (Section 172(c)(2)) and

• include “enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques...” which are needed and appropriate to demonstrate compliance with the federal standards (Section 172(c)(6)).

The California Clean Air Act, as codified in the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC), also requires the plan to

• include provisions for the use of best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) for existing permitted sources. (CH&SC Section 40919(a)(3)) and

• include “every feasible measure in the plan...” (CH&SC Section 40914(b)(2)

To satisfy these CAA and CH&SC requirements, this section of the Plan includes control measures for stationary sources subject to District regulations (with associated rule development schedules) and control measures for mobile and area sources subject to ARB rules. It also summarizes commitments made by the Valley Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA) to undertake projects with air quality benefits. Lastly, Chapter 4 includes information about local, state, and federal pollution control incentive programs.



### 4.2 DISTRICT RULE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

As a result of the previously Amended 2002 and 2005 Ozone Rate of Progress

Plan ( Ozone ROP Plan ) and the 2003 PM10 Plan ( PM10 Plan ), the District is already committed to develop a number of control measures in the form of new

or amended rules. The control measures in the Ozone ROP Plan are designed to reduce NOx and VOC emissions. During the winter months, these pollutants are also sources of secondary PM10, so the PM10 Plan includes control
measures for NOx and VOC as well.

The rule development schedule shown in Table 4-1 includes commitments from those plans for NOx and VOC reductions. The basis for these control measures is federal, state and local requirements or other considerations that are identified in the control measure detail section of this report. These measures do not

include PM10 Plan commitments that would not impact ozone formation.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANRevised 10/20/05SJVUAPCDChapter 4-Control Strategy4-2Table 4-1: District Control Measure Schedule (2004 - 2007)5ControlMeasure Rule Number DescriptionAdopt orAmendRulePollutant2008Baseline(tpd)72008Reductions(tpd)72010Baseline(tpd)2010Reductions(tpd)A 4409 New6Oil and Gas Fugitives 2Q-2005 VOC10.2 4.7B 4455 New6Refinery & Chemical Fugitives 2Q-2005 VOC0.5 0.2C 9310 New Fleet Rule - School Buses 3Q-2006 NOx2.6 0.1D9510 New63180 New6Indirect Source Mitigation14Q-2005 NOxN/A 4.0E 4307 New6Small Boilers, Process Heaters, Steam Generators,2.0 - 5.0 MMBtu/hr24Q-2005 NOx9.0 1.0F 4694 New6Wineries - Fermentation and Storage 4Q-2005 VOC2.1 0.7G 4352 Solid-Fuel Boilers, Steam Generators, & Process Htrs 2Q-2006 NOx4.4 <0.054H 47026Stationary IC Engines 2Q - 2005 NOx20.1 8.0I 4309 New6Commercial Dryers34Q-2005 NOx9.0 1.0J 4565 New Composting/Biosolids Operations31Q-2007 VOC0.7 0.1K 4602 Automotive Coating 3Q-2006 VOC1.6 0.1L 4570 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 2Q - 2006 VOC63.1 15.8M4662466346024603460446054606460746534684Organic Solvent DegreasingOrganic Solvent CleaningMotor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment CoatingSurface Coating of Metal Parts and ProductsCan and Coil Coating OperationsAerospace Assemblies and Component CoatingWood Products CoatingGraphic ArtsAdhesivesPolyester Resin Operations3Q-2007 VOC5.1 1.3EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANRevised 10/20/05SJVUAPCDChapter 4-Control Strategy4-3Table 4-1: District Control Measure Schedule (2004 - 2007)5(cont.)ControlMeasureRule Number DescriptionAdopt orAmendRulePollutant2008Baseline(tpd)2008Reductions(tpd)2010Baseline(tpd)2010Reductions(tpd)N 43086Water Heaters, 0.075 - 2.0 MMBtu/hr34Q - 2005 NOx1.4 0.2O 44016Steam-Enhanced Oil Well Vents 4Q - 2006 VOC12.8 1.4P 4651 Soil Decontamination33Q-2007 VOC<0.054<0.054Q 4103 Open Burning Phase III 2Q-2007NOxVOC2.35.81.12.9R 4682 Polymeric Foam Manufacturing 3Q - 2007 VOC0.3 0.1S 4703Stationary Gas Turbines (< 10 MW, distributedgeneration)23Q-2007 NOx2.5 0.6T 4621, 4624 Gasoline Storage & Transfer 4Q-2007 VOC3.4 0.9U New Aviation Fuel Transfer, Phase I34Q-2007 VOC0.2 <0.0541CCOS data is not available. Emissions and reductions based on reductions generated by funding projects with Indirect Source Mitigation fees.2CCOS data is not available. Emissions and reductions based on preliminary draft staff report.3CCOS data is not available. Emissions and reductions based on contracted emissions inventory report.4Rules with an average daily emissions of less than 0.05 tons/day may be included to satisfy federal and state requirements forRACT, BACT or all feasible controls.Please see the control measure details for additional information.5All data reflect CCOS SIP information using summer daily planning inventories, in tons per day (tpd), except as noted.6This control measure appears in 2003PM10 Plan(Tables 4-17 through 4-20, as amended, December 2003), but elements of the rule (e.g., estimated emissionsreductions, baseline emissions, rule description, etc.) have been updated for thisExtreme OADP; consequently, the control measure elements may not match thosepresented in the 2003PM10 Planfor the same measure. Furthermore, the following additionalPM10 Plancontrol measures, which are not shown above in Table 4-1because they were adopted as rules before the Table was developed (ca January 2004), are used in thisExtreme OADPfor attainment (Chapter 5) and rate ofprogress (Chapter 7) demonstrations: Rule 4604 (Can and Coil Coating), Rule 4408 (Glycol Dehydration Systems), Rule 4610 (GlassCoating Operations), Rule 4306(Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters), and Incentive Programs. Emissions reductions from these rules as given in Tables 4-17 through 4-20 of the 2003PM10 Planwere converted to summer emissions before being used elsewhere in thisExtreme OADP.7The 2008 baseline and Emission Reductions were originally included the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan because theearly versions of the plan weredependent on reductions from future rules to meet 2008 and 2010 Rate of Progress (ROP) requirements. On the day of plan adoption, District staff substituted a newROP demonstration that met the 2008 and 2010 ROP milestones with rules adopted as of September 2002, thereby eliminating the need for 2008 Commitments.These commitments were inadvertently left in the plan when it was sent to EPA on November 15, 2004. State law prohibits the inclusion of control measures in theState Implementation Plan that are not needed to meet federal Clean Air Act requirements (California Health and Safety Code §39062). Consequently, the Districtremoved the 2008 Commitments.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-4 4.2.1 District Control Measures

Section 172 of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requires non-attainment plans to: “provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practical (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.”

To determine what stationary source control measures might be feasible for adoption in the SJVAB, the District considered the California Air Resources

Board’s Identification of Performance Standards for Stationary Sources (as updated May 16, 2002); control measures committed to or successfully implemented in other regions [including South Coast Air Quality ManagementDistrict, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the HoustonGalveston (Texas) Area]; and control measures suggested by staff and members of the public at workshops held during the control measure development process.
Some of those control measures were eliminated from the Ozone ROP Plan and

PM10 Plan commitments, however, because:

• the District had already adopted rules as effective as those described,

• similar rules are currently being developed, or

• the SJVAB has few or no sources in the affected categories.

The District evaluated the remaining control measures, using baseline inventories, known control technology, potential emission reductions, and the feasibility of implementation by 2008. Based upon this evaluation, the District placed measures into the control measure schedule. From 2004 to 2007, the District’s rule development schedule will include the rules shown in Table 4-1. The schedule includes both new rules and amendments to existing rules that are necessary to satisfy applicable requirements including RACT, BARCT, and reasonable further progress toward attaining the one-hour ozone standard.

The control measures indicated are those that the District commits to either developing as rules, or evaluating for possible rule development. Projects may be added or removed based on information received during the development of the Plan; detailed examination of the emission inventories and feasible control measures; or future local, state and federal requirements.

The District may develop new control measure schedules in future years. These schedules will be reflected in future SIP amendments that would be adopted by the District Governing Board, submitted to ARB for review and approval, and

then submitted to EPA as a SIP amendment.

For the purposes of implementing this Extreme OADP , the District is committed to adopt and implement control measures that will achieve, in aggregate, the emissions reductions specified in Table 4-1 and described in Section 4.2.3.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-5 Emission reductions achieved in excess of the amount committed to in a given year can be applied to the emission reduction commitments of subsequent years. The District is committed to adopt the control measures listed in Table 4-1 unless these measures, or a portion thereof, are found infeasible and the District adopts other substitute measures that achieve equivalent reductions to meet any required milestone. Findings of infeasibility will be made at a regularly scheduled meeting of the District Governing Board with proper notification. For the purposes of State Implementation Plan commitments, infeasibility means that the proposed control strategy is not reasonably likely to be available by the implementation date in question, the actual emission inventory is significantly less than originally presented in the plan, or achievement of the emission reductions by that date is not cost-effective. The District acknowledges that this commitment is enforceable under Section 304(f) of the federal Clean Air Act.

4.2.2 Control Measures Table

Table 4-1 summarizes ozone precursor control measures grouped according to their proposed rule development schedule. In order to demonstrate compliance with the 2010 federal ozone standard, the District must have three years of “clean” air quality data. Therefore, control measures must be adopted as rules and implemented by operators by Spring 2008, in order for the measures to generate air quality benefits that satisfy the ozone attainment deadline. The control measures were scheduled based on a number of factors including the size of the existing emission inventory; the feasibility of control measures for the class and category of source; projected emission reductions which might result; similar controls already required or proposed by other districts; and possible implementation schedules.

Some control measures were considered that will require additional refinement of the emissions inventory and/or further research into feasible emission controls. These measures have been placed in Table 4-2 for further study.

Table 4-1 contains control measures for the rule projects currently scheduled to be developed in 2004 through 2007, as well as their projected adoption dates, emissions inventories for 2008 and 2010, and estimated reductions. These are measures for which the District has an adequate emissions inventory and/or for which reasonable control measures have been established by the District or other agency. The District has already begun rule development on many of the rules that are listed for 2004 and 2005 adoption.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-6 Table 4-2: Potential Control Measures Requiring Further Study

Further Study Rule Number(s) Description Pollutant

A 2280 Portable Equipment NOx

B New Asphalt Plant Dryers/Heaters NOx, VOC

C 4402, 4625 Sumps, Pits, and Wastewater Processing Equipment VOC

D New Fugitive Emissions - Heavy Oil
Stream VOC

E 4653 Adhesives VOC

F 4607 Graphic Arts VOC

G 4641 Cutback Asphalt Application VOC

H 4607 Restaurants, Under-fired

Charbroilers VOC

I 4902 Residential Water Heaters NOx, VOC

J New Furnaces NOx

K New Brandy Production VOC

When available, emission inventory data for 2008 and 2010 was taken from the ARB State Implementation Plan (SIP) Emission Projects (Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) Domain), Version 2.11, datasets ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ccos/fcemssumcat_cc211.php ). This data reflects the daily summer average emissions from the various for stationary source categories. The future year inventory was adjusted by ARB for projected growth and controlled for rule requirements that would apply to the source category prior to the indicated year. No adjustment was made to the baseline for the control measures indicated in Table 4-1 but the results of the proposed

control measures are reflected in the "reductions" column.

As noted in Table 4-1, emissions inventory data from several sources was used for the measures such as Composting/Biosolids Operations, for which the CCOS data was not available, or for measures such Commercial Dryers, which will only affect a small subset of a larger industrial emissions category. The emissions inventory information differs from the CCOS data in that it is typically calculated as an annual average rather than a summertime average. If comparable CCOS data were not available, the alternate data was not adjusted for growth. Because some of the emissions categories are not addressed by current rules andEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-7 regulations, the emission inventories were also not controlled for the current applicable rules. Sources for this data include the ARB emission inventory data, District-contracted emissions inventory studies, and District staff reports. Footnotes in Table 4-1 describe the specific data sources used.

Due to the necessary assumptions made in compiling the data for the CCOS inventories, the ARB emission inventory, and the contracted study inventories, results of the final rule development calculations may differ from each of these. As a routine step in the rule development process, the District generates specific emission baseline and reduction information. Such information is typically based on detailed information about actual equipment and control levels, and therefore is a more accurate reflection of the true emissions and reduction potentials in the SJVAB. Where appropriate, the more accurate data will be submitted to update the CCOS and ARB inventories. Future planning exercises will reflect the more accurate baseline inventory and emission reduction data as it is developed.

The emission reductions indicated in Table 4-1 are based on percent reductions from the baseline emission inventories. These percentages reflect assumed control technologies, control effectiveness, and rule applicability and penetration rates. The percent reduction represents the District's reduction commitment for the particular control measure. Table 4-1 emission reduction numbers (in tons per day) reflect the current emission inventory data and reflect the outcome of the percentage commitment, but are subject to revision as the inventories are refined. For example, scientists and engineers are now studying the emission factor for the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations category to determine if the current factor accurately represents VOC emissions. The outcome of that study will be used to update the emissions inventory and could result in a new estimated emissions reduction. These changes, however, will not necessarily impact the percent reduction that is applied to the category.

Table 4-2 indicates the further study categories that the District will investigate for potential future emission reductions. Assuming controls are feasible and emission reductions are significant, rule development activity for these categories would most likely occur in 2006 or later. These projects would address categories for which adequate emission inventories are not currently available or for which emission control strategies must be further researched and developed. Consequently, the further study measures in Table 4-2 are not District commitments for specific emission reductions or for future rulemaking. Rather, they are areas of further study to determine the potential for future emission reductions. For several of these measures, staff has already begun examining the emissions data and conducting research on potential control measures. The District believes that some of the measures may have small baseline emission inventories that would not generate significant emission reductions. Other control measures may be proposed based on technology-forcing standards proposed by other districts and for which a particular emission standard has notEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-8 been demonstrated or is not commonly available. Each of the measures in Table 4-2 will be further evaluated, and may be either placed in the rule development schedule or ruled out as potential control measures.

4.2.3 2004 – 2007 Control Measures

This section provides specific information about the control measures, as shown in Table 4-1, that are scheduled for rule development between 2004 and 2007. The District will determine the details of the resulting rules during the rule development process based on applicable federal, state and local requirements, socioeconomic factors, and other information provided by public comments.

During the rule development process, the District examines the existing rules of other air districts, and in-use and emerging control technologies, to identify levels representing the best feasible control standard for a given measure. Emission reductions shown are based on implementing feasible controls on the applicable emission inventories. The District may adjust these reductions to reflect any new control technology, source data, or practices that are discovered during rule development process.

4.2.3.1 Control Measure A: New Rule 4409 (Oil and Gas Fugitives)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE: New Rule 4409 is a Current Rule

commitment in the PM10 Plan and was listed in the Ozone ROP Plan as an All Feasible Measure suggested by the EPA. It would reduce fugitive VOC emissions from crude oil and gas production operations and natural gas processing plants.

AFFECTED SOURCES: Rule 4409 would apply to sources involved in the production of crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids. There are approximately 200 businesses in the San Joaquin Valley that are potentially subject to Rule 4409. The California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Report shows approximately 105 oil and/or gas production fields in the San Joaquin Valley. The District’s permit database indicates eight permitted natural gas processing plants.

DESCRIPTION: Crude oil and gas production facilities and natural gas processing facilities contain a large number of various types of components such as pipes, flanges, valves, fittings, threaded connections, hatches, pressure relief valves, pumps, and compressors. Leakage of fluids or gases from these components can be expected to occur during process and transfer operations, causing fugitive VOC emissions. The actual percentage of leaking components for most of these facilities may be small, but due to the large number of components the fugitive VOC emissions from leaking components, in aggregate, could be significant.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-9 Possible controls include lowering the current gaseous leak threshold of 10,000 ppmv, eliminating some existing exemptions, improving the existing inspection and repair programs by increasing the frequency of inspection, and shortening the repair period for leaking components and replacing frequently leaking components with Best Available Control Technology.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: The rule was adopted on April 20, 2005. Full implementation is scheduled for the second quarter of 2006.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: Total VOC emissions from sources subject to Rule 4409 are estimated to be 10.4 tons per day in 2008. After full implementation of Rule 4409, reductions of 4.7 tons of VOC per day are anticipated.

4.2.3.2 Control Measure B: New Rule 4455 (Refinery & Chemical Fugitives)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE: New Rule 4455 is a Current Rule

commitment in the PM10 Plan and was listed in the Ozone ROP Plan as an All Feasible Measure suggested by the EPA. Rule 4455 would replace existing Rules 4451 and 4452, and it would reduce fugitive VOC emissions from leaking components in petroleum refining and chemical manufacturing plants by strengthening and expanding the requirements compared to the existing rules.

AFFECTED SOURCES: Rule 4455 would apply to businesses involved in petroleum refining and production of industrial organic chemicals. There are four petroleum refineries and one gas-liquids processing facility that would be subject to Rule 4455. One chemical plant currently operates in the San Joaquin Valley.

DESCRIPTION: Petroleum facilities, gas liquids processing facilities, and chemical plants contain a large number of various types of components such as pipes, flanges, valves, threaded connections, pressure relief valves, process drains, pumps, and compressors. Leakage of fluids or gases from these components can be expected to occur during process and transfer operations, causing fugitive VOC emissions. The actual percentage of leaking components for most of these facilities may be small, but due to the large number of components the fugitive VOC emissions from leaking components, in aggregate, could be large.

In general, the state RACT/BARCT guidelines and similar rules from other air districts establish lower leak thresholds, require operators to conduct more frequent inspections of components, and provide shorter periods to repair leaking components than currently allowed in Rules 4451 and 4452. Rule 4455 wouldEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-10 replace those rules and would be more effective by implementing a rigorous leak detection and repair program and by requiring BACT equipment to replace frequently leaking devices.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: The rule was adopted on April 20, 2005.. Full implementation is scheduled for the second quarter of 2006.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: Total VOC emissions from sources subject to Rule 4455 are estimated to be 0.5 tons per day in 2008. Upon full implementation of Rule 4455, reductions of 0.2 tons of VOC per day are anticipated.

4.2.3.3 Control Measure C: New Rule 9310 ( Fleet Rule – School Buses)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE: The PM10 Plan and Ozone ROP Plan

identified the need for on-road fleet rules to address mobile source emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. Rule 9310 is a new rule that would reduce NOx and PM10 emissions from school bus fleets and consequently reduce the public's exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) and criteria pollutants. Reductions would be accomplished through the use of new, cleaner vehicles or by retrofitting existing buses with improved engines or emission controls.

AFFECTED SOURCES : Rule 9310 would apply to operators of school bus fleets for elementary and secondary schools. Based on a 2003 survey, there are approximately 2,755 schools buses, operating in public and private contract fleets, in the District. This was the single largest group of public agency fleet vehicles of any one particular fleet class, accounting for 45% of the total number

of fleet vehicles in the District.

DESCRIPTION: The new rule is designed to reduce NOx and PM emissions from school buses. This rule is intended to achieve greater and earlier NOx and PM emission reductions than would occur through the normal vehicle replacement process for these buses.

Emissions from school bus fleets could be reduced in a number of ways, including

• replacing existing buses with newer, cleaner buses before their normally scheduled retirement;

• replacing older engines of existing buses with newer engines using cleaner emissions technology;

• retrofitting emission control technology to existing buses; or

• modifying existing buses to use cleaner-burning diesel or alternate

fuels.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-11 Generally, older-model school buses emit more TACs and other air pollutants than the more current models. More than one-third of the existing school buses are fifteen years old or older, and were manufactured to less stringent emission

standards than those for later-model school buses. The oldest buses would benefit most from either complete replacement or repowering to reduce tailpipe

emissions.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE : Rule development is in progress with adoption scheduled for third quarter of 2006. Implementation will begin in the fourth quarter of 2007; however, due to the quantity and the cost of school buses, and limited school district budgets, full rule implementation is expected to occur well

after 2010.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: Total NOx emissions from sources that will be subject to Rule 9310 are estimated to be 2.5 tons per day in 2008, with 0.1 tons/day of NOx reduced by 2010. Upon full implementation of this rule in 2015, reductions of 1.1 tons of NOx per day is anticipated.

4.2.3.4 Control Measure D: New Rules 9510 (Indirect Source Mitigation Program) and 3180 (Indirect Source Mitigation Fee)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE: These rules are Current Rule commitments

in the 2003 PM10 Plan and post-2003 Control Measures in the Ozone ROP Plan . In addition, California State Senate Bill (SB) 709, approved September 22, 2003 requires the District to adopt a schedule of fees on area-wide and indirect sources of emissions that are regulated, but for which permits are not issued. Growth in

indirect source emissions and related area source emissions offsets a substantial portion of the benefit of emission controls on motor vehicles and stationary sources. Mitigation fees provide an option to reduce emissions off-site when additional on-site

emission reductions are not feasible.

AFFECTED SOURCES: Phase I of the program, contained in Rule 9510 and 3180, will be applicable to residential development projects that generate indirect

emissions from mobile sources and area source emissions from other on-site activities not subject to District permitting. Phase II and Phase III will address commercial/institutional and industrial development projects (respectively) that generate indirect emissions from mobile sources and area source emissions from other on-site activities not subject to District permitting.

DESCRIPTION: Indirect sources are land use activities, such as housing developments, shopping malls, and industrial sites, that attract or generate motor vehicle trips. Indirect source emissions are not emitted directly from permitted equipment or activities at the location, as is the case for traditional permitted stationary sources such as boilers, engines or fuel storage tanks. Indirect sourceEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-12 emissions are created by motor vehicle trips to and from the site. The program is also considering emissions from area sources such as water heaters and landscape maintenance equipment. This program will have three phases at a minimum and will include residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional developments.

Under the Indirect Source Mitigation Program, development projects would be required to mitigate a portion of their emissions with onsite mitigation and/or by contributing to a mitigation fund that would be used to pay for the most cost-effective projects to reduce emissions. The amount of the fee can be revised depending on the emission reductions required to meet rate of progress and the emission reducing projects available to fund. The program could be managed by the District or delegated to cities and counties.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Rule adoption is scheduled for fourth quarter of 2005. Rule implementation will begin in the first quarter of 2006.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: The District has committed to a reduction of 4.0 tons per day of NOx from the Indirect Source Mitigation Program in

the 2003 PM10 Plan . The reductions associated with Phase I through Rule 9510 and 3180 will be a portion of that number that has yet to be determined. The NOx reductions are projected to come from reducing emissions from off-site mobile sources, such as heavy-duty trucks, school buses, and off-road equipment. Reductions could also be generated by development measures that reduce vehicle trips or miles traveled, and area source emissions from equipment and products used for building and landscape maintenance. The mitigation program will not be limited to these sources, however, and any cost-effective project that reduces

emissions would be considered.

4.2.3.5 Control Measure E: New Rule 4307 (Small Boilers, Process Heaters, and Steam Generators, 2.0–5.0 MMBtu/hr)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : New Rule 4307 is a New Commitment (ID I) in the PM10 Plan and was listed in the Ozone ROP Plan as an All Feasible Measure suggested by the EPA. It is intended to reduce NOx and SOx emissions and to reduce future increases in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from boilers, process heaters, and steam generators. The measure would affect any new or existing boiler, steam generator, and/or process heater with a rated heat input capacity greater than 2 million Btu/hour but less than or equal to 5
MMBtu/hr. The PM10 Plan identified emissions from these units as a significant category. Since NOx and SOx emissions from smaller boilers, steam generators, and process heaters, exceed the de minimus threshold levels, they are subject to federal BACM requirements. The District currently has rules applying to similar equipment rated greater than 5.0 MMBtu/hr.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-13 AFFECTED SOURCES : Facilities with units that are subject to this control measure represent a wide range of industries, including but not limited to medical facilities, educational institutions, office buildings, prisons, military facilities, hotels, and industrial facilities (including agricultural processing facilities). Due to the diversity of affected industries, units in this source category are located throughout the SJVAB. Based on population and job base, there are likely to be more units located in urban and suburban settings. The emissions inventory categories affected include Manufacturing and Industrial Fuel Combustion, and

Service and Commercial-Other Fuel Combustion.

DESCRIPTION : These units are not currently regulated by the District permitting process or a prohibitory rule. The District does not currently issue permits to operate for gas-fired equipment in this source category, but may do so in the future. Combustion modifications appropriate for small boilers, steam generators, and process heaters include low excess air, low NOx burners, water/steam injection, and flue gas recirculation (FGR). Post-combustion controls can include the use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) treatment of the exhaust stream.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE : Rule adoption is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2005. Implementation is scheduled to begin in the fourth quarter of 2007 with full BACM implementation by 2009.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS : Total NOx emissions from this category are estimated to be 8.8 tons per day in 2008. Upon final implementation of this control measure, 1.0 tons per day of NOx reductions is anticipated.

4.2.3.6 Control Measure F: New Rule 4694 (Wineries – Fermentation and Storage)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : New Rule 4694 is a New Commitment (ID K) in the PM10 Plan and a post-2003 control measure in the Ozone ROP

Plan . It is intended to reduce VOC emissions from the fermentation of grapes in winery operations. The Ozone ROP Plan identified emissions from such operations as exceeding the major source threshold level; consequently, Federal RACT requirements apply to these operations.

AFFECTED SOURCES: According to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), there are 109 wineries licensed to operate in the SJVAB. Of these wineries, 43 facilities produce 99% of the emissions; the rule is most likely to affect these facilities.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-14 DESCRIPTION : Two winery processes that produce significant VOC emissions are wine fermentation and bulk wine storage. This control measure is designed to reduce the emissions from the fermentation and storage processes. Future rule development will address the VOC emissions from brandy production and storage.

While limited fermentation may be conducted at any time of the year, the primary fermentation season occurs in the fall, during a 90-day period following the grape harvest. Fermentation of a single batch of wine will normally be completed in a three to ten day period, depending in the variety of wine and the chemistry of the particular batch. The process of fermentation produces VOC emissions which offgas to the atmosphere through tank openings.

The District does not regulate these operations through either the permitting process or a prohibitory rule. Emission controls (other than process refrigeration) are not currently being used during the production of wines. Reduction of VOC could be achieved through the use of tanks with vapor collection and control systems, carbon adsorption, water scrubbers, catalytic incineration, condensation, and additional temperature control as appropriate.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE : Rule adoption is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2005. Full implementation is projected for the year 2009.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: Total summer planning VOC emissions from sources subject to the wineries control measure are estimated to be 2.1 tons per day in 2008. Upon final implementation of the wine fermentation control measure, summer planning reductions of 0.7 tons of VOC per day are anticipated.

4.2.3.7 Control Measure G: Rule 4352 (Solid Fuel Fired Boiler, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE: Amending Rule 4352 is a New Commitment (ID H) in the PM10 Plan and a post-2003 Control Measure in the

Ozone ROP Plan . NOx emissions from solid fuel fired boilers, steam generators, and process heaters, exceed the major source threshold levels, and therefore are subject to federal RACT requirements. This commitment is intended to address those requirements.

AFFECTED SOURCES : There are 14 permitted units in this category within the District , with half of the units located in the District’s Southern Region, and the remaining units split between the Central and Northern Regions. Facilities in this category generate utility and industrial power (electricity and heat) by burning solid fuels including petroleum coke, municipal solid waste, tires or biomassEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-15 wastes (including wood, vine clippings, leaves, grass, and other by products of the farming and food processing industries).

DESCRIPTION: Rule 4352 (Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters) regulates the NOx and CO emissions from this category by specifying allowable emission rates. Rule 4352 currently contains the old definition for the major source NOx threshold so it applies only to units at facilities emitting over 50 tons of NOx per year. The rule is being amended to include the current major definition and ensure that all major sources are subject to this rule.

The rule’s current emission limits may be made more stringent if amended to be consistent with current state's " all feasible measure" requirements. Existing facilities are already operating at or below the "all feasible" NOx limit so no NOx reductions would result from incorporating that limit.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE : Adoption of Rule 4352 is scheduled for the second quarter of 2006, and full implementation is scheduled for the first quarter

in 2009.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: Total NOx emissions from sources subject to this control measure are estimated to be 3.8 tons per day in 2008. Because existing facilities are already compliant with the "all feasible" measure NOx emission level, no actual reduction is anticipated.

4.2.3.8 Control Measure H: Rule 4702 (Stationary IC Engines)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : Amending Rule 4702 is a New Commitment (ID N) in the PM10 Plan and a post-2003 Control Measure in the

Ozone ROP Plan . This rule currently controls NOx emissions from stationary, spark-ignited IC engines. Rule 4702 would be expanded to cover all internal combustion engines rated greater than 50 brake horsepower, including those used in agricultural operations.

AFFECTED SOURCES : It is estimated that there are approximately 4,500 diesel fueled internal combustion engines, rated greater than 50 brake horsepower,used in agricultural irrigation operations in the SJVAB. The number of sparkignition internal combustion engines, rated greater than 50 brake horsepower and used in agricultural operations is currently estimated at approximately 530 units (engines powering wind machines could significantly increase this number; note that these machines typically do not operate during ozone season, so this omission is not important for this Extreme OADP

.

DESCRIPTION: Rule 4702 currently controls emissions from spark-ignition stationary IC engines by requiring them to meet specific NOx emission limitsEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-16 when operating. All engines used in agricultural operations were previously exempted from Rule 4702 pursuant to state law, (CH&SC 42310(e)). That law was rescinded effective January 1, 2004 and the District is currently amending Rule 4702 to address this equipment category and other compression ignition engines.

NOx emissions reduction can be achieved by making such engines, as well as all diesel-fueled engines, subject to NOx emission limits in Rule 4702. Many farmers have recently installed new, cleaner-burning engines with funding under the Moyer program. Further reductions can be achieved by increasing the stringency of NOx emission limits to meet recently adopted Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) standards and by making the standards applicable to certain engines now exempted from the rule.

There are several possible options that are commonly used to control engine emissions. The option with the highest reduction potential is to replace existing engines with electric motors and many locations already have hookup for electric motors. Other strategies would include replacing old engines with newer cleaner engines; retrofit older engines with add-on exhaust control devices; or converting existing engines to a cleaner-burning fuel or alternate fuels. The emission limits and compliance schedule for agricultural engines will be developed pursuant to the requirements of CH&SC 40724 and will reflect the most stringent technically and economically feasible of the candidate control options.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE : CH&SC 40724 mandated the schedule for rule development for such engines. Therefore, on or before July 1, 2005, the District must propose to adopt the final rules at a noticed public hearing, and rule implementation must commence on or before January 1, 2006. The rule was adopted on June 16, 2005.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION : The NOx emissions from internal combustion engines rated greater than 50 brake horsepower and used in agricultural irrigation operations, are estimated to be 21.0 tons per day in 2008. Upon full implementation, it is anticipated those NOx emissions would be reduced by 8.4 tons per day.

4.2.3.9 Control Measure I: New Rule 4309 (Commercial Dryers)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : This new rule is a New Commitment (ID C) in the PM10 Plan and a post-2003 Control Measure in the Ozone ROP Plan

. NOx and SOx emissions from industrial and commercial dryers exceed the “de minimus threshold” levels, therefore, are subject to federal BACM requirements.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-17 AFFECTED SOURCES: Dryers are used to remove water from process material by heating which causing evaporation of the water. Most dryers in the SJVAB are used to remove moisture from fruits, nuts, vegetables, cotton, and also from clothing at laundries and dry cleaning plants. Facilities with units that are subject to this control measure represent a wide range of industries, including but not limited to cotton ginning, nut, fruits and vegetable processing, dairy products, laundry cleaning services, and concrete manufacturing. Units in this source category are located throughout the eight county area of the SJVAB.

DESCRIPTION : These units are currently subject to District permitting requirements, but not a specific prohibitory rule. The new rule would establish NOx and SOx emission standards for dryers subject to permitting requirements. Differing emission standards may be established based on the heat input capacity of the dryer, and whether the unit is new or existing. Dryers are typically direct-fired, meaning that the exhaust directly contacts the material being heated. To reduce particulate contamination, dryers are predominantly fired on natural gas or propane. Emission controls appropriate for dryers include use of PUC quality natural gas, excess air controllers, low-NOx burners, and flue gas recirculation (FGR).

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE : Rule adoption is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2005. Full BACM implementation for NOx and SOx is projected for the year 2009.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION: Total NOx emissions from sources subject to the Dryer control measure are estimated to be 8.8 tons per day in 2008. Upon final implementation of the dryer control measure, a reduction of 1.0 tons per day of NOx is anticipated.

4.2.3.10 Control Measure J: New Rule 4565 (Composting/Biosolids Operations)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : This new rule is identified in the Ozone

ROP Plan as requiring additional emissions inventory development. This rule is designed to reduce VOC emissions created during the composting of biosolids including sewage sludge, agricultural waste, and other greenwaste.

AFFECTED SOURCES: This category would address emissions from new and existing sources involved with composting biosolids or mixtures of biosolids including emissions arising from the beneficial use or disposal of sewage sludge derived from the treatment of municipal wastewater, whether from within the District and imported from outside the District. Beneficial uses include land application, composting, and use as landfill cover, among others. Disposal methods include surface disposal, landfilling, and incineration. FacilitiesEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-18 involved with these activities are classified as Biosolids Management (EIC 199- 995-0260-0000).

DESCRIPTION: This project would investigate the emissions and controls for composting biosolids to determine if emission controls are feasible and if VOC reductions are achievable. Biosolids are primarily generated as waste byproducts from municipal wastewater treatment, livestock operations, agricultural operations and commercial and residential landscaping. Many factors increase the potential emissions inventory for this category. These

factors include:

• Growing populations in Valley communities increases demands on municipal wastewater treatment as well as generating more landscaping waste material.

• New and expanded confined animal feeding operations generate more livestock waste. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is currently working on a rule amendment to have the

removal of livestock waste from the South Coast Air Basin as a control option, which may increase the District’s inventory for this category.

• Recent changes to the CH&SC will phase out traditional open burning of agricultural waste, increasing pressure to compost.

• State and federal landfill regulations promote composting of green waste and other biodegradable materials to extend landfill capacities.

VOC emission controls are currently under investigation and could include vapor collection and control systems, forced aeration, and windrow of materials to generate beneficial soil amendments,

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Adoption for this control measure will be the first quarter of 2007 with full implementation projected for the year 2010.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: Total VOC emissions from sources subject to this rule are estimated to be 0.7 tons per day in 2008. Upon full implementation of this rule, a reduction of 0.1 tons of VOC per day is anticipated.

4.2.3.11 Control Measure K: Rule 4602 (Automotive Coating)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE: Amending Rule 4602 was listed in the
Ozone ROP Plan as an All Feasible Measure suggested by the EPA. This control measure is intended to reduce VOC emissions from coating used in automotive coating operations by incorporating more stringent material limits.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-19 AFFECTED SOURCES: The measure would affect any new or existing operations involved with coating automobile, parts, and accessories.

DESCRIPTION: Rule 4602 controls emissions from automobile and automotive parts and products coating operations by specifying coating material VOC limits, allowable application equipment, and emission control options. CAPCOA has proposed that districts adopt a uniform rule for this category based on the most stringent coating material limits required by the various districts. Amendments to Rule 4602 would incorporate those new standards and help establish a uniform automotive coating requirement throughout California.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Adoption of Rule 4602 amendments is scheduled for the third quarter of 2006, and full implementation is scheduled for the first quarter in 2009.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: Total VOC emissions from sources subject to Rule 4602 are estimated to be 1.6 tons per day in 2008. Upon full implementation of this rule, a reduction 0.1 tons of VOC per day is anticipated.

4.2.3.12 Control Measure L: New Rule 4570 (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : New Rule 4570 is a New Commitment (ID A) in the PM10 Plan and a post-2003 Control Measure in the Ozone ROP

Plan . It is intended to reduce VOC emissions from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). This is also a requirement of CH&SC Section 40724.6.

AFFECTED SOURCES : Rule 4570 would affect operations including dairies, cattle feedlots, poultry ranches, and other agricultural operations involving animal husbandry. The exact number of affected facilities will be determined during therule development process based on exemption levels derived from the costeffectiveness of available controls.

DESCRIPTION: Operations involved with the raising of fowls or animals were previously exempted from District permitting pursuant to state law (CH&SC 42310(e)) that was rescinded effective January 1, 2004. VOC emissions may be reduced by controlling emissions from feedlots and from supporting operations such as waste treatment lagoons.

The BACM and BARCT emission limits and compliance schedule for CAFOs will be developed pursuant to the requirements of CH&SC 40724.6 and will reflect the technical and economic feasibility of candidate control options.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-20 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE : CH&SC 40724.6 mandates the schedule for rule development for CAFOs. Therefore, on or before July 1, 2006, the District must propose to adopt the final rules at a noticed public hearing, and rule implementation must commence on or before January 1, 2007.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: Total VOC emissions from sources subject to Rule 4570 are estimated to be 60.9 tons per day in 2008. Upon full implementation of this rule, a reduction of 15.8 tons of VOC per day is anticipated. These emission estimates are based on the currently accepted emission factors. Research in this area is being conducted which may lead to more accurate emission factors. The emissions and emission reductions may be updated in the future to reflect the most accurate information and such information would be incorporated into future plan updates.

4.2.3.13 Control Measure M: Rule 4662 (Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations); Rule 4663 (Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage, and Disposal); Rule 4602 (Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating); Rule 4603 (Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products); Rule 4604 (Can and Coil Coating Operations); Rule 4605 (Aerospace Assemblies and Component Coating); Rule 4606 (Wood Products Coating); Rule 4607 (Graphic Arts); Rule (Adhesives); and Rule 4684 (Polyester Resin Operations)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE: Amending these rules was identified as a state required "All Feasible Measure". This control measure is intended to reduce VOC emissions from organic solvents used in parts and equipment cleaning by incorporating more stringent VOC content limits.

AFFECTED SOURCES: The measure would affect any new or existing operations involved using organic solvents for parts or equipment cleaning.

DESCRIPTION: Rule 4662 controls VOC emissions from organic solvent degreasing operations by specifying solvent VOC limits, allowable application equipment, and emission control options. Rule 4663 controls VOC emissions from organic solvents used to clean parts and equipment outside of the degreasers covered by Rule 4662. The other rules address solvents used to prepare surfaces and clean equipment used in the applicable operation addressed by the rules. Since these rules were last amended, other air districts have started requiring lower-VOC solvents (25 grams VOC per liter). Amendments to these rules would incorporate this new standard and help establish a uniform organic solvent cleaning standard for businesses in
California.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-21 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Amendments of these rules is scheduled for the third quarter of 2007 with full implementation scheduled for the fourth quarter

in 2008.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: The emissions from sources affected by the control measure are estimated at 4.9 tons VOC per day in 2008. Upon final implementation of the proposed control measure, a reduction of 1.3 tons of VOC per day is anticipated.

4.2.3.14 Control Measure N: New Rule 4308 (Water Heaters, 0.075–2.0 MMBtu/hr)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : This new rule is a New Commitment (ID J) in the PM10 Plan and a post-2003 control in the Ozone ROP Plan . NOx emissions from industrial, commercial and institutional water heaters in the SJVAB appear to be large enough to warrant control through new emission

control measures.

AFFECTED SOURCES : Facilities with such units represent a wide range of industries, including medical facilities, educational institutions, office buildings, prisons, military facilities, hotels, and industrial facilities. Due to the diversity of industries, units in this source category are located throughout the District, but primarily in urban and suburban settings. Thus the sources likely to be affected by this rule are not confined to a particular geographic area within the SJVAB nor are they confined to a particular economic sector.

DESCRIPTION : The new rule would likely affect new commercial, industrial, or institutional water heaters with a rated heat input capacity between 75,000 Btu/hr and 2 MMBtu/hr. These heaters typically use fuel combustion to heat water needed for industrial, commercial, or institutional processes. Affected units are similar in principle to residential water heaters, but combust fuel at greater rates and produce greater quantities of hot water. For this particular control measure, NOx prohibitory rules may be coupled with a financial incentive program to accelerate the replacement or retrofit of higher-polluting units. The District does not control these emissions either through the permitting process or through a prohibitory rule, and the District does not anticipate issuing permits for these

units in the future.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE : Rule adoption is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2005. Standards will apply to new units commencing in the first quarter of 2007. Full implementation is expected to take 20 to 30 years.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: Total NOx emissions from sources subject to the Water Heaters control measure are estimated to be 1.4EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-22 tons per day in 2008. By 2010, through implementation of Control Measure N, the District anticipates a reduction of 0.2 tons per day of NOx from that amount (such that the 1.4 tons/day would be reduced to 1.2 tons/day).

4.2.3.15 Control Measure O: Rule 4401 (Steam-Enhanced Oil Well Vents)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE: Amending Rule 4401 is a New Commitment (ID L) in the PM10 Plan and a post-2003 Control Measure in the

Ozone ROP Plan

. VOC emissions from steam enhanced crude oil production well vents are significant and the rule can be strengthened to generate emission

reductions.

AFFECTED SOURCES: This control measure would reduce VOC emissions from steam-enhanced crude oil production wells and associated vapor collection and control systems. 1998, there were approximately 23,000 active steam enhanced crude oil production wells in the SJVAB. Most of the steam enhanced crude oil production wells are located in Kern County. As the wells operate throughout the year, emissions occur uniformly during the year. Rule 4401 prohibits the operation of steam enhanced crude oil production wells unless the VOC emissions from oil production well vents are reduced by at least 99 percent by weight. This level of control can be achieved through the operation of a vapor collection and control system. The rule also requires that well vent vapor collection and control systems be maintained in good repair, with standards for specified allowable number of leaks depending upon the number of wells connected to the systems. Limited numbers of cyclic wells that meet specified conditions are currently exempted from the rule. Sources are also subject to Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants).

DESCRIPTION: Further emission reductions can be achieved by lowering the exemption thresholds to make more sources subject to the rule. The rule is enforced through District permit and enforcement programs and would include inspections, annual on-site emission source testing, and record keeping.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Adoption for this control measure is anticipated by the fourth quarter of 2006 and full BACM implementation is projected by 2010.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: Total VOC emissions from sources subject to the Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil Production Well Vents control measure are estimated to be 13.2 tons per day in 2008. Upon full implementation of this rule, a reduction of 1.4 tons of VOC per day is anticipated.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-23 4.2.3.16 Control Measure P: Rule 4651 (Soil Decontamination)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : Amending Rule 4651 is identified in the
Ozone ROP Plan as requiring additional emissions inventory development. This rule is designed to reduce VOC emissions created during activities in the

remediation of contaminated soils.

AFFECTED SOURCES: This rule applies to projects for remediation of contaminated soils. Soil contamination from organic materials occurs due to leaking storage and handling systems, operating losses, and accidental spills. Remediation projects are normally short-lived, typically ranging from a few hours to a year, depending on the extent of the contamination. Due to the unplanned, unexpected and random nature of spills, it is not possible to quantify a specific

number of sources.

DESCRIPTION: This project would upgrade the control requirements for soilremediation operations. Soil remediation is normally conducted using either insitu techniques, in which the contaminated soil is left in place, or ex-situ techniques, in which the soil is excavated then treated and replaced, or permanently removed from the site. In-situ remediation techniques include soil vapor extraction, bioremediation, and liquid displacement. Ex-situ remediation techniques include limited aeration, thermal desorption (drying); and landfilling. VOC emissions generated by remediation projects can be controlled by a variety of common VOC controls such as capture and thermal destruction, biofiltration beds, carbon adsorption, condensation, and burial in sealed drums or in impermeable landfills.

Past in-situ projects have predominantly relied on soil vapor extraction and either carbon adsorption or thermal destruction, but bioremediation has also gained favor for smaller projects. Bioremediation uses either naturally-occurring or specifically-introduced microbes to consume soil contaminants. Ex-situ

remediation favors limited soil aeration for small or low-level concentration. Larger projects typically involve excavation and then landfilling the soil as a hazardous material. A limited survey of landfill operators indicated that as much

as 90% of the contaminated soil received in 2002 was from sources outside the
SJVAB.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Adoption for this control measure is anticipated in the third quarter of 2007 with full implementation for VOC control projected for the year 2009.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: Total VOC emissions from sources subject to this control measure are estimated to be less than 0.05 tons per day in 2008. Upon full implementation of this rule, a reduction of less thanEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-24 0.05 tons of VOC per day is anticipated. These figures are subject to revision since the current emissions inventory may not have captured all of the contaminated material originating from sources outside of the District.

4.2.3.17 Control Measure Q: Rule 4103 (Open Burning Phase III)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE: Amending Rule 4103 is intended to reduce NOx and VOC emissions from the open burning of agricultural waste materials as required by recent amendments to the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC), which are described below.

AFFECTED SOURCES: Rule 4103 regulates and coordinates the use of open burning while trying to minimize impacts on the public. Affected sources are agricultural operations throughout the Valley which use open burning to dispose of agricultural waste, eliminate pests, and control plant diseases.

DESCRIPTION: Rule 4103 prohibits agricultural burning on days that the District declares to be no-burn days. No-burn days are days during which meteorological conditions are not conducive to good ventilation and mixing, but they are not necessarily days expected to experience high ozone concentrations. Open burning is controlled on days when the ozone standard is in jeopardy of being exceeded. This rule also prescribes conditions under which burning must be conducted to minimize smoke and controls would be instituted on those days
when emissions of NOx and VOC contribute to exceedances of the ozone

standard.

Open burning is now required be phased out between 2005 and 2010, pursuant to the schedule in CH&SC 41855.5(a). CH&SC 41855.6 allows the District to postpone the commencement date of a burn prohibition, provided several conditions exist, including the lack of economically feasible alternatives to burning. NOx and VOC emissions reduction will be achieved by the new requirement. CH&SC 41855.5(d)(1) requires the District develop a rule to regulate limited open burning for disposal of diseased crops and weed control.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE : CH&SC 41855.5 mandated the schedule for rule development for these projects. On or before January 1, 2005, the District must propose to adopt the final diseased-crop burning rule at a noticed public hearing, and rule implementation must commence on or before January 1, 2006. Provisions of the open burning restrictions are self-implementing and will begin in June 2005 with full implementation by 2010. The District will adopt rule amendments before the applicable restriction dates which address appropriate provisions for selected materials for which there are no reasonable alternatives to burning.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-25 EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION : Adoption for this control measure will be phased in during 2005 and 2007 with full implementation projected for the year 2010. Total emissions from sources subject to this control measure are estimated to be 2.3 tons of NOx and 5.8 tons of VOC per day in 2008. Upon full implementation of this rule, a reduction of 1.1 tons per day of NOx and 2.9 tons per day of VOC is anticipated in 2010. The exact reductions realized will depend on the extent to which open burning practices can be replaced by cost-effective, technologically feasible alternatives.

4.2.3.18 Control Measure R: Rule 4682 (Polymeric Foam Manufacturing)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE: This category was listed in the Ozone

ROP Plan as an "All Feasible Measure" suggested by the EPA. Amending Rule 4682 is intended to reduce VOC emissions from manufacturing polymeric foam and foam products by specifying material VOC content limits and emission

control devices.

AFFECTED SOURCES: This category is primarily concerned with VOC emissions from the manufacturing of polystyrene, polyethylene, and polypropylene foam products, specifically consumer foam products such as coffee cups, food containers and packing material. There are ten manufacturers of these foam products located within the District.

DESCRIPTION: Plastic foam products include a wide range of materials, including packaging for food and fragile products, building insulation, and a variety of other consumer items. Foams are manufactured by utilizing blowing agents, commonly hydrocarbons, which form vapor-filled “cells” within the plastic. After manufacturing, foam products contain residual blowing agent, which diffuse, while stored at the facility and after being transported from the facility.

Rule 4682 limits emissions from polystyrene foam, polyethylene, and polypropylene manufacturing, but only for selected operations and equipment within the process. This rule would be expanded to include VOC emission reduction or control from product curing areas and general product storage, similar to those employed by several of the existing sources.

Possible controls for this category include switching to an alternative, non-VOC blowing agent or employing capture and control systems for the VOC emissions. All ten manufacturers within the SJVUAPCD are still utilizing primarily VOC blowing agents (either directly or in the form of EPS beads).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-26 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Adoption of Rule 4682 amendments is scheduled for the third quarter of 2007, and full implementation is scheduled for the fourth quarter in 2009.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: Total VOC emissions from sources subject to Rule 4682 are estimated to be 0.3 tons per day in 2008. Upon full implementation of this rule, less than 0.1 tons per day of VOC reductions are anticipated.

4.2.3.19 Control Measure S: Rule 4703 (Stationary Gas Turbines)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : This category is being identified by public comment as warranting additional control measure development. Existing Rule 4703 addresses NOx emission limits for stationary gas turbines. This control measure would specifically examine controls for turbines rated less than 10 MW and used for distributed power generation.

AFFECTED SOURCES: Stationary gas turbines are used for mechanical power, electrical power generation, and steam and heat generation roles in oil production and refining, food processing, petroleum transportation, irrigation district water pumping, and commercial power generation.

DESCRIPTION: Rule 4703 limits NOx emissions from turbines. Existing turbines in the SJVAB generally control NOx emissions through water or steam injection, dry low-NOx combustion technology, selective catalytic reduction, or some combination thereof. Since this rule was last amended in 2002, CARB published emission standards for turbines used in electrical power generation. The CARB standards apply to new or modified turbines but may be attainable by existing turbines depending on the development of new burner technology. The control measure would examine the feasibility of CARB NOx and CO limits for stationary gas turbines, rated <10.0 MW. Turbines rated greater than 10 MW are subject to requirements similar to the CARB limits.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Adoption for this control measure is anticipated in the third quarter of 2007 with full implementation for NOx control projected for the year 2010.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: The emissions from sources affected by the control measure are estimated at 2.5 tons NOx/day. Upon final implementation of the proposed control measure, a reduction of 0.6 tons of NOx per day is anticipated.

4.2.3.20 Control Measure T: Rule 4621 (Storage and Transfer of Gasoline) and Rule 4624 (Organic Liquid Loading)EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-27 REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : Amending Rules 4621 and 4624 is a
Post-2003 Control Measure in the Ozone ROP Plan . It is designed to reduce VOC emissions from gasoline terminals and bulk plants which result from transfer equipment and operations.

AFFECTED SOURCES: Rule 4621 applies to bulk plants storing gasoline in large, aboveground tanks, and transferring the gasoline to delivery trucks via loading racks. There are fugitive VOC emissions from the fittings on the tanks, piping (valves and flanges), and from the loading rack operations (displaced vapor space from the delivery trucks).

DESCRIPTION: Rules 4624 and 4621 contains VOC emission control performance limit for tanks and equipment used to store and transfer organic liquid, specifically gasoline. Since the last rule update, the standards for control of VOC fugitive emissions have become more stringent. Strengthening the

current rule standards is feasible and would result in additional emission reductions. Possible control enhancements include increased inspection and maintenance frequencies, tank seal repair or replacement, and retrofitting old systems with newer technologies.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Adoption for this control measure is anticipated in the fourth quarter of 2007 with full implementation for VOC controls projected for the year 2010.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: The emissions from sources affected by the control measure are estimated at 3.3 tons VOC per day in 2008. Upon final implementation of the proposed control measure, a reduction of 0.9 tons of VOC per day is anticipated.

4.2.3.21 Control Measure U: New Rule (Aviation Fuel Transfer, Phase I)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : This category is a Post-2003 Control

Measure in the Ozone ROP Plan . The new rule would reduce fugitive VOC emissions created during Phase 1 aircraft refueling operations. Phase 1 operations include filling aviation fuel bulk storage tanks using primary fuel delivery trucks as well as filling an airport’s fuel delivery trucks from the bulk storage tanks. It does not include filling an aircraft’s on-board fuel tanks.

AFFECTED SOURCES: This measure would affect operations with bulk aviation fuel storage, including military, civilian, and private airports or air fleet services. These tanks typically hold either aviation gasoline or a variety of kerosene-based jet fuel. There are 43 airports in the SJVAB that sell one or both types of these

fuels.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-28 DESCRIPTION: This operation would investigate the emission inventory and feasible control measures for bulk aviation fuel storage tanks. Fugitive VOC emissions are released from these tanks due to spillage and vapor displacement during Phase 1 operations and from venting through relief valves to prevent excessive pressure from diurnal heating.

Rule 4621 addresses Phase 1 requirements for tanks holding motor vehicle fuel, but not aviation fuel. Also, while Rule 4623 addresses fueling motor vehicles, it does not apply to fueling aircraft since aircraft do not have uniform fueling points and the Phase 2 equipment is not certified for that use.

Fugitive emissions can be controlled with pressure-vacuum relief valves on storage tanks, submerged fill tubes to reduce splashing, and vapor recovery or destruction systems similar to those used for Phase I motor vehicle fueling operations.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Adoption for this control measure is anticipated in the fourth quarter of 2007 with full implementation for VOC control is projected for the year 2010.

EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: The emissions from sources affected by the control measure are estimated at 0.2 tons VOC per day in 2008. Upon final implementation of the proposed control measure, a reduction of less than 0.05 tons of VOC per day is anticipated.

4.2.4 Potential Control Measures Requiring Further Study

This section provides information about the possible future control measures, as shown in Table 4-2, which require further study. Exact details of the resulting rules will be determined during the rule development process based on applicable federal, state and local requirements, socioeconomic factors and specific information provided by the public comments. Some of these are control

measures with small baseline inventories that would be the least effective in achieving significant emission reductions in an expeditious manner. These control measures will be further evaluated and may be eliminated as potential

controls.

4.2.4.1 Further Study Project A: Rule 2280 (Portable Equipment Registration Program)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE: Amending Rule 2280 is a Post -2003
Control Measure in the Ozone ROP Plan . This control measure could reduce NOx emissions from fuel combustion by registered portable equipment.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-29 AFFECTED SOURCES: Rule 2280 applies to portable equipment that is operated at various locations in the District and are not registered under the state portable equipment program. Such equipment, primarily portable engines, is used in many industries for a variety of tasks including electrical power generation, pumping, concrete production, abrasive blasting, and providing mechanical power. District emission estimates are calculated by ARB using their Off-Road Model. Current ARB and the District registries for these types of equipment may be incomplete due to units that are not registered with either agency or which could be registered with other districts.

DESCRIPTION: Portable engines create NOx emissions by burning diesel fuel, gasoline, natural gas, or propane/liquefied petroleum gas. Such units are required to register with either the District or with ARB and are subject to the emission standards of the applicable portable engine registration program. New units are subject to emission standards set by ARB and EPA for the current year

of manufacture.

Emissions from older diesel engines can be significantly higher (12 gramsNOx/bhp-hr) than currently manufactured diesel engines (5.9 grams NOx/bhphr). Starting in 2006, the new engine standard will drop to 3.0 gram (NOx + VOC)/bhp-hr for larger engines, with all new engines meeting that standard by 2008. It is important to note that manufacturers may meet the emission standards on a production-averaged basis and that individual engines or engine types may have higher emissions.

Spark-ignited engines are not expected to generate comparable emission reductions since these engines typically meet or exceed the applicable EPA and

ARB standards.

The state portable equipment regulation program is currently under revision to address the health risks associated with emissions of diesel particulate emissions. These emissions can be effectively controlled with either diesel oxidation catalyst, and catalyzed diesel particulate filters. Both catalysts also reduce 50-90% of VOC emissions, used in conjunction with lower-sulfur fuel. The diesel fuel sulfur limit will be lowered to 15 ppmv effective September 1, 2006. Similar catalysts for NOx reduction are under development for off-road engine applications and may be suitable for portable engine applications after further

refinement.

It is also feasible to generate NOx reductions through the replacement of existing, older portable engines with newer units according to an advanced

retirement schedule.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-30 4.2.4.2 Further Study Project B - New Rule (Asphalt Plant Dryers/Heaters)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : This category is a Post-2003 Control

Measure in the Ozone ROP Plan . This new rule could reduce NOx and VOC emissions asphalt production operations. There are currently no District rules specifically addressing asphalt production equipment.

AFFECTED SOURCES: This control measure would apply to asphalt production facilities operating in the District with material heating equipment.

DESCRIPTION: Asphalt is produced using a mixture of mineral and petroleum components. During production, the mineral components, gravel and crushedrocks, is heated to remove excess moisture before mixing with the petroleumbased binding agent. Heat may also be used to heat the petroleum binder during mixing and storage. A direct-fired heater is typically used for the drying/mixing process, so the heater exhaust is contaminated with PM10 and VOC released from the heated products. PM10 and VOC emissions, commonly seen as blue smoke, may also result from the material handling and storage equipment. Significant NOx emissions can also result from combustion of fuel for the

heaters.

Possible control measures include clean burning fuel and low-NOx burners for the heaters, capture and controls for the blue smoke emissions, and catalytic particulate filters to reduce fugitive VOC and PM10 from the exhaust stream.

This control measure is being addressed as part of Control Measure I.

4.2.4.3 Further Study Project C: Rules 4402 and 4625 (Sumps, Pits, and Wastewater Processing Equipment)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : This category is a Post-2003 Control

Measure in the Ozone ROP Plan . Amending Rules 4402 and 4625 would reduce VOC emissions from oilfield sumps, pits, and wastewater processing equipment.

AFFECTED SOURCES: Rules 4402 and 4625 apply to oil and gas production sumps, pits and wastewater processing equipment. There approximately 200 businesses in the approximately 105 oil and/or gas production fields in the

SJVAB.

DESCRIPTION: Oil and gas production operations generate large quantities of wastewater and sand as a waste product of the primary extraction. Many of these facilities use open pits to separate oil, water and sand generated during oil and gas production. Most primary separation is now accomplished in controlledEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-31 separation tanks, but secondary and final separation can still occur in open pits. The District is updating the emissions inventory of those sumps, including both heavy and light crude oil facilities. The District will also explore feasible control options that could generate additional VOC emission reductions.

4.2.4.4 Further Study Project D - New Rule (Fugitive Emissions – Heavy Oil Stream)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : This category requires additional emissions inventory development. Additional controls could reduce fugitive VOC emissions from equipment used in heavy crude oil production, transport, and refining. Heavy crude oil is defined as oil having an API gravity of less than 30 degrees. The District currently has no rules specifically addressing these heavy crude equipment emissions.

AFFECTED SOURCES: This rule would apply to sources involved with heavy crude oil crude oil production, transport and refining.

DESCRIPTION : This category requires an emissions inventory of fugitive volatile organic compounds from leaking components that carry streams of heavy crude oil that are located in crude oil production and processing facilities and crude oil refining facilities. Heavy crude oil components are currently exempt from existing District Rules 4403, 4451, and 4452 as well as new Rules 4409 and 4455 that are currently under development. District Rule 4401 addresses casing gases associated with heavy crude oil production but not components on liquid streams. The District does not currently have information on the number of heavy crude oil components. Estimates of the VOC emissions from leaking components are related to the total number of components and can be calculated using EPA, ARB or CAPCOA methodologies.

Possible controls include establishing allowable the gaseous leak threshold(s), creating an inspection and repair programs with a specific minimum frequency of inspection, stating the maximum repair period for leaking components, and requiring replacement of frequently leaking components with Best Available Control Technology.

4.2.4.5 Further Study Project E: Rule 4653 (Adhesives)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : This category was listed in the Ozone

ROP Plan as an All Feasible Measure suggested by the EPA. Amending Rule 4653 could reduce VOC emissions from use of adhesives by specifying material VOC standards and/or requiring the use of alternate emission control system.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-32 AFFECTED SOURCES: Adhesive materials are used in a wide variety of industries including commercial production facilities, construction activities, and maintenance and repair operations. Rule 4653 exempts users of less than 20 gallons of adhesives per year so most affected sources will be commercial users in the manufacturing or construction fields.

DESCRIPTION: Rule 4653 controls VOC emissions resulting from adhesive usage. VOC emissions result from the solvents used to pre-clean materials being bonded, from the adhesive material as it cures, and from solvents used to clean the finished product and application equipment. The existing material VOC content limits and exemptions will be examined to determine if stricter standards can be developed similar to those recently proposed by other air districts.

4.2.4.6 Further Study Project F: Rule 4607 (Graphic Arts)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : This category is a Post-2003 Control

Measure in the Ozone ROP Plan . Amending Rule 4607 would reduce fugitive VOC emissions from graphic arts operations involved in the coating of paper, fabric and film coating and those involved in screen printing.

AFFECTED SOURCES: The measure would affect any new or existing operations involved with graphic arts, paper or fabric coating, and screen printing.

DESCRIPTION: Rule 4607 controls emissions from graphic arts operations by specifying coating material VOC limits, cleaning solvent VOC limits, allowable application equipment, evaporative loss minimization practices, and emission control options. Since this rule was last amended, other air districts have adopted more stringent VOC limits for certain coatings categories. Amendments to this rule could incorporate those new standards and help establish a uniform graphic arts requirement throughout California.

4.2.4.7 Further Study Project G: Rule 4641 (Cutback Asphalt Application)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : This category is a Post-2003 Control

Measure in the Ozone ROP Plan . Amending Rule 4641 could reduce VOC emissions from cutback asphalt application.

AFFECTED SOURCES: This control measure would apply to operators involved with the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt. Use of these asphalts includes roadway paving and maintenance operations, parking area construction, and dust control.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-33 DESCRIPTION: Cutback asphalt is a paving grade of asphalt liquefied with petroleum distillates and generally classified as medium or rapid cure as defined in Rule 4641. Rule 4641 controls VOC emissions by limiting the use of asphaltic materials and allowable application temperature. While the VOC content of asphaltic roof coating material is regulated under Rule 4601, further emission reductions may be possible by extending this rule to include asphalt roofing operations. Such operations heat the asphalt to allow application on large industrial facilities. The heating of the asphalt in large kettles results in fugitive VOC emissions. Possible controls for such kettles include close-fitting lids, tightly controlled operating temperatures, and afterburners. Some operators already use lids and operating temperature limits to reduce smoke and odors. The afterburners, however, are uncommon for this application and may require early retirement of existing kettles.

4.2.4.8 Further Study Project H: Rule 4692 (Restaurants – Under-fired Charbroilers)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : This category is a Post-2003 Control

Measure in the Ozone ROP Plan . Amending Rule 4692 would reduce fugitive VOC emissions from restaurants using charbroiling equipment for food preparation.

AFFECTED SOURCES: This control measure would affect any new or existing operations involved with under-fired charbroilers.

DESCRIPTION: Rule 4692 currently applies to restaurants using chain-driven charbroilers. At the time the rule was adopted in March 2002, the only feasible control was not applicable to under-fired charbroilers. An under-fired charbroiler is a grill in which food is placed on an iron grate above a heat source. As the food cooks, fats or marinades drip onto heat source producing smoke that provides the characteristic charred flavor. In the late 1990’s, studies on charbroiler emission factors found that under-fired charbroiling is the method that produces the largest amount of PM and VOC emissions.

Due to the enclosed nature of a chain-driven charbroiler, it is possible to equip such equipment with an exhaust catalytic converter to control the VOC emissions. Under-fired charbroilers, however, are more open units with significantly lower exhaust temperatures that are not compatible with catalytic

converter controls.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-34 4.2.4.9 Further Study Project I: Rule 4902 (Residential Water Heaters)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : Amending Rule 4902 was identified as under the Significant Source Category in the PM10 Plan and a Post-2003 Control

Measure in the Ozone ROP Plan

.

AFFECTED SOURCES: Residential water heaters are typically fired on natural gas or propane, emitting NOx emissions from the combustion of the fuel. These units are located throughout the District in urban, suburban, and rural settings.

DESCRIPTION: These units are currently regulated by the District under Rule 4902. That rule requires new and replacement heaters to be certified with NOx emissions of less than 40 nanograms per Joule (0.093 lb NOx per million BTU) of heat output. The South Coast AQMD Rule 1121 will require residential water heaters to meet a 10 nanograms per Joule NOx standard in 2005. That standard is not considered to have been demonstrated as technologically feasible, but may be so demonstrated in the future. If such equipment is manufactured and readily available, the District could achieve a 75% NOx reduction by adopting a similar standard. That standard would only apply to new or replacement water heaters so units installed prior to the any new standard taking effect would

remain for their useful life.

4.2.4.10 Further Study Project J - New Rule ( Furnaces)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : : This category is a Post-2003 Control

Measure in the Ozone ROP Plan . It was designated as a control measure to
reduce NOx emissions from industrial furnaces.

AFFECTED SOURCES: Industrial furnaces are typically fired on natural gas or propane, emitting NOx emissions from the combustion of the fuel. These units are located throughout the District in a variety of industries which require high temperatures for operations such as smelting, curing materials, heat treating metals, ceramic firing, and cleaning impurities from metal products.

DESCRIPTION: Rule 4305 and 4306 regulate boilers, steam generators and process heaters but specifically excludes furnaces. Furnaces typically use a direct-fired heater where the material being heated directly contacts the exhaust from the burner. This contact can lead to the heater exhaust becoming contaminated with PM10 and VOC released from the heated products. Significant NOx emissions can also result from combustion of fuel for the

heaters.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-35 Possible control measures include clean burning fuel and low-NOx burners for the heaters and catalytic particulate filters to reduce fugitive VOC and PM10 from

the exhaust stream.

4.2.4.11 Further Study Project K: New Rule (Brandy Production)

REASON FOR CONTROL MEASURE : Brandy production is a potentially significant source of VOC emissions. New control measures could be designed to reduce VOC emissions created during the production of brandy, including distillation, aging and bottling.

AFFECTED SOURCES: The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) maintains a database of all facilities permitted to produce alcoholic beverages in California. The database contains facility specific information covering permitted production volumes and licensed operation of alcohol stills.

DESCRIPTION : Brandy production is not currently regulated by the District permitting process or addressed by a prohibitory rule. VOC emissions in brandy production are created during distillation, aging, and bottling. Brandy is typically aged for 2 to 10 years in oak barrels and this is considered the largest source of VOC emissions from this process.

Emission controls (other than process refrigeration) are not currently being used during the production of wines. Reductions of VOC could be achieved by equipping distillation equipment, storage facilities, and processing areas with vapor collection and control systems, carbon adsorption, water scrubbers, catalytic incineration, condensation, and additional temperature control, as appropriate.

4.2.5 Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT)

Section 172(c)(1) of the federal Clean Air Act requires nonattainment plans to:

“provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practical (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.”

For areas designated as extreme non-attainment status, RACT control measures would apply to sources with emissions greater than 10 tons per year. As a prior severe nonattainment area, the District already had RACT for sources greater than 25 tons. Therefore, staff only evaluated the existing permitted sources withEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-36 baseline inventories between 10 and 25 tons per year of NOx or VOC. Based upon this evaluation, the District identified the following RACT control measures: 4.2.5.1 Dryers and Dehydrators

NOx emissions from large industrial dryers are not currently addressed by existing rules but are scheduled for development in Table 4-1 as Control Measure I, Commercial Dryers.

4.2.5.2 Flares

NOx emissions from flares at major sources are addressed by Rule 4311 (Flares). Sources emitting between 10 and 25 tons per year would become subject to this rule when the definition of "Major Source" is amended in Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review).

4.2.5.3 Jet Engine Test Cells

NOx emissions from jet engine test cells are difficult to control through traditional means due to the high flow, low NOx concentration, and low temperature of the exhaust stream. A review of existing BACT clearinghouses failed to produce

viable control measures. The emissions from the source located in the District will be limited by a Federal Operating Permit that is enforceable through Title V of

the federal Clean Air Act. Given the lack of available controls and the federal enforceability of the existing limits, the District will monitor potential future controls for this category, but does not plan to schedule a control measure at this

time.

4.2.5.4 Fumigation - Agricultural Products

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has authority over field application of Methyl Bromide (MeBr) for soil fumigation. The District has authority over application of MeBr released from post-harvest fumigation ofagricultural products. In 1999, the EPA has developed a schedule for the phaseout of MeBr in accordance with the 1987 Montreal Protocol. While some exceptions are currently being considered for critical uses, a critical use cap will significantly eliminate these emissions and negate the need for any rule-making

action.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-37 4.2.6 Clean Fuels or Advanced Control Technology

Section 182(e)(3) of the federal Clean Air Act directs extreme nonattainment areas to require:

"that each new, modified, and existing electric utility and industrial and commercial boiler which emits more than 25 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen - (A) burn as its primary fuel natural gas, methanol, or ethanol (or comparable low polluting fuel), or (B) use advanced technology (such as catalytic control technology or other comparably effective control methods) for reduction of emissions of nitrogen"

District Rules 4305, 4306, and 4352 address NOx emission limits for the boilers in this category.

Most of the boilers under Rules 4305 and 4306 are fired on natural gas and therefore satisfy the requirement of paragraph (A) above.

Liquid-fuel fired boilers are also addressed by those rules and the applicable NOx emission limits satisfy the requirement of paragraph (B) above. Solid-fuel fired boilers are addressed by Rule 4352 and the applicable NOx emission limits satisfy the requirement of paragraph (B) above.

Therefore, the District already complies with this requirement and there is no need to include additional control measures in this plan to satisfy the section of
the federal Clean Air Act.



### 4.3 FUTURE STUDY MEASURES

The California Clean Air Act requires districts to develop ambient air quality standard attainment plans that consider “the full spectrum of emission sources and focus particular attention on reducing emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources.” (Health and Safety Code, Section 40910). In particular, districts responsible for air basins designated as having “serious,” “severe,” or “extreme” air pollution, “shall, to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the plan,...” include in their attainment plans “[m]easures to achieve the use of a significant number of low-emission motor vehicles by operators of motor vehicle fleets.” [Health and Safety Code section 40919(a)(4)]. Although ARB is responsible for setting vehicle emission standards, ARB and districts such as the SJVUAPCD have the authority to ensure that cleaner vehicles are employed.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-38 Appendix F summarizes control measure concepts suggested by stakeholders during or after the first two sets of workshops held for this Extreme OADP

. Control measures listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2, as well as the ideas for future measures listed below, capture a number of these concepts. The District will

consider these and other ideas for control measures to be used in the development of future ozone attainment demonstration plans. Section 4.3.1 addresses mobile sources, Section 4.3.2 addresses other types of sources (particularly as suggested by stakeholders during public review of the Draft
Extreme OADP—see Appendix H), and Section 4.3.3 describes ideas for nontraditional methods of reducing air pollution, termed “sustainable incentives.”

4.3.1 Mobile Sources

ARB is adopting or developing several mobile source rules. These rules address emissions from refuse haulers, urban transit vehicles, and other heavy duty vehicles; vehicle idling limits; diesel fuel sulfur limits; toxic emissions from transportation refrigeration units; and other similar measures. The District is not currently planning to pursue any enhanced requirements to the mobile source rules that ARB has adopted or is developing.

Stakeholders have identified a number of potential non-traditional mobile source emission control measure ideas for future study. The District will investigate the feasibility of additional programs that reduce emissions from mobile sources. These measures would address sources commonly outside District jurisdiction, and thus would necessitate teaming with other agencies that have more direct authority over these sources. Several special programs have been suggested that could reduce mobile source emissions, including the following:

• Gross emitters, both passenger and heavy-duty vehicles, can produce ten times the emissions of newer vehicles. An effective program for reducing emissions from this source category would have the following key elements:(1) a remote sensing program that identifies and targets only the grossemitting vehicles that are used on a regular basis; (2) adequate financial incentives to encourage retirement of the gross-emitting vehicle; and (3) use of a voucher (or similar system) to ensure that incentives can only be used to purchase a vehicle with lower emissions than the one being replaced.

• Emissions from heavy-duty vehicles increase with higher operating speeds, so reductions of NOx, VOC, and diesel PM may be possible with stricter enforcement of the existing speed limits on public roads, highways and freeways. The District could work to develop funding sources for special CHP patrols along Highway 99 for increased enforcement of truck speed limits.

• The ARB Heavy-duty Vehicle Inspections program for conducting roadside testing of heavy-duty vehicles primarily focuses on Highway 99 and Interstate 5, and is very limited in scope due to current state budget problems. TheEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-39 District could seek special funding to revitalize and strengthen this program to increase its geographic coverage and to include anti-smoke inspection; RPM recording; snap-acceleration test; visual inspection of emissions, and fuel testing to ensure use of California diesel. These roadside inspections can identify gross-polluters that may otherwise escape the normal inspection requirements. This area of further study is also of particular interest given the greater potential for foreign-registered trucks to pass through the SJVAB in light of the June 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement; foreign-registered trucks may have substantially different emissions profiles than U.S. registered trucks.

• Through-truck traffic on Highway 99 can produce significant emissions along the most densely populated portion of the Valley. Re-designation of Highway 99 between Manteca and Wheeler Ridge as a “no through-truck route" and designating Interstate 5 as sole truck route for through-Valley truck traffic would mitigate the impact of the trucks without unduly impacting the interstate commerce. This measure would also reduce congestion for local traffic, decrease intra-valley travel time, and reduce the associated emissions.

• Heavy-duty vehicles may idle at truck stops for hours at a time to run refrigerators and provide power for operator air conditioning during meal breaks and rest stops. Emissions from idling trucks at truck stops can be reduced with alternative power systems such as auxiliary power units, thermal storage systems, and truck stop electrification. Each of these supplies power and other needed amenities to truck stop customers but with a lower emissions burden than idling each truck’s diesel engine.

• ARB’s emission reduction program for mobile sources is highly dependent on fleet turnover. Fleet turnover could be enhanced by adjusting the California vehicle license fee and registration fee such that as vehicles age, they become more expensive to register. New vehicles, which at any given time are the lowest emitters, would be the least expensive to register. Consideration could also be given to giving further fee reductions to vehicles with emissions ratings of ATPZEV or better that are registered and used in

the state’s dirtiest air basins.

4.3.2 Other Sources

Stakeholders have suggested a number of control measure ideas that do not involve the mobile source emission category. Principal among these are ideas for using the vegetation in and around urban areas to help manage air quality with the recognition that such vegetation can function as both a source of ozone precursor emissions as well as a sink for ozone. Major ideas suggested were:

• Study the role of urban landscaping and agriculture in the SJVAB’s air quality, perhaps through CCOS. The study should include the concept ofEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-40 vegetative buffer zones, especially hardwood forests, around urban areas experiencing high ozone levels.

• Create urban tree planting guidelines for highways, parks and private development that emphasize air quality improvements (e.g., areas with high asthma rates would encourage low pollen, low allergenic species);

• Develop an education program for agencies, schools, the public, nurseries and landscapers that provides information on

o biogenic emissions from various plants used in urban landscapes,

o the role of these plants in contributing to ozone production, and

o equipment emissions from maintaining various types of landscapes (e.g., a lawn requires more cutting and leaf blowing than an area planted with groundcovers).

• Identify sources of funding for public agencies to make landscape changes that improve ozone air quality.

4.3.3 Sustainable Incentives

Alternative approaches for reducing emissions, as discussed in the following paragraphs, have been suggested for consideration by a number of parties. The District is considering how to work these ideas for alternative approaches into its control strategy where feasible.

To promote the implementation of practices that reduce air pollution from a variety of sources, including exempt sources, industry suggested the development of sustainable incentives. The concept of sustainable incentives includes financial measures, programs, and/or prohibitory rule alternative compliance plans that provide an economic mechanism to fund air pollution reduction measures. Sustainable incentives may be in the form of private industry and/or foundation grants, federal and/or state government grants, tax credits, prohibitory rule incentives, and other programs.

The concept of sustainable incentives is based upon existing programs such as the federal farm bill’s “Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); the State’s Carl Moyer Program; the District’s Heavy-Duty Program (see next section), and other programs that offset the implementation cost of pollution reduction measures. Many of these existing programs operate within the framework of a partnership involving private industry, the public, and public agencies.

As proposed by industry, the concept of sustainable incentives revolves around a market-based approach to pollution reduction using measures that are economically sound and that are supported by scientific research. Basic concepts could includeEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-41 • Local air pollution control/air quality management districts, EPA, and ARB would assist local municipalities and other public agencies in acquiring additional funding. The funding would be used to implement emission reductions; expand existing incentive programs, such as EQIP and Carl Moyer; and offset mitigation cost needs of the local transportation agencies and communities. Such funding could be generated from either governmental sources in the form of grants or from industrial sources in the form of alternative compliance fees or penalties.

• These regulatory agencies would consider suggestions for alternative emission reduction programs that generate equivalent emissions reductions to those identified in prohibitory rules, but are less costly to implement. Such programs would obtain emission reductions by contributing to such programs as EQIP, by reducing onsite emissions, or by allowing the use of valid emissions reductions from secondary sources located in the immediate vicinity of those sources seeking the use of the alternative emission

reductions.



### 4.4 DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

The District has operated incentive programs since 1992. The programs have expanded in funding and increased in sophistication over the years. Incentive program funding has been derived from several sources. Current programs use a combination of state and local funds including ARB's Carl Moyer Program, San Joaquin Valley Emergency Clean Air Attainment Program (VECAP) funds, State Peaker Power Plant Offset (State ERC) funds, and District Department of Motor Vehicles Surcharge Fees (DMV Fees). Of these funding sources, only DMV fees are under the sole control of the District. The District has achieved significant, cost-effective emission reductions from a variety of grant programs. The District has awarded over $80 million to projects that have resulted in over 33 tons of lifetime emission reductions at a cost-effectiveness of approximately $6,500/ton.

The District is currently operating two programs aimed at reducing ozone precursor emissions: the Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Reduction Incentive Program (Heavy-Duty Program) and the Electric Lawnmower Incentives Program. Each of these is discussed below, followed by a discussion of future

programsEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-42 4.4.1 Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Reduction Incentive Program

The Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Reduction Incentive Program (Heavy-Duty Program) is by far the District's largest and most successful incentive program. The Heavy-Duty Program accepts applications for a wide variety of engines that power vehicles or equipment. Heavy-duty trucks, buses, and heavy off-road engines are significant sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions within the Valley. Although the District does not have the authority to regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions, it can provide monetary incentives to reduce emission from these sources. It provides funding for new purchases, engine re-powering, or retrofits. Emission reductions are obtained when the project applicant purchases vehicles and engines that are cleaner than required by current emission standards or installs an emission certified retrofit kit on an existing engine. The District pays the differential cost of purchasing the lower emitting technology compared to conventional technology up to a cost-effectiveness cap of $13,600 per ton for NOx. The program is primarily aimed at NOx reductions, but many projects also achieve fine particulate matter (PM 10) reductions.

The first projects that were funded under the Heavy-Duty Program began operating in 1998. Since then, additional funds have been allocated each year to the program and additional projects have become operational. Project life varies from 7 to 20 years depending on the application. The average project life is 7.7 years based on the mix of projects received to date.

SIP submittals for the SJVAB typically have not included emission reductions from the Heavy-Duty Program. However, the 2003 PM10 Plan did include reductions in the mobile source category from the Heavy Duty Engine incentive program. This Extreme OADP uses a similar approach for incentive-based

emissions reductions.

4.4.2 Electric Lawnmower Incentives

The District held lawnmower exchanges in 2001 and 2002. A total of 2260 electric, rechargeable mowers were distributed at a 50 percent discount to residents in Bakersfield, Fresno, Merced, Modesto, Stockton and Visalia. The events were made possible through support and sponsorship from Black and Decker; the California Air Resources Board; California Integrated Waste Management Board; Fresno, Merced, Stanislaus and Tulare counties; and the cities of Bakersfield, Fresno and Modesto. For 2004, the District fundingprovided similar incentives in the form of discount coupons for electric and pushtype lawn mowers; 327 mowers were sold in 2004 under the coupon program.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-43 4.4.3 Future Programs

The Mobile Source Emission Reduction Incentive Program (MSIP) is the most developed of the future programs. Although not yet approved by the Governing Board as of July 2004, MSIP provides incentives for specific projects that will reduce motor vehicle emissions within the District. The purpose of the MSIP is to assist the District in attaining the requirements of the California Clean Air Act. This is accomplished by allocating funds to cost-effective projects that have the greatest motor vehicle emission reductions, thereby creating long-term air quality benefits for the San Joaquin Valley. All projects must have a direct air quality benefit to the District. Any portion of a project that does not directly benefit the District within its boundaries will not be allowed for funding or in calculating emission reductions. Principal MSIP components that are envisioned at this time include the Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicle Component, the E-Mobility (Telecommunications) Component, the Bicycle Infrastructure Component, the Public Transportation and Commuter Vanpool Subsidy Component, and the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Mechanic Training Component.



### 4.5 PUBLIC EDUCATION

Engaging the public in efforts to reduce emissions is a key element of the ozone attainment demonstration strategy. Education increases public support for new and controversial regulations. Helping people understand the complex issues underlying the ozone problem further improves this support. There are many

actions that individuals can undertake to reduce emissions that cause ozone. When members of the public are aware that they can make a difference and are convinced that the problem is real, many people will change their behavior in a positive way.

The District's educational program has expanded and evolved over the years. It uses a variety of media and techniques to ensure the widest possible dissemination of air quality information. It uses direct marketing approaches with traditional media including television, radio, and print. It networks with other agencies, educational institutions, organizations, industry groups, and the news media in educational efforts. It produces educational materials, such as videos, brochures, and fact sheets that provide focused information to targeted

audiences.

While this section of the Extreme OADP does not specify emissions reductions that can be used for attainment demonstrations or rate of progress demonstrations, it is a very important component of the District’s overall air quality management program. The following sections describe key elements of the District’s Public Education program that help reduce emissions.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-44 4.5.1 Outreach Program

The District’s outreach program contains traditional approaches and approaches that are unique to the SJVAB. An overview of the District’s program is provided

below.

Spare the Air - The District’s Spare the Air Program is a voluntary program that encourages businesses and residents to avoid pollution-producing activities on days when high ozone levels are expected, primarily during the summer season. In addition to extensive multi-media English and Spanish language campaigns, information regarding the program is communicated to employers through comprehensive employer packets (bilingual), and Spare the Air fairs throughout the Valley. The District notifies participating employers and the public, via faxes, news broadcasts, and radio announcements, when it is predicted that the ozone standard will be exceeded the following day. The public is asked to postpone or avoid such activities as using oil-based paints, solvents, aerosol spray cans, and gasoline-powered lawn equipment, and avoid making unnecessary vehicle trips.

Educational Videos – The District is working on development of educational videos for improving air quality. A recent project focuses on topics such as why we have air quality problems in the SJVAB, where the pollution comes from, the impact of air pollution on public health, agricultural crops and natural vegetation, and District Rules and Regulations. The District has produced three other educational videos; two of these videos describe commute alternatives, and the third explains the District’s Spare the Air program.

Valleywide Public Service Announcements and Paid Advertising - Public Service Announcements (PSAs) have been created for use on television and radio stations throughout the SJVAB. These short PSAs (30-60 second) remind the public to use public transportation, share rides to work (rideshare), walk to lunch, buy nonvolatile consumer products, etc., as their contribution to improving air quality. Also, through enhanced public outreach, the District has strengthened its Smoking Vehicle Program, which encourages the public to report vehicles with excessive visible emissions. An extensive public outreach campaign also informs SJVAB residents about the Spare the Air program.

Pollutant Standard Index (PSI) Predictions - Daily PSI predictions are faxed directly to local television, radio, and newspaper media to educate the public about air quality and advise them of days with poor air quality so that activities can be modified. The widest possible distribution of no burn day information is critical to obtaining a high level of compliance. The District has a staff meteorologist to provide more accurate air quality predictions for the SJVAB. Forecasts now use more detailed information specific to the local daily conditions
in the SJVAB.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-45 Air Quality Symposium - The District holds the Air Quality Symposium about every other year. A wide variety of organizations, businesses and individuals participate. Past versions of the symposium, have drawn over 200 attendees. The events include keynote speakers, general sessions, breakout sessions on topics of special interest, and air quality exhibits. The 2004 Symposium is scheduled for September 29-30, 2004 in Bakersfield, and the theme is exploring unique solutions to the clean air challenges that face us all.

4.5.2 District Publications

Information Pamphlets – The District continues to develop new and updated brochures to address air quality issues in the SJVAB. Current brochures include the following: Automotive Checkbook (vehicle maintenance record book), the Smoking Vehicle Program, and Air Pollution Health Effects.

Newsletter – The Valley Air News is a monthly publication of the District widely distributed throughout the SJVAB. The newsletter highlights current activities of the District, summarizes Governing Board actions, highlights commendable efforts by Valley businesses in reducing air pollution beyond what is required, and discusses other relevant air quality issues.

4.5.3 Youth Education

As part of the youth education program, schools are able to contact the District office to request classroom presentations on a variety of topics. Children of the SJVAB also have the opportunity to become a member of the Clean Air Kids Club and have newsletters and other information sent directly to their homes regarding air pollution and what they can do to help prevent it.

Environmental curriculum and special activities have been provided to primary schools since the fall of 2000. In 2004, the District will expand the environmental curriculum to include a component for middle and high school students. The District is also participating in a growing program that involves the flying of flags at schools to indicate the air quality status for a given day during the school year.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-46 4.5.4 Events/Activities

The District works with local groups such as the American Lung Association and rideshare agencies to promote annual events that reinforce clean air activities, such as the following:

Event Lead Organization Time of Year Earth Day Local Earth Day Sponsors April Clean Air Month American Lung Association May

Rideshare Week Local Rideshare Committee October

Car Care Month Calif. State Automobile Assn. and American Lung Association October

A wide variety of local activities are conducted by organizations and agencies throughout the Valley. Such activities include the annual Clean Air Rally sponsored by Project Clean Air and the annual Conservation Fair by the County of San Joaquin. The District participates in many of these events and encourages activities that increase public awareness of air pollution and public participation in programs or activities to reduce air pollution. The District has scheduled a Community Day for October 2004 as a way for members of the community to visit the District’s Central Office, learn how the District operates, and learn how to effectively participate in the public process for improving air quality.



### 4.6 OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL TPA RACM

4.6.1 Introduction

The San Joaquin Valley is a single air quality nonattainment area containing eight Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), which are also regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs or TPAs) within the Valley. The Valley is home to many diverse communities containing predominantly rural as well as predominantly urban areas peopled by individuals from many different parts of the world. This overview describes the process led by the Valley RTPAs to identify and implement potentially reasonably available control measures (RACM) affecting local transportation activity.

Each RTPA covers a county with numerous cities, public interest groups, transit agencies, and a ridesharing agency in some cases. Collectively, the Valley RTPAs have conducted a thorough RACM process that addresses the entire San Joaquin Valley. In order to ensure thoroughness, the RTPAs have coordinated with each other through a Valleywide committee that meets biweekly/monthly to discuss their individual progress on RACM, obtain input and feedback from the other agencies on the committee, and share other relevant information. They also provide documentation regarding the local government control measures and meetings held at the county level to the group through a RACM website.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-47 Another feature of the coordination is development of a common format for providing documentation on the RACM process. The Valleywide committee is composed of each RTPA, the District, Caltrans, ARB, EPA, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. This committee provides regular opportunity for the eight Valley RTPAs to obtain input from each other and the other agencies involved in developing the Extreme OADP for the Valley.

The Valley RTPAs have limited legal authority to implement emission reduction measures. However, their status as regional transportation planning agencies places them in a position to help coordinate and facilitate consensus among their member jurisdictions, which do have authority to implement some measures. Therefore, the RTPAs led a process to identify and evaluate potential measures affecting local transportation activity. The Valley RTPAs recognize the importance of clean air for their communities and are doing their part in helping to find ways to improve the air. The RTPA role in this RACM process is to lead local agencies in (1) the identification and implementation process for measures that may reduce ozone precursor emissions associated with local transportation activity that may be implemented at the local level; and (2) documenting reasons for not implementing measures that are not economically or technically feasible.

The individual jurisdictions within each county have primary control of funding and implementation for local government control measures associated with transportation. However, since the Valley RTPAs are all part of one nonattainment area they have coordinated their process together in order to share ideas offered by the public and jurisdictions to provide consistency for the entire process including approaches to documentation. Figure 4-1 gives an overview of the local government control measure process used for this plan.

4.6.2 Overview of Existing Measures

The Valley RTPAs and their member agencies have long been involved in examining ways to contribute to improvements in air quality through implementation of local measures as well as provision of funding for measures being implemented by the Air District. In general, the existing control measures include transit improvements, ridesharing and ride-matching programs, telecommuting, compressed workweeks, bicycle programs, pedestrian programs (such as street design to encourage walking), traffic flow improvements, and numerous land-use programs. In addition, Valley RTPAs have a history of supporting mobile source reduction incentives. Nearly all counties in the Valley have also allocated funding to alternative fuel projects. Money has been allocated to local school agencies for clean fuels infrastructure, as well as to the Air District’s Heavy-Duty Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction Program for clean fuels municipal or public fleet purchases.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-48 In addition, since 1992 the Valley RTPAs have maintained a Work Program agreement with the Air District that includes elements related to exploration of local government control measures and ongoing collaboration on air quality planning activities. The Valley RTPAs are legal entities that allocate CMAQ monies. Air quality and emissions benefits play a key role in the ranking process of each RTPA’s selection of CMAQ projects.

It is important to note that the Valley RTPAs and member jurisdictions completed a process to identify and implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for the Severe Area Ozone Plan in April 2002. Although this Plan was never finalized, the control measures were incorporated in the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone . The control measures evaluated focused on the specific transportation control measures listed in Section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act. Collectively, local governments adopted a broad range of commitments to implement control measures. These extensive commitments demonstrate the level of effort that is being made by the local jurisdictions to reduce emissions and to improve air quality.

The resolutions adopted by the respective entities to commit to implement local government control measures are included in the Regional Transportation Planning Agency Commitments for Implementation Document, April 2002. The document is available for public review at the central San Joaquin Valley Unified
APCD office located in Fresno and was included in the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone

.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-49 Figure 4-1

OVERVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL MEASURE PROCESS

FOR THE EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

STEP 1:

RTPAs request member jurisdictions to adopt RACM

resolutions in November 2003. Transmit model resolution package, including existing RACM commitments to all local jurisdictions.

STEP 2:

RTPAs and member jurisdictions adopt resolutions in accordance with the model resolution package and submit to RTPAs for compilation.

Each implementing agency passes resolution describing the measures to be implemented

• Measure description

• Legal Authority for implementation

• Funding for measures

• Enforcement

Each implementing agency also describes reasons for rejecting any measures

• Technologically or economically

infeasible

• Otherwise unreasonable

STEP 3: Air Quality Consultant prepares Commitment document and

submits to the Air District.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-50 4.6.3 Suggested measures

In order to maximize input from individual cities and other jurisdictions, as well as the public, the RTPA-level RACM process has been conducted on an individual county level, with Valley-wide coordination provided through a consultant. Each RTPA conducted the RACM process in 2003/2004 in a manner consistent with their individual committee structures and public processes.

This RACM process used the previous RACM process (dated April 2002) to the extent possible. The Suggested Measures that were considered at that time included existing local government control measures in the SJVAB and example control measures in other ozone nonattainment areas. The list was organized by category using the specific transportation control measures listed in Section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act.

It is important to note that the only other Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Area in the country is the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in California. RTPA staff and consultants reviewed the transportation control measures included in the SCAB 2003 Air Quality Management Plan to see if the South Coast Air Quality Management District adopted any new measures not previously considered in the SJVAB. Inspection of the SCAB 2003 Air Quality Management Plan

determined that the list of control measures for consideration was taken from the Regional Transportation Planning Agency Commitments for Implementation

Document , April 2002 (this is the description of commitments developed for the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone ). It was determined that the South Coast Air Quality Management District added no new measures to this list for consideration. Therefore, no new measures were available to the San Joaquin Valley for consideration in the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan RACM process.

The summary of commitments and submitted resolutions (with existing commitments and reasoned justification) were transmitted to each jurisdiction to be used as the starting point. Each measure listed on the Summary of Commitments should either have a commitment or reasoned justification for each implementing entity.

In general, the local jurisdictions reviewed the adopted resolution package to determine if existing commitments could be strengthened. Examples of strengthening included extending the implementation schedule for the measure through 2010 or including additional financial resources. If the existing commitment is not ongoing (e.g., implementation expires in 2005) and/or cannot be strengthened, then reasoned justification should have been developed.

In addition, the local jurisdictions reviewed the adopted resolution package to determine if any measures that were previously found not feasible are nowEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-51 feasible for implementation. If so, a new commitment for implementation should have been developed. If not, the reasoned justification should have been updated accordingly.

4.6.4 Adopted measures

Each RTPA member jurisdiction has identified measures that are technologically and economically feasible for implementation by that entity. The appropriate governing body has adopted formal resolutions to commit to implement control measures. If a jurisdiction decided that a measure was not feasible forimplementation, the jurisdiction documented the “reasoned justification” for nonimplementation, as required by EPA for the RACM process. This justification is based on technological or economic infeasibility.

The resolutions adopted by the respective entities to commit to implement local government control measures are included in the corresponding Regional Transportation Planning Agency Commitments for Implementation Document (Volumes 4 and 5, dated March 2004) [Appendix C (uncirculated) to this Plan]. The document is available for public review at the District’s office in Fresno, the ARB’s office in Sacramento, and EPA’s Region 9 office in San Francisco.

Collectively, a broad range of commitments to implement control measures were adopted by the local governments. These extensive commitments demonstrate the level of effort that is being made to improve air quality. It is important to note that specific emissions reduction targets for each of the measures have not been

included in this Extreme OADP . However, in many cases these commitments will produce emission reductions above and beyond what has been quantified in

the Extreme OADP . These adopted control measures represent additional efforts by the local jurisdictions to reduce emissions and improve air quality.

4.6.5 Public Participation

The 1992 Transportation & Air Quality Planning Guidelines, which address public participation, are issued jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation. These guidelines are designed to encourage an effective public participation program for the development and implementation of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). According to the guidelines, the objectives of the public participation program should be to:

1. Promote public awareness of the air pollution problem, the SIP revision process, and the effects of various transportation control measures; 2. Encourage active participation from a variety of interest groups in the plan preparation process; 3. Promote public understanding and agreement on the transportation control measures necessary to improve air quality;EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-52 4. Provide for the identification of both interested and affected constituencies; 5. Ensure that the agencies and elected officials are responsive to these constituencies; and 6. Encourage a spirit of openness and trust among elected officials, agencies, and the public.

Public Involvement Process for Transportation and Air Quality

Passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) expanded emphasis on public involvement in the metropolitan planning process. The intent of the public involvement provisions in ISTEA is to increase public awareness and involvement in transportation planning and programming. ISTEA requires that the metropolitan planning organization provide citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agencies, private providers of transportation and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to comment on proposed transportation plans and programs. These provisions have been continued under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21).

Title VI Considerations

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin by recipients and sub-recipients of federal funds and prohibits exclusion from participation, denial of benefits, or being subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Additional federal and state laws and directives prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, gender, handicap or disability. The Executive Order of 1994 on Environmental Justice encourages consideration of environmental justice concerns, especially the impact of programs and activities on low-income and minority populations. The Act and its related laws and directives hereinafter are called, collectively, Title VI.

Decision Making Structure and Public Participation

The San Joaquin Valley contains eight counties. The transportation planning process in each county is conducted by an MPO or RTPA. Each transportation planning agency performs planning functions in accordance with applicable transportation and air quality planning guidelines and Title VI considerations. These eight agencies are leading the process to identify, evaluate and implement potential RACM measures pertaining to the transportation sector that may be implemented on a local level.

Workshops

The District conducted public workshops on developing an Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on July 23, 2003 and on January 6 and 7, 2004. The JulyEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-53 2003 workshop presented an overview of the air quality plan development process. One public comment addressed the RACM process, and asked if RTPAs would revisit prior RACM commitments for the Extreme OADP . The January 2004 Workshop include a presentation addressing the status of the TPA RACM process. No public comments were received on the RTPA RACM process from the January workshops. The District also conducted public workshops on the Draft Extreme OADP on August 12 and 13, 2004. The presentation on control measures at these workshops included a summary of the completed RACM process. No public comments were received on the completed RACM process and corresponding commitment documents.

The SJVAB RTPAs have developed a website (located at http://www.fresnocog.org ) to serve as a resource for each county, as well as to provide the public with detailed information on the RACM process. This page contains relevant RACM guidance documents, agendas, and minutes for the biweekly/monthly RTPA meetings coordinating the RACM process.



### 4.7 STATE EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR THE SJVAB 1

4.7.1 Introduction

Motor vehicles and equipment under State and federal jurisdiction, while responsible for about 55 percent of ozone-forming gases in the SJVAB in 2004, are also contributing the majority of the emission reductions needed for attainment. Adopted State and federal regulations for cleaner engines and fuels are driving down Valley emissions of ozone precursors – reactive organic gases (ROG, also referred to as VOC elsewhere in this Plan) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) – by over 225 tons per day (tpd), or over 35 percent, between 2000 and

2010.

To provide additional statewide emission reductions needed to achieve the federal health-based air quality standards, ARB adopted the 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan (Statewide Strategy) on October 23, 2003. ARB submitted the Statewide Strategy to EPA for approval as a revision to the California SIP on January 4, 2004.

The Statewide Strategy identifies the Board’s near-term regulatory agenda to reduce ozone and particulate matter by developing and adopting defined new measures from 2002 through 2009, with implementation prior to the 2010 ozone season. It includes commitments for the Board to consider 19 specific statewide measures, plus the Bureau of Automotive Repair’s planned improvements to the

1 ARB staff prepared this section, and the District did not change the text other than to format it for consistency with the remainder of the Extreme OADP and to conduct minor editing.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-54 Smog Check program and the continuation of the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s approved SIP obligation 2 to reduce volatile emissions from pesticides. The Statewide Strategy includes a process to identify longer-term

solutions for additional reductions from sources under State/federal/local control.

The defined control measures in the Statewide Strategy cover on-road vehicles, off-road equipment, ports and harbor-craft, fuels and refueling, and consumer products. Measures to clean up the existing fleet of mobile sources complement lower emission standards for new engines and consumer products. Other measures would reduce vapor emissions from gasoline storage and refueling. These defined measures are listed in Table 4-3. The Statewide Strategy, which includes detailed descriptions of each of the measures, is available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/stfed03/stfed03.htm

.

The Statewide Strategy discusses the need to obtain continued funding for the Carl Moyer incentive program to supplement regulatory actions requiring clean up of the existing fleet of diesel vehicles and equipment. New State funding for the Moyer program would enable additional clean engine projects and provide emission reductions to be credited towards the State’s obligation.

When adopting the Statewide Strategy, the Board delegated to the ARB Executive Officer the responsibility to quantify the appropriate benefits from the

near-term measures for other areas that need further reductions in the 2010 timeframe and to reflect these benefits in the regional SIPs. ARB staff estimates that the near-term measures in the Statewide Strategy will provide 15 tpd ROG and 20 tpd NOx in the San Joaquin Valley in 2010. ARB previously committed to achieve 10 tpd of new NOx reductions as part of the PM10 Plan , which is a subset of the 20 tpd NOx discussed here.

4.7.2 Current Implementation Status

ARB has already started to implement the Statewide Strategy. Several of the measures in the Strategy are comprehensive approaches for the source category, encompassing multiple rulemakings or other actions that will contribute to the total reductions expected. As of July 1, 2004, ARB has taken action on the following measures:

• The low sulfur diesel fuel regulation adopted in July 2003 fulfills SIP measure

FUEL-2.

• The small off-road engine emission standards adopted in September 2003

fulfill SIP measures SMALL OFF-RD-1 and SMALL OFF-RD-2.

2 40 CFR Part 52, Federal Register, January 8, 1997, pages 1150-1187.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-55 • The particulate matter control measure for diesel-powered solid wastecollection vehicles adopted September 2003 fulfills part of SIP measure ONRD HVY DUTY-3.

• The voluntary emission control software upgrade program for diesel trucks approved in March 2004 fulfills part of SIP measure ON-RD HVY DUTY-3 . This voluntary measure includes a regulatory backstop to ensure that the anticipated emission reductions occur by 2010.

• The engine manufacturer diagnostics requirements for new diesel trucks adopted in May 2004 fulfill part of SIP measure ON-RD HVY DUTY-3

.

• The consumer products regulation adopted in June 2004 fulfill SIP measure

CONS-1

.

• By 2004, ARB had begun implementing an expanded community-based inspection program for diesel trucks and buses, fulfilling SIP measure ON-RD

HVY DUTY-1

.

In addition to these defined SIP measures, ARB adopted three controls for diesel stationary engines, portable engines, and transportation refrigeration units in February 2004 that will contribute to meeting the State’s obligations.

4.7.3 ARB Commitments for Extreme OADP for SJVAB

ARB commits to adopt and implement measures to achieve, at a minimum, 15 tpd ROG and 20 tpd NOx emission reductions in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin by the 2010 ozone season. ARB will adopt measures to achieve these reductions between 2002—2009. ARB may meet this commitment by adopting one or more of the control measures in Table 4-3, by adopting one or more alternative control measures, or by implementing incentive program(s), so long as the aggregate emission reduction commitment is achieved.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-56 Table 4-3. Defined State Measures from the 2003 Statewide Strategy

Strategy (Agency) Name

LT/MED-DUTY-1 (ARB) Replace or Upgrade Emission Control Systems on Existing Passenger

Vehicles

LT/MED-DUTY-2 (BAR) Improve Smog Check to Reduce Emissions from Existing Passenger & Cargo Vehicles

ON-RD HVY DUTY-1 (ARB) Augment Truck and Bus Highway Inspections with Community-Based Inspections

ON-RD HVY DUTY-2 (ARB) Capture and Control Vapors from Gasoline Cargo Tankers

ON-RD HVY DUTY-3 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing and New Truck/Bus Fleet

OFF-RD CI-1 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Heavy-Duty Off-Road Equipment Fleet (Compression Ignition Engines)

OFF-RD CI-2 (ARB) Implement Registration and Inspection Program for Existing Off-Road Equipment to Detect Excess Emissions (Compression Ignition Engines)

OFF-RD LSI-1 (ARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for New Off-Road Gas Engines (Spark Ignited Engines 25 hp and Greater)

OFF-RD LSI-2 (ARB) Clean Up Existing Off-Road Gas Equipment Through Retrofit Controls and New Emission Standards (Spark-Ignition Engines 25 hp and Greater)

SMALL OFF-RD-1 (ARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for New Handheld Small Engines and Equipment (Spark Ignited Engines Under 25 hp such as Weed Trimmers, Leaf Blowers, and Chainsaws)

SMALL OFF-RD-2 (ARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for New Non-Handheld Small Engines and Equipment (Spark Ignited Engines Under 25 hp such as Lawnmowers)

MARINE-1 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Harbor Craft Fleet – Cleaner Engines and Fuels

MARINE-2 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Reduce Land-Based Port Emissions – Alternative Fuels, Cleaner Engines, Retrofit Controls, Electrification, Education Programs, Operational Controls

FUEL-1 (ARB) Set Additives Standards for Diesel Fuel to Control Engine Deposits

FUEL-2 (ARB) Set Low-Sulfur Standards for Diesel Fuel for Trucks/Buses, Off-Road Equipment, and Stationary Engines

CONS-1

(ARB) Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2006

CONS-2

(ARB) Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2008-2010

FVR-1 (ARB) Increase Recovery of Fuel Vapors from Aboveground Storage Tanks

FVR-2 (ARB) Recover Fuel Vapors from Gasoline Dispensing at Marinas

FVR-3 (ARB) Reduce Fuel Permeation Through Gasoline Dispenser Hoses

PEST-1 (DPR) Implement Existing Pesticide StrategyEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-57 

### 4.8 Contingency Measures

In general, contingency measures are control measures that go into effect, without further action by the State or the EPA Administrator, if planned emission controls fail to reach desired goals and targets. The FCAA defines two types of contingencies: (1) “specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by the attainment date applicable under this part” [Title I, Part D, Section 179 (c)(9)] and (2) “specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to meet any applicable milestone” [Title I, Part D, Section 182(c)(9)].

For the SJVAB, the concept of contingency measures is almost a moot point, for several reasons. First, areas such as the SJVAB that have been aggressively developing and implementing emission control measures over the past twenty years have already achieved most of the emissions reductions that are within the authority of the District to control and that are technically and economically feasible. In essence, the “low-hanging fruit” has already been picked. The likelihood of identifying new source categories under District authority to control, with attendant large emission reductions, is very small; any control measures beyond what have been identified in this Plan and within the District’s authority to implement are likely to have relatively small emissions reductions 3 , and thus would be of minimal value as contingency measures.

Second, prior to the next ROP milestone year for 1-hour ozone, the District will be developing three major air quality plans as SIP submittals that will control ozone precursor emissions: the 2006 PM10 Plan , the 2007 8-hour Ozone

Attainment Demonstration Plan , and the 2008 PM2.5/Regional Haze Plan. The

PM10 Plan is required in the final rule approving the 2003 PM10 Plan (69 FR 30035), and the dates for submittal of the 8-hour Ozone Plan and the PM2.5/Regional Haze Plan are driven by EPA final rule language stating that plans are due three years after the effective date of designations (final rules not yet published). Each of these plans will develop additional control measures for ozone precursor emissions independent of this Extreme OADP , and thus will help in meeting ROP milestones and/or attainment goals for the federal 1-hour ozone standard if needed. The magnitude of reductions from control measures

outside of the Extreme OADP is likely to exceed what is needed for the Extreme
OADP for contingency measures. 4 Therefore, control measures developed for

3 Note that 14 of the 21 new District control measures listed in Table 4-1 of this Plan achieve reductions in ozone precursor emissions of 1.0 tons/day or less each for 2010; the total 2010 reductions estimated from these 14 measures are about 5.8 tons/day compared to a total SJVAB 2010 inventory of over 760 tons/day VOC and NOx combined.

4 For example, Reynolds, Blanchard and Ziman identify, through photochemical grid modeling,

that NOx emissions must be reduced to about 10% of 1999 base case values to attain the 8-hour ozone standard in the SJVAB (“Understanding the Effectiveness of Precursor Reductions in Lowering 8-hr Ozone Concentrations, J. Air & Waste Man ., 53: 195-205, February 2003).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-58 these other plans serve the same function as contingency measures developed exclusively for the Extreme OADP

.

Third, EPA plans to revoke the federal 1-hour ozone standard before the next 1- hour ROP milestone year for the SJVAB (2008), so the concept of contingency measures for federal 1-hour ozone standard requirements has diminished importance for the SJVAB (i.e., once the standard is revoked on June 15, 2005, EPA is not obligated to determine if an area has met the 1-hour standard by the area’s attainment date [40 CFR 51.905(e)]).

Fourth, because the District is using “long-term measures” as part of its control strategy (see Section 4.8), it is required by the federal Clean Air Act to identify the contingency measures with reductions equal to those achieved by long-term measures no later than three years before implementation of proposed plan provisions [Section 182(e)(5) of the federal Clean Air Act]. For the District, this would involve not only identifying the long-term measures, but also redoing this
Extreme OADP with whatever new information and tools are available related to the formation of ozone in the SJVAB. Thus, an additional planning requirement related to long-term measures provides another level of contingency in that the District will reevaluate the SJVAB 1-hour ozone attainment control strategy in

2007 5 , well in advance of the next ROP milestone year (2008) or the attainment year (2010), and will add new measures as warranted by the updated assessment of ozone air quality at that time. This represents the functional equivalent of contingency measures as defined in the federal Clean Air Act.



### 4.9 LONG-TERM MEASURES

Section 182(e)(5) of the Federal Clean Air Act allows EPA to approve provisions of an implementation plan for an Extreme Area that anticipate the development of new control techniques or improvement of existing control technologies, and an attainment demonstration based on such provisions. This provision of the federal Clean Air Act is dependent upon the state demonstrating that such provisions are not needed for incremental emissions reductions in the 1990-2000 time frame, and that the state has submitted enforceable commitments to develop and adopt contingency measures to be implemented if the anticipated future technologies do not achieve planned emission reductions. The state must submit these contingency measures to EPA no later than three years before proposed implementation of the plan provisions and approved or disapproved by EPA in accordance with Section 110 of the federal Clean Air Act. The contingency

measures must be sufficient to achieve the emissions reductions needed for ROP or attainment demonstration purposes. For this Extreme OADP, ozone

5 If EPA revokes the 1-hour standard as planned, then the District would not update the 1-hour
Extreme OADP in 2007, but instead would develop the 8-hour OADP for submittal in June 2007.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 4

- Control Strategy

4-59 precursor emission reductions must be implemented no later than Spring 2010 to affect ozone levels in the attainment year of 2010. Thus the District would need to identify the Section 182(e)(5) contingency measures no later than spring of

2007.

Because of other ongoing and planned major SIP submittals, the District will fulfill the intent of the Section 182(e)(5) contingency measure requirements by identifying and implementing control measures above and beyond the Extreme
OADP that will help attain the federal 1-hour ozone standards. The District has a legally enforceable commitment to revise the PM10 Plan and submit it to EPA by March 31, 2006 (69 FR 5431), and a regulatory requirement to submit an 8-hour
OADP by June 15, 2007. Each of these would create ozone precursor emission reductions that are beyond the scope of this Extreme OADP by Spring 2007, and would thus meet the intent of contingency measures for Section 182(e)(5). For

this Extreme OADP , the magnitude of the long-term measures is fairly small (a few tons/day each of VOC and NOx), and represents a small percent of the 2010 inventory (see Section 5.6). Consequently, the control measures developed for the other plans mentioned above would easily cover the magnitude of reductions required for the long-term measures.

# ❖

## Chapter 5 – FUTURE OZONE AIR QUALITY

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 5

– Future Ozone Air Quality

5-1 

### 5 FUTURE OZONE AIR QUALITY

5.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Air quality models are used to predict ozone concentrations in future years. These models simulate the formation, transport, and removal of ozone from the lower atmosphere. The models are computer programs that estimate the contribution of ozone from emissions, winds, temperature, dispersion, removal, and chemical changes.

Modelers used state of the art procedures to perform modeling for this plan. These procedures included: implementing a comprehensive measurement program, formulating and formatting model ready data inputs, running the model, comparing the model prediction to the base case, developing future year emissions scenarios, and running those with the model to predict future ozone levels. The goal of these modeling exercises is to formulate a controlled

emissions scenario where ozone levels will achieve the federal 1-hour ozone standards. Appendix D provides more information on the modeling conducted for

this Extreme OADP

.



### 5.2 PARTICIPANTS

The use of ozone models for developing air quality plans requires both scientific and organizational procedures. For this plan, most of the development and initial implementation of the modeling was done under the direction of the San Joaquin Valley Study Agency. The Technical Committee of the San Joaquin Valley Study Agency, which consists of governmental and industry representatives from Central California (including the District, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD], and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District [SMAQMD]), formulated and reviewed procedures for conducting the modeling for this plan. This body of expertise was supplemented by experienced and specialized consultants hired through the Study Agency to address specific questions related to SIP development. ARB developed modeling procedures for the future years and conducted the modeling.



### 5.3 MODEL CHOICE

Several photochemical models are available to assess the emissions reductions needed to achieve the one hour ozone NAAQS. These include the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ), SARMAP Air Quality Model (SAQM), and the

C omprehensive A ir quality M odel with Ex tensions (CAMx) model. EPA has approved each of these models for use in SIPs. During the course of the SIP modeling effort, modelers ran each one of these models and then compared the output to observations. The CAMx model was judged to perform slightly betterEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 5

– Future Ozone Air Quality

5-2 than the others, and this model has the capability of diagnosing internal operations that give the final pollutant results. CAMx has computer coding that can evaluate, within each grid cell at a given time for each physical and chemical process, the amount of ozone produced. This algorithm, called process analysis (PA), can diagnose problems in the model. For meteorological inputs to the air quality model, weather models called MM5 (Meso-scale Model 5) and Calmet were used. These models are discussed below. Other meteorological models were run, but this model resulted in the best overall performance for winds and temperatures.



### 5.4 MODEL BASE CASE

In order to estimate the amount of emissions reductions needed to achieve ambient air quality standards, modelers first establish a modeling base case. This is a historical episode that represents near worst-case weather conditions. Modelers select the episode by analyzing ozone and other pollutant concentrations, pollutant transport, dispersion, and day-specific emissions. The goal of this analysis is to determine the representativeness of the episode for testing emission reduction strategies.

Modelers considered five episodes for representing ozone episodes in the San Joaquin Valley. These episodes occurred during 1999, 2000, and 2002. The episodes in 2000 are part of the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS). During CCOS, scientists made extensive measurements of ozone, hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and other chemical species from ground-based sites and from aircraft. Additionally, lower air profilers measured continuous winds and temperatures aloft. Episodes outside of CCOS had much less meteorological and pollutant data to initialize and verify models. Consequently, members of the Technical Committee were highly interested in using CCOS episodes for SIP development. Candidate episodes for SIP analysis included:

• July 11-12, 1999

• June 17,18, 2000

• July 29-August 2, 2000

• September 17-21, 2000

• August 9-16, 2002

State and local agencies and their consultants working for CCOS simulated all of these episodes using one or more of the computer models described above. The focus of these modeling efforts was for the San Joaquin, Bay Area, and Sacramento SIPs. In addition to the ARB, contractors from private firms, NOAA, and academia worked on various aspects of modeling these episodes.

Of the CCOS episodes, where extensive air quality and meteorological data was available, the July/August 2000, episode was determined to be the most representative of the transport and formation of ozone in the Central CaliforniaEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 5

– Future Ozone Air Quality

5-3 Region. During CCOS, numerous air quality and meteorological measurements were taken that would produce more confidence in photochemical modeling results. For example, aircraft and ground based hydrocarbon measurements were taken that could be used to start the models. Lower air profilers that measured the winds and temperatures in the lower atmosphere achieved better coverage of the SJVAB and collected data more frequently than routine

measurements. Technical Committee members identified some issues with this episode (notably the presence of wildfires), but the consensus was that shifting resources to other episodes had no demonstrable benefits.

Because of the issues identified for the July/August 2000 episode, the District was also interested in the September 17-21, 2000 episode for potential use in the SIP. Consequently, the District contracted modeling of this episode through the Study Agency. After considerable study, the performance of this episode was found to not meet performance criteria for use in the SIP, so it was not pursued.

Weather causing poor dispersion and light transport of pollutants during the JulyAugust 2000 episode was typical of high ozone events in Central California. High pressure dominated the region and the magnitude of that pressure was typical of high ozone events. This weather pattern caused light winds, strong inversions, and poor dispersion throughout the episode. Study Agency and outside contractors along with staff concluded that the July-August 2000 episode meteorology was typical of ozone episodes in the SJV. Therefore, the episode

was deemed useful for evaluation of emission reductions.

The July-August 2000, episode exhibited weather features that were similar to high ozone events analyzed historically. Observed winds showed morning upslope, nighttime downslope, local eddies, and marine wind flows. Figure 5-1 shows winds in the morning and afternoon of July 30, 2000. Morning down-slope and afternoon up-valley flow are evident in this simulation. Marine flow is also evident in the afternoon in the northern SJV. A prominent feature of the afternoon simulation is the up valley wind flow into the SJV from the Bay Area, which brings marine air into the Northern SJV; however, the air becomes quite modified and hot by the time it reaches Fresno. High velocity downslope winds are evident in the morning simulation near Fresno. The Fresno eddy (Section 2) is not obvious in the morning simulation, but there is some hint of it in the data because the winds are easterly in east Fresno County and westerly in west Fresno County. Modelers produced meteorological simulations using a hybrid of the Meso-scale Model 5 (MM5) and the Calmet model. NOAA developed the MM5 simulation under contract to the study agency. ARB and consultants working for the districts in Central California also conducted MM5 runs. Technical Committee members evaluated the MM5 runs, and found differences between observed vs. predicted meteorology that could not be resolved by additional MM5 runs. For this reason, the Technical Committee explored a hybrid approach in which results from another model (Calmet) are used to modify the MM5 results to see if predictions of meteorological parameters more closelyEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 5

– Future Ozone Air Quality

5-4 match observed values for these parameters. Calmet is an observational based model where surface and aloft meteorology are interpolated. For the modeling exercise in this Plan, modelers used Calmet as the basis for the wind simulation, and adjusted the results using MM5 results in areas where no observations were

available.

The process to develop and validate an air quality model generally is very complex and resource intensive, and the development of the July/August CCOS episode was no exception. Technical Committee members and consultants spent a great deal of time and effort in the development and review of the modeling inputs, and in the application and validation of the air quality model. Many stakeholders participated in this process, including representatives of local air districts and transportation planning agencies in the region, and members of the CCOS Technical Advisory Committee. The modeling for this episode is an ongoing effort, since it will eventually support many uses in addition to one-hour ozone SIP planning, and since it will continue to reflect new information and improvements in the science. However, the modeling results presented in this document satisfy accepted model performance criteria and are acceptable and appropriate for use in SIP planning.

Figure 5-1 Wind Field for July 30, 2000 at 5:00am and 3:00pm PSTEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 5

– Future Ozone Air Quality

5-5 The Technical Committee has raised several issues regarding the use of the July-August 2000 episode in this Plan. Although the Southern Region near Bakersfield observed 1-hour ozone levels near design values (see Chapter 2), the Central Region near Fresno did not. The model predicts 1-hour ozone levels near design values in the Fresno area, but these have not been verified by observations. Earlier versions of the modeling showed lower predicted ozone levels; later model runs with the hybrid meteorology described above produced higher predicted 1-hour ozone levels near Fresno. Although some members of the Technical Committee raised issues regarding the merging of modeled and

observational data 1 , no better solution was found. The better agreement of the simulated regional 1-hour ozone peaks and the measured design value near Fresno, using the hybrid approach, is a principal advantage of the hybrid.

Figure 5-2 shows the maximum ozone simulated in the base case (July/August 2000). Concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley are approximately 140 ppb near Bakersfield and Fresno. Typical design values (see Section 2) for the period from 2001-2003 are 150 ppb near Bakersfield at Arvin and 151 ppb near Fresno at Parlier. The large ozone plume east of Tulare was due to a large wildfire called the Manter fire. Although the model showed fire effects in the SJVAB on the last day of the simulation (August 2), on July 30 the fire effects were minimal on the floor of the valley. Figure 5-3 shows the effects of the fires

on simulated ozone concentrations.



### 5.5 FUTURE YEAR PROJECTIONS

Once the model has been validated by comparing predicted and observed concentrations, the model can be used to predict future air quality. Future year emissions projected in a process described in Chapter 3 are processed to provide input to the model. The first step in estimating reductions to achieve the federal 1-hour ozone standards is to forecast emissions for the attainment year, which for this plan is 2010. The 2010 emissions estimate was run through the model. The model showed that the projected 2010 emissions did not attain the federal 1-hour ozone standards. Because of fire emissions impacts in the model on the days later in the episode, July 30 at the beginning of the episode was chosen to do future year analyses. The model forecast that the highest concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley would be 128 ppb near Fresno and 136 ppb near Bakersfield. Figure 5-4 shows the model response to 2010 emissions estimates using meteorology from July 30, 2000.

1 For example, the air quality model is resolved to 4km X 4km grids. Some believe that the meteorology and air quality model resolution should match, and that only meteorological model physics should drive the analysis.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 5

– Future Ozone Air Quality

5-6 Figure 5-2

Maximum Ozone Concentration for CCOS Episode, July 30—August 2, 2000EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 5

– Future Ozone Air Quality

5-7 Figure 5-3 Change in Maximum Ozone Concentration Due to Wildfires, July 30, 2000EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 5

– Future Ozone Air Quality

5-8 Figure 5-4 Maximum Predicted Ozone Levels, 2010, Without Additional ControlsEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 5

– Future Ozone Air Quality

5-9 

### 5.6 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

Attainment demonstration refers to estimating the amount of ozone precursor emission reductions needed for the model to project attainment of the federal 1- hour ozone standards. After validation of the model, and some emissions adjustments for inventory improvements, modelers calculate the amount of

reductions needed to attain the federal 1-hour ozone standards.

Once a base 2010 emission scenario was established, modelers established reductions in emissions of ozone precursors across the modeling region from the 2010 emissions forecast. These cuts consist of reducing the amounts of VOC and NOx emissions in the region by a percentage, running these emissions through the model, and recording and plotting the ozone levels predicted by the model for these combinations of emissions. Repeating this process many times produces a data set of predicted ozone levels for a given location as a function of VOC and NOx emissions inventories. Plotting the predicted ozone levels as a function of various VOC and NOx emissions produces a carrying capacity diagram 2 , an example of which is shown in Figure 5-5. The carrying capacity diagrams for Fresno and Bakersfield revealed that both VOC and NOx emissions

reductions were needed to demonstrate attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standards using the July 30 episode day. Plots for other days near the end of the simulation, especially August 2, showed that in the Bakersfield area ozone was limited by VOC emissions and reductions in NOx did not significantly change ozone levels. Because fire emissions affected the end of the episode on August 2, that day was not used for attainment demonstration.

Figure 5-5 presents the carrying capacity diagram for July 30, 2010 in Bakersfield. The axes represent fractions of the 2010 NOx and VOC emissions inventories that produce various ozone levels in (represented by the numbers on the curves that are shown; units are in parts per billion). Since the federal 1-hour ozone standards are 0.12 ppm, any ozone value of 124 ppb or less on Figure 5-5 represents attainment of the federal 1-hour standards. Planners thus look at what combinations of fractions of the 2010 VOC and NOx inventories support ozone levels that attain the standards. For example, a NOx inventory of 85% of the total used in the modeling 3 , coupled with a VOC inventory also at 85% of the modeled inventory, would demonstrate attainment because the intersection of lines drawn perpendicular to the respective axes from these points intersect to the left of (and hence are lower than) the curved line labeled “125” 4

.

2 The name stems from the level of emissions that the atmosphere can “carry” and still

demonstrate attainment.

3 An inventory that is 85% of the total used in the modeling reflects an overall emission reduction of 15% for that ozone precursor.

4 A value of “125” or higher (to the upper right) represents nonattainment.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 5

– Future Ozone Air Quality

5-10 Figure 5-5. Carrying Capacity Diagram for Bakersfield on July 30, 2010

Planners used Figure 5-5 for this Extreme OADP by first estimating emissions reductions that have been identified since completion of the emissions inventory used in the modeling for this Extreme OADP (the gridded photochemical modeling described above reflects emissions controls in place as of September 2002)

. Thus, for this Extreme OADP , any control measure commitments identified after September 2002 represent additional reductions that contribute to the overall total reductions needed for attainment. These measures include (1)

District control measures and state and federal measures identified for the 2003

PM10 Plan approved by EPA effective June 25, 2004, (2) District measures adopted after the inventory cutoff but before the PM10 Plan and not reflected in

the PM10 Plan , and (3) any additional District, state, and federal measure commitments developed for this Extreme OADP

. 5 Planners added these emissions reductions for each of VOC and NOx and used the resulting totals to

5 Note that Table 4-1 only supplies some of the emissions reductions needed for the attainment demonstration; others come from the 2003 PM10 Plan , incentives, and state emission control measures. For these reasons, the sum of reductions in Table 4-1 does not match the sum

needed to demonstrate attainment in Table 5-1.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 5

– Future Ozone Air Quality

5-11 

### TABLE 5-1

SJVAB FEDERAL 1-HOUR OZONE ATTAINMENT CONCEPT

2010 Summer Planning Inventory (tons/day) Category

VOC NOx 2010 Baseline Inventory a 367.6 401.7

District Rules-- Post-Inventory and Pre- PM10 Plan b 0 0.1

Update to Estimated 2010 State Commitments in PM10 Plan c 2.5 14.9 Update to Estimated 2010 District Commitments in PM10 Plan d 9.4 26.3 Total Updated 2010 Commitments in PM10 Plan 11.9 41.2

New ARB 2010 Commitments in Extreme OADP e 15.0 10.0

New District 2010 Commitments in Extreme OADP f 21.3 1.9

Total New 2010 Commitments from Extreme OADP 36.3 11.9

Total Reductions through PM10 Plan and Extreme OADP 48.2 53.2

Reductions Needed from Long-Term Measures 5 5

Total Reductions 53.2 58.2

Total Reductions as % of 2010 Inventory 14.5% 14.5%

a See Table 3-1; CCOS Summer Inventory, Version 2.11, January 2004; reflects control measures through September 2002.

b Represents District Rule 4313 for Lime Kilns, which is estimated to provide 0.1 tpd of 2010 NOx

reductions. This rule was not included in the emissions reductions used in the 2003 PM10 Plan ; it was adopted in March 2003 after the September 2002 cutoff date for the inventory.

c Based on updates to estimated annual emissions reductions in the 2003 PM10 Plan , Tables 4-14 and 4-17. State measures reflect 2.5 tpd of VOC reductions from I/M enhancements that

are not shown in the 2003 PM10 Plan , and 4.9 tpd of NOx reductions from Smog Check II that

are shown in the 2003 PM10 Plan

. d Based on updates to estimated emissions reductions from District measures given in the 2003

PM10 Plan , as shown in Table 4-1 in this Extreme OADP (Footnote 6). Also includes emissions

reductions from control measures in the PM10 Plan that were adopted as rules before creation of Table 4-1 (Rules 4604, 4408, 4610, 4306, and incentives—see Footnote 6 in Table 4-1) converted to summer totals thru the EIC codes affected by the control measure categories using

summer and annual CCOS inventories. Residential wood combustion emissions excluded.

e New state measures above and beyond those in the 2003 PM10 Plan ; see Table 4-3 in the

Extreme OADP.

f New District measures above and beyond those in the 2003 PM10 Plan ; does not include measures affected by Footnote d above. Only includes Table 4-1 measures that were not in the

2003 PM10 Plan.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 5

– Future Ozone Air Quality

5-12 compute the percentages by which the 2010 NOx and VOC emission inventories were reduced by the control measures. As shown in Table 5-1, adding the emission reductions from these three components gives a total VOC emission reduction of about 48.2 tons/day and a total NOx emission reduction of about 53.2 tons/day. These inventories represented about 87% of the VOC inventory used in the modeling and about 87% of the NOx inventory used in the modeling. Plotting these data on Figure 5-5 showed that the intersection of the two controls resulted in a predicted ozone level that is clearly on or to the right of the “125” nonattainment line, thereby indicating nonattainment.

This predicted nonattainment led the District to identify additional emissions reductions, which when added to the totals discussed above, would be sufficient to demonstrate attainment. The District determined that 5 tons per day of VOC emissions reductions and 5 tons per day of NOx emissions reductions, when added to the totals already shown in Table 5-1 from specific District and State measures identified through this Extreme OADP , would be sufficient to demonstrate attainment. Addition of 5 tons per day to each of the VOC and NOx categories produced total reductions of 53.2 tons per day of VOC and 58.2 tons per day of NOx (Table 5-1). These reductions result in a VOC emissions inventory that is 85.5% of the VOC inventory used in the modeling and a NOx emissions inventory that is about 85.5% of the NOx inventory used in the modeling. Plotting these percentages on Figure 5-5 shows that the lines intersect to the left of the “125” nonattainment line, indicating a predicted 2010

ozone level that is in attainment with the federal 1-hour ozone standards. The resulting 2010 emissions inventory that demonstrates attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standards in the SJVAB is about 314 tons per day of VOC and about 344 tons per day of NOx.

In accordance with the federal Clean Air Act and as described in Section 4.9,

these additional emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment are placed into the category of “Long-Term Measures” that will be identified in 2007 (see Section 4.9). No specific control measures producing these reductions are identified at this time. As discussed in Section 4.9, the District needs to identify these measures no later than the spring of 2007. Because of other major SIP commitments that are scheduled to occur prior to this date (e.g., the 2006 PM10

Plan and the 2007 8-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan ), specific control measures with reductions of this magnitude are expected to be identified.

Put another way, the emissions reductions achieved through the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone , when modeled out to 2010, are insufficient to attain the federal 1-hour ozone standards in the SJVAB. Additional reductions are needed for attainment. Adding together the

additional reductions from District and state measures in the 2003 PM10 Plan

and the Extreme OADP (including the “Long-Term Measures”) produces a totalEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 5

– Future Ozone Air Quality

5-13 emission reduction that is sufficient to demonstrate attainment of the federal 1-hr ozone standards in the SJVAB in 2010 for the types of weather conditions observed during this episode.



### 5.7 Modeling Caveats and Future Work

Three major caveats exist regarding the modeling that has been done for this plan. The first is that emissions from major wildfires are in the base case, but not in the future year attainment runs. This approach was used because no reliable and defensible technique exists for predicting the location, duration and intensity of future wildfires. Consequently, the predicted ozone levels for 2010 receive some “benefit” from lack of ozone precursor emissions from major wildfires. Studies done for this plan show that the magnitude of the fire effect is minimal for the day actually used for attainment demonstration (July 30, 2010). The second caveat is that the measured ozone values in Fresno were not near the highest concentrations that historically have occurred. The justification for using this episode was that the peak may have occurred away from a monitoring site, andthe modeled peak may be more indicative of what actually occurred in the JulyAugust 2000 episode. The third caveat is that the meteorological fields for this episode were developed by using a hybrid approach that combined observational and physics-driven meteorological models. This hybrid was used because it resulted in the best agreement between simulated and observed ozone. It is possible that the combination of these could have resulted in compensating errors where the meteorological field made up for underestimations in the inventory and other problems.

In spite of all of these caveats, the modeling used for this plan is based on the best available information and science as of Spring 2004. Future work under CCOS will improve our understanding of ozone production in the SJVAB. As noted in Section 3, other future tasks will address improvements in the emissions inventory. Together, these improved data and modeling tools will lead to stronger modeling exercises for future ozone attainment demonstration plans.

Toward this end, work is currently underway by ARB, SJVAPCD, SMAQMD, BAAQMD, and the consultants for these organizations to improve photochemical modeling in Central California. A systematic plan funded by the Study Agency has been formulated that describes the analyses of emissions, meteorology, chemistry, and model formulation to improve the model performance. Most of the funding for this overall CCOS modeling plan has been approved, and the analyses will be implemented over the next few years.

# ❖

## Chapter 6 – OUTREACH

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 6

– Outreach

6-1 

### 6 OUTREACH

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Public participation is vital to good air quality and education is crucial to good public participation. When government agencies, major industries, educators, businesses, and the general public work together, advancements are made to improve air quality. The Air District makes every effort to improve public education initiatives and to promote better community cooperation to deal with air pollution problems, as described in Section 4.5.

This section describes outreach that was conducted for the Extreme OADP. Outreach tools include workshops, the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, Governing Board presentations, and web site postings.



### 6.2 PRE-DRAFT PLAN WORKSHOPS

Prior to issuing the Draft Extreme OADP , the District held two rounds of public workshops on developing the Plan. The dates of these workshops were, July 23,

2003 for the 1 st round and January 6 and 7, 2004 for the second round of workshops. The workshop held on July 23, 2003 covered the technical issues

associated with the Extreme OADP . About 35 people attended through the Fresno site, 12 at Bakersfield, and 12 at Modesto. The workshop began at 1:30 pm and ended at 4:45 pm. The comment period for this workshop ended on August 7, 2003. Stakeholders submitted about 30 comments in response to information presented at this workshop. The District summarized the comments and provided responses on its website. Two general topics dominated the

comments: the transition from the 1-hour ozone standards to the 8-hour ozone standards, and the timing for making the request to be classified as extreme nonattainment for the federal 1-hour ozone ambient air quality standards.

The January 6 th and 7 th workshops presented more specific information related to the Extreme OADP, and also provided a Status Report on the development of the Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

. The District posted the Status Report on December 31, 2004, and noticed its availability in the same notices used to announce the workshops. The Status Report identified the District and state control measures to appear in the Extreme

OADP , and discussed preliminary photochemical modeling results and their implication for attainment demonstration. About 30 people attended the first workshop (January 6, 2004) and about 20 attended the second workshop (January 7, 2004). The comment period for these workshops ended on January 23, 2004. Participants at the two workshops made over forty verbal comments,

and several other stakeholders submitted written comments. The District summarized the comments and developed responses to these comments thatEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 6

– Outreach

6-2 were posted on the District website at www.valleyair.org . The topics generating the most comments were the preliminary photochemical modeling results, the need to examine emissions controls on a sub-regional level, the rule development process, and the timing of plan development versus EPA’s likely schedule for submitting the Extreme OADP to them.

On December 5, 2003, the District held its last workshop on the reclassification of the SJVAB to extreme nonattainment, and much of the discussion dealt with the content and timing of the Extreme OADP. Stakeholders and participants offered several suggestions for control measures to consider. Comments and responses were submitted as part of the December 18, 2003 Governing Board package for requesting reclassification to extreme nonattainment.



### 6.3 CITIZEN’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) consists of 24 primary and 24 alternate members. Each of the following groups has one unpaid representative from each county in the SJVAB: the Industry/Agriculture, Environment and City. Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings are generally held on the first Tuesday of each month at 10:00 a.m. at the Central Region Office with video-teleconference links to Modesto and Bakersfield. On July 1, 2003 District staff briefed the CAC on ozone and on development of the Extreme OADP

.



### 6.4 DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD

During 2003 and 2004, District staff briefed the Governing Board a number of

times on various issues related to the 1-hour ozone Extreme OADP . These briefings were done at regularly scheduled monthly Governing Board meetings as well as at other public Governing Board meetings. On May 16, 2002, the Governing Board discussed the issue of severe vs extreme nonattainment, and adopted the 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan that served as a springboard

for the Extreme OADP . On June 20, 2002, the Governing Board directed District staff to prepare a plan demonstrating attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard in the SJVAB by November 15, 2010 (the attainment date for areas classified as extreme nonattainment). On December 19, 2002, the Governing Board adopted the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone , which also provided information for use in the Extreme

OADP . On February 20, 2003, District staff briefed the Governing Board on the schedule for developing the Extreme OADP and the implications of severe vs extreme nonattainment timelines. On August 21, 2003, staff provided the Governing Board with an update on the timing for requesting EPA to reclassify the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment. On December 18, 2003, the Governing Board formally requested EPA to reclassify the SJVAB as extremeEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 6

– Outreach

6-3 nonattainment. Agendas and minutes for Governing Board meetings are found

on the District’s web site at www.valleyair.org

.



### 6.5 WEB SITE POSTINGS

On its web site, the District has information pertaining to ozone, including maps, current plans, workshop postings, and other ozone related information. This information is available to the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Workshop documents are available, two weeks prior to the workshops, to give the public time to review the staff report and draft version of the plan. Also available is the current 1-hour ozone adopted plan, archived workshops, adopted rules and regulations, federal regulations and Guidance documents. The web

site also includes information on the federal 8-hour ozone standard and the proposed state 8-hour ozone standard as it becomes available.

The web site provides links to other government and private web sites with information such as air quality research studies (CCOS, IMS 95, SARMAP), other air districts; ARB and EPA. The web site provides links to information on the designation and classification of the San Joaquin valley and other air basins.

Through the use of the web the district is able to effectively reach many more people at very low cost. The Internet allows the Air District to notify the public, especially those that fall into the sensitive group category, when the air quality is unhealthy.



### 6.6 STUDY AGENCY

The District used the regular meetings of the San Joaquin Valley Study Agency Policy Committee to keep stakeholders informed of the schedule for developing

the Extreme OADP and the regular meetings of the Technical Committee to discuss the modeling supporting the attainment demonstration in the Extreme

OADP . On June 29, 2004, members of the Technical Committee participated in an all-day meeting on the photochemical modeling used in the Extreme OADP

.



### 6.7 DRAFT EXTREME OADP

The District released the Draft Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (OADP) for public review on July 30, 2004. In conjunction with releasing the plan, the District announced a series of three workshops to be held on the Draft

Extreme OADP on August 12 and 13, 2004. The District mailed about 1200 notices to the ozone plan mailing list announcing plan availability and workshop dates, and also used the notice as a legal advertisement that appeared in the eight major San Joaquin Valley newspapers. District staff conducted theworkshops in person in the Central Region (Fresno), and via videoteleconference links to Bakersfield and Modesto. About 27 people attended theEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 6

– Outreach

6-4 first day of workshops (August 12, 2004) and about 20 attended the second day workshop (August 13, 2004). The August 12 workshops were held at 1:00 pm and 6:30 pm, and the August 13 th workshop was held at 10:00 am. The evening workshop on August 12 th was a community meeting geared toward simplified presentations and discussions of the topics. The comment period for the Draft

EOADP ended on August 27, 2004. Participants at the three workshops made over fifty verbal comments, and several other stakeholders submitted written

comments. No formal written comments were received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (ARB), or the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) Transportation Planning Agencies.

Major issues raised in verbal comments during the workshops and in stakeholder meetings after the workshop include the following: lack of time to review and

comment on the Draft Extreme OADP ; the need for the District to consider subregional modeling for this plan and especially for future ozone attainment demonstration plans; the fate of control measures in the Extreme OAPD if EPA revokes the federal 1-hour ozone standard as planned on June 15, 2005; and the increasing need for the District to consider non-traditional and alternative means of emissions controls for future attainment demonstration plans. Written comments also included all of these issues, as well as the need for and means of developing an indirect source rule. Appendix H summarizes the comments and responses submitted to the District during public review of the Draft Extreme

OADP

.



### 6.8 PROPOSED EXTREME OADP

The Proposed Extreme OADP is scheduled to be considered for adoption by the District Governing Board on October 8, 2004. Notices for this hearing and for the availability of the Proposed Extreme OADP were published in all eight major Valley newspapers on September 4-7, 2004. At the September 16, 2004 Governing Board meeting, the Governing Board received and filed the Proposed

Extreme OADP , together with an Errata Sheet detailing some minor adjustments in emissions calculations in the Plan. The Governing Board directed staff to make the necessary revisions to the proposed plan and to make the revised proposed plan available in advance of the October 8, 2004 meeting. The comment period on the Proposed Extreme OADP closed on September 24, 2004. In addition, the District posted the Proposed Extreme OADP , public hearing notice, and related documents on its web site in time to provide a 30-day public review period before the October 8, 2004 hearing.

## Chapter 7

– RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-1 

### 7 RATE OF PROGRESS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) specifies that ozone nonattainment areas must submit to EPA SIP revisions documenting that emissions of volatile organic compounds (an ozone precursor—see Chapter 2) are declining at rates that meet or exceed levels specified in the FCAA. These SIP revisions are termed Rate of Progress (ROP) Plans. The FCAA identifies two types of ROP requirements: (i) a 15% VOC emission reduction to be achieved from 1990 to 1996 (termed the “15 percent Rate of Progress Plan”) and (ii) an actual VOC emission reduction of at least three percent per year averaged over each consecutive 3-year period beginning November 15, 1996 until the area’s attainment date (termed the “Post-1996 Rate of Progress Plan”). EPA guidance allows substitution of NOx emissions (the other significant ozone precursor—see Chapter 2) for VOC emissions in the Post-1996 Rate of Progress Plan, provided certain conditions are met (EPA 1993, EPA 1994b). The three percent per year requirement should be viewed as a minimum annual emission reduction; the underlying requirement for a nonattainment area’s SIP is to achieve attainment by the requisite date, even if the emission reductions necessary to achieve attainment exceed three percent per year (EPA 1994a). The SJVAB has met all ROP Plan requirements through 2005 (SJVUAPCD 1994; SJVUAPCD, 1995; SJVUAPCD, 2000, SJVUAPCD, 2002).

This section provides the remaining ROP Plan requirements for the SJVAB out to its projected attainment date of November 15, 2010 for the federal 1-hour ozone standard. It then shows that prior ROP Plan calculations are still valid given the most recent emissions inventory information. As discussed in Chapter 3, emissions inventories change over time to reflect implementation of control measures, adjustments to improve accuracy, and other factors. Consequently, the most recent inventories are generally believed to be more accurate, even for past years. Therefore, Section 7.6 re-examines the ROP calculations in the most recent SJVAB ROP Plan in light of current planning emissions inventories for the SJVAB to demonstrate that the ROP requirements are still met. It also looks back at 2002 and determines that ROP requirements for 2002 were met as projected.



### 7.2 1990 RATE-OF-PROGRESS BASELINE INVENTORIES

The FCAA requires that milestone year emission reductions be based on the 1990 baseline emission inventory. As noted in prior ROP Plans (SJVUAPCD 2002), the 1990 emission inventory has been reconstructed to account for updated information and new air quality models. Table 7-1 summarizes the total reconstructed 1990 baseline year emissions inventory, which serves as theEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-2 starting point for all other FCAA-required inventories. As noted in Chapter 3, emissions inventories represent tons/day emissions for the ozone season (May 1 through October 31) for the year in question.

Table 7-1 1990 ROP Baseline Year Inventory (tons/day)

Emission Sources VOC NOx

Point Sources 193.0 289.7

Area Sources 153.9 6.5

Other Mobile 72.6 211.3

On-road Mobile 213.7 297.6

TOTAL 633.2 805.1

Finally, the FCAA specifies the “baseline” from which each milestone’s emission reduction is calculated [Title I, Part D, Section 182 (b)(1)(C) and (D)]. This baseline is termed the 1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory. It is defined as “the total amount of actual VOC or NOx emissions from all anthropogenic sources in the area during the calendar year of the enactment of the Clean Air Act of 1990”, minus the emissions that would be eliminated by federal motor vehicle control program (FMVCP) regulations promulgated by January 1, 1990, and Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) regulations promulgated by the time of enactment [FCAA, Title I, Part D, Section 182 (b)(1)]. Consequently, the FMVCP and RVP emissions must be subtracted from the 1990 emissions in order to develop a baseline inventory for ROP demonstration. Furthermore, the 1990 adjusted base year inventory must be recalculated relative to each ROP milestone (2008 and 2010) because the emission reductions associated with the FMVCP increase each year due to fleet turnover. The only adjustment needed is to recalculate mobile source emissions, using a mobile source emission factor for each year, multiplied by 1990 VMT. This yields the adjusted emissions for each of these years that are subtracted from the 1990 actual emissions to determine 1990 adjusted baseline year inventories. Table 7-2 shows the calculations for VOC; no adjustments are

needed for NOx because the FMVCP and RVP deductions are zero for NOx emissions. As shown in Table 7-2, these adjustments reduce the base year VOC inventory of 633.2 tons/day to the adjusted base year inventories of 553.0 tons/day for 2008 and to 548.5 tons/day for 2010. The 1990 adjusted base year NOx inventory is 805.1 tons/day for each of 2008 and 2010. ARB provided the

numeric values for the FMVCP and RVP emission reductions. The ratio of baseline year NOx to VOC emission inventories is 1.27 (805.1/633.2=1.27).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-3 The FCAA does not allow emissions credits toward the 51 percent reduction from corrections stemming from the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and federally-mandated Inspection and Maintenance (I&M) programs [Title I, PartD, Section 182(b)(1)(D)]. The District is claiming no reductions for federallymandated I&M corrections for the 2008 ROP demonstration. Any emissions reductions to satisfy RACT requirements in this plan are less than 0.05 tons/day (see Table 4-1) and are too small to be reflected in the ROP results.

Table 7-2 1990 Adjusted Base Year VOC Inventory Calculations (tons/day)

Emissions Inventory Adjustment 2002 2005 2008 2010

1990 Rate of Progress Base Year Inventory (VOC) 633.2 633.2 633.2 633.2

Minus FMVCP/RVP Reductions 53.6 70.1 80.2 84.7

1990 Adjusted Base Year VOC Inventory 579.6 563.1 553.0 548.5



### 7.3 FUTURE YEAR (2008 AND 2010) INVENTORIES

In order to demonstrate that the 2008 and 2010 target levels for VOC and NOx emissions can be met, emissions are projected to 2008 and 2010 using techniques presented in Chapter 3. Table 3-1 summarizes the VOC and NOx inventories for 2008 and 2010. The emission inventories were projected from the 1999 actual emission inventory and do not include any reductions from rules or regulations adopted subsequent to 2002 (see Table 7-3). These adopted emission reductions are incorporated into the ROP demonstration in Sections 7.4

and 7.5.



### 7.4 1990-2008 MILESTONE (51 PERCENT) DEMONSTRATION

Because the 1990 Base Year Emission Inventory was reconstructed, this report addresses the rate of progress from 1990 to 2008 and from 1990 to 2010. The FCAA requirements for demonstrating rate of progress require an initial 15 percent reduction in 1990—1996 emissions, followed by subsequent reductions of 3 percent per year averaged over consecutive 3 year periods; consequently, the District will demonstrate achievement of a 51 percent reduction in emissions for the 2008 rate of progress [42 percent for 1990—2005 plus 9 percent for 2006—2008] and a 57 percent reduction in emissions for the 2010 rate of progress (51 percent between 1990—2008 plus six percent for 2008—2010).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-4 TABLE 7-3 Reductions From Adopted Rules and Regulations Not Included in the 2008 and 2010 Planning Inventories 1

NOx

Reductions (tons/day) VOC

Reductions (tons/day) Rule Description Action

Date 2008 2010 2008 2010

4604 Can and Coil Coatings 2003-2007 NA NA 0.4 0.4

4610 Glass Coating Operations 2003-2007 NA NA 0.2 0.2

4408 Glycol Dehydration Systems 2003-2007 NA NA 1.8 1.8

4306 Boilers, Steam
Generators &

Process Heaters 2003-2007 7.1 7.1 NA NA

None Incentive Programs 2003-2007 5.2 5.0 NA NA

4313 Lime Kilns March 2003 0.1 0.1 NA NA

Total 12.4 12.2 2.4 2.4

1 Reflects estimates for adopted District measures as given in Tables 4-17 – 4-20 in the 2003 PM10 Plan for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

7.4.1 Required 51 Percent Reduction for 2008

As specified in the FCAA [Title I, Part D, Section 182 [c](2)] the total emissions reductions required for 2008 are equal to 51 percent of the adjusted base year inventory. The 51 percent reduction calculated for the adjusted base year inventory (Table 7-2) is therefore calculated to be 282.0 tons/day (51 percent of 553.0 tons/day is 282.0 tons/day). Subtracting the 51 percent emission reduction of 282.0 tons/day from the 1990 adjusted base year emissions inventory of 553.0 tons/day gives a target 2008 emissions inventory of 271.0 tons/day. In other words, achieving the 51 percent reduction from the adjusted baseline would produce a 2008 emissions inventory of 271.0 tons/day. If the actual 2008 emissions inventory is greater than this total, then VOC emissions reductions alone are insufficient to meet regulatory requirements, and reductions in NOx emissions must be sought in order to meet the 51 percent ROP requirements.

7.4.2 2008 Rate of Progress Demonstration

7.4.2.1 VOC Emissions Reductions

As noted in Section 7.2 and presented in Table 3-1, the 2008 actual VOC emissions inventory for the SJVAB is estimated to be 374.9 tons/day. Emission reductions from post-2002 District control measures reduce this total by an additional 2.4 tons/day (Table 7-3) and expansion of the Enhanced I/M programEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-5 contributes another 3.1 tons/day in reductions, which results in a revised 2008 VOC emission inventory of 369.4 tons/day. Thus the actual 2008 VOC emissions inventory for the SJVAPCD is too high by about 98.4 tons/day to meet the 51 percent reduction over the 1990-2008 time period.

7.4.2.2 NOx Emissions Reductions

The FCAA allows Districts to substitute reductions in NOx emissions when they are unable to achieve the necessary reductions with VOC emissions alone [Title 1, Part D, Section 182 (c)].

Section 182 (c) and 182 (d) of the FCAA state that NOx emissions reductions that occurred after 1990 can be used to meet post-1996 emission reduction requirements, provided that they meet the criteria outlined in the EPA’s NOx

Substitution Guidance (EPA 1993). The 1993 Guidance establishes two criteria for use of these emission reductions. First, the sum of all creditable VOC and NOx emission reductions must equal three percent per year averaged over each applicable milestone period. The percent VOC reduction is determined from the VOC rate of progress inventory and the percent NOx reduction is determined from the NOx rate of progress inventory. Second, the overall VOC and NOx

reductions must be consistent with the area’s modeled attainment demonstration. In other words, NOx emission reductions creditable toward rate of progress plans cannot be greater than the cumulative reductions dictated by the modeled attainment demonstration (because the ROP plans must be consistent with the strategy selected by the District as its attainment strategy). The guidance also notes a third condition of “the periodic emission reductions must be consistent

with the modeled attainment demonstration.”

With regards to the second requirement, as noted in Chapter 1, the District cannot identify enough emission reductions from existing and new control measures that will allow the SJVAB to attain the one-hour ozone standard by

2008 1 . Thus a modeled attainment demonstration for 2008 for the SJVAB does not exist, so the comparison with a cumulative attainment total for this year is not relevant. Consequently the District may use NOx substitution for 2008 in

accordance with the FCAA.

The NOx base year emissions inventory is 805.1 tons/day (Table 7-1); the FMCVP correction for NOx is zero for 2008 (and 2010), so the adjusted base year NOx inventory is also 805.1 tons/day. Computing the necessary NOx emissions reductions involves multiplying the VOC shortfall by 1.27 to reflect the

1 The state measures that are critical for demonstrating attainment do not go into effect in time to help demonstrate attainment for 2008. As noted in Chapter 4, ARB developed these measures primarily to help the South Coast Air Basin reach attainment by 2010, so the measures are geared towards a 2010 attainment deadline (for the South Coast as well as the SJVAB).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-6 NOx/VOC ratio in the base year, which produces a total of 125.1 tons/day of NOx reductions needed to help the VOC emission reductions meet the overall 2008 ROP requirement of a 51 percent reduction in precursor emissions.

The actual 2008 NOx inventory is 429.1 (Table 3-1), emission reductions from post-2002 control measures reduce this total by an additional 12.4 tons/day (Table 7-3), and expansion of the enhanced I/M program contributes another 5.7 tons/day of reductions, which results in a revised 2008 NOx emission inventory of 411.0 tons/day; actual NOx emissions reductions achieved [the difference between 2008 and the 1990 base year] are therefore 394.1 tons/day. NOx reductions used previously for substitution (2002 and 2005) account for 102.4 tons/day 2 , leaving 291.7 tons/day of NOx reductions available for substitution in 2008. Since the total is greater than the 125.1 tons/day needed to meet the 51 percent requirement, sufficient rate of progress in reducing ozone precursor

emissions has been demonstrated.

7.4.2.3 Summary

Table 7-4 summarizes the emission calculations performed to demonstrate achievement of a 51 percent reduction in ozone precursor emissions from 1990 through 2008 for the SJVAB. Figure 7-1 provides a graphical illustration of the

emission trends and reductions.



### 7.5 1990-2010 MILESTONE (57 PERCENT) DEMONSTRATION

7.5.1 Required 57 Percent Reduction for 2010

As specified in the FCAA [Title I, Part D, Section 182 (c)(2)], the total ozone precursor emissions reductions required for 2010 must equal 57 percent 3 of the adjusted base year inventory. As shown in Table 7-2, the adjusted 1990 Base Year VOC inventory for the SJVAB is 548.5 tons/day. The 57 percent reduction for the 1990 adjusted base year emissions inventory (Table 7-2) is therefore calculated to be 312.6 tons/day (57 percent of 548.5 tons/day). Subtracting the 57 percent emission reduction of 312.6 tons/day from the adjusted base year inventory of 548.5 tons/day gives a target 2010 VOC emissions inventory of

2 Reflects the sum of recalculated NOx substitution emission reductions for 2002 (40.9 tpd) and 2005 (61.5 tpd) using the same EMFAC model runs as employed elsewhere in this Extreme
OADP . Nothing in this recalculation affects conformity budgets for 2002 and 2005 as established

in the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone , and as found adequate by EPA in 2003.

3 Because 2008 is an ROP milestone year and 2010 is the attainment year for extreme nonattainment areas, the final ROP post-1996 interval is actually two years rather than the usual three, so reductions of six percent (3 percent/year for two years) are added to the reductions required by the 2008 milestone year (51 percent) to arrive at a total of 57 percent [EPA 1994a].EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-7 TABLE 7-4

2008 Rate of Progress Demonstration Summary

Line # Emission Calculation Emissions (tons/day)

1 Adjusted 1990 Base Year VOC Inventory 1 553.0

2 VOC Reduction Required (51% of Line 1) 282.0

3 Target 2008 VOC Emissions Inventory (Line 1 minus Line 2) 271.0

4 Actual 2008 VOC Emissions Inventory 2 369.4

5 VOC Reductions Achieved (Line 1 minus Line 4) 183.6

6 VOC Reduction Shortfall (Line 2 minus Line 5) 3 98.4

7 Adjusted 1990 Base Year NOx Inventory 4 805.1

8 NOx Reductions Required 5 125.1

9 Actual 2008 NOx Emissions Inventory 6 411.0

10 NOx Reductions Achieved (Line 7 minus Line 9) 394.1

11 NOx Reductions Used Previously for Substitution 7 102.4

12 Available NOx Reductions for Substitution in 2008 291.7

13 Sufficient NOx Reductions Available for Substitution? Yes

14 Rate of Progress Achieved? 8 Yes

1 Computed by subtracting the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) and Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) emission reductions (Table 7-2) from the 1990 base year inventory: 633.2 tons/day-80.2 tons/day=553 tons/day.

2 The actual 2008 VOC inventory was calculated by subtracting 3.1 tons/day (from expansion of Enhanced I/M program) and 2.3 tons/day (reductions from adopted rules—see Table 7-3) from 374.9 tons/day (2008 planning inventory—see Table 3-1).

3 The VOC emission reduction shortfall can be computed by subtracting line 4 (2008 actual emissions) from line 3 (2008 target emissions).

4 The FMVCP and RVP program emission reductions are zero for NOx, so the adjusted 1990 base year emissions inventory is the same as shown in Table 7-1 (805.1 tons/day).

5 Computed by multiplying the VOC shortfall by 1.27 to reflect the NOx/VOC ratio in the base year.

6 The actual 2008 NOx inventory was calculated by subtracting 5.7 tons/day (from expansion of Enhanced I/M program) and 12.4 tons/day (reductions from adopted rules—see Table 7-3) from 429.1 tons/day (2008 planning inventory—see Table 3-1).

7 Reflects new FMVCP/RVP values of 53.6 tpd of VOC emissions reductions for 2002 and 70.1 tpd for 2005 (and therefore does not match the values given in the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone ). Recalculated NOx reductions needed for substitution are 40.9 tpd for 2002 and 61.5 tpd for 2005, for a total of 102.4 tpd used previously. Nothing in this recalculation affects conformity budgets for 2002 and 2005 as established in the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone , and as found adequate by EPA in 2003.

8 Because the 2008 Rate of Progress demonstration needs 125.1 tons/day of NOx reductions and 291.7 tons/day of NOx reductions are available, the Rate of Progress is achieved.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-8 

# 2008 ROP DEMONSTRATION

271.0 369.4 553.0



### 100 200 300 400 500 60019902008



### Y

ea rPrecursor Emissions (tons/day)

Required VOC emissions

A

ctual VOC emissions

Constant adjusted 1990 VOC

emissions 183.6 tons/day of VOC

Reductions Achieved

A

dditional 98.4 tons/day of VOC

emissions reductions needed to meet 51% goal;

translated to 125.1 tons/day of NOx. Figure 7-1. Graphical Summary of 2008 ROP Demonstration For San Joaquin Valley OzoneEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-9 235.9 tons/day. In other words, achieving the 57 percent reduction from the adjusted base year emissions inventory would produce a 2010 VOC emissions inventory of 235.9 tons/day. If the actual 2010 VOC emissions inventory is greater than this, then VOC emission reductions alone are insufficient to meet regulatory requirements, and reductions in NOx emissions must be sought in order to meet the 57 percent requirement.

7.5.2 2010 Rate of Progress

7.5.2.1 VOC Emission Reductions

As noted in Section 7.3 and presented in Table 3-1, the 2010 actual VOC emissions inventory is estimated to be 367.6 tons/day. Emission reductions from post-2002 District control measures reduce this total by an additional 2.4 tons/day (Table 7-3) and expansion of the Enhanced I/M program contributes another 2.5 tons/day of reductions, which reduces the total 2010 VOC emissions to 362.7 tons/day. Since the target 2010 VOC emissions inventory is estimated at 235.9 tons/day, the actual inventory is too high by about 126.8 tons/day to meet the required 57 percent reduction over the 1990—2010 time frame.

7.5.2.2 NOx Emissions Reductions

The FCAA allows Districts to substitute reductions in NOx emissions when they are unable to achieve the necessary reductions with VOC emissions alone [Title 1, Part D, Decision 182(c)], provided the conditions spelled out by the FCAA are met. More information on these terms and conditions is given in Section 7.4.2.2.

The NOx base year emissions inventory is 805.1 tons/day (Table 7-1). No corrections for FMCVP or RVP are needed. Computing the required NOx emissions reductions thus involves multiplying the VOC shortfall by 1.27 to reflect the NOx/VOC ratio in the base year, which produces a total of 161.2 tons/day of NOx emissions that are needed to help the VOC emission reductions meet the final ROP requirement of 57 percent reduction.

The actual 2010 NOx emissions inventory is 401.7 tons/day (Table 3-1); control measure emission reductions not reflected in this total will reduce emissions by an additional 12.2 tons/day (Table 7-3) and expansion of the Enhanced I/M program contributes another 5.0 tons/day of reduction to reduce the actual NOx inventory to 384.5 tons/day. Actual emissions reductions achieved [the difference between the 2010 actual and 1990 base year (805.1 tons/day) emissions inventories] are therefore 420.6 tons/day. NOx reductions used previously for substitution account for 227.5 tons/day 4 , leaving 193.1 tons/day of

4 Reflects the sum of the recalculated 2002 and 2005 NOx substitution (102.4 tpd) and the 2008 NOx substitution (125.1 tpd). See Footnote #2.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-10 NOx reductions available for substitution in 2010. Since the 2010 ROP milestone requires NOx reductions of 161.2 tons/day, and 193.1 tons/day are available, adequate NOx emissions reductions have been achieved to help the VOC emissions reductions meet the overall 2010 ROP requirement of a 57 percent reduction in precursor emissions.

As discussed in Chapter 5, the NOx carrying capacity for attainment is about 344 tons/day in 2010 5 . The 1990 base year NOx inventory is about 805 tons/day. Thus attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard in the SJVAB requires a cumulative reduction in NOx emissions of about 461 tons/day over the period

1990—2010. NOx reductions needed to meet ROP reductions over the time frame 1990—2010 total 388.7 tons/day 6 . Thus, the cumulative NOx reductions

needed to meet the final ROP milestone are less than the NOx reductions needed for attainment, and thus are consistent with EPA guidance (EPA 1993 and EPA 1994b).

Finally, it should be mentioned that a number of peer-reviewed studies [e.g., Pun et al. (1998) and SJVAQSA (1996)] have determined that attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard in the SJVAB requires NOx emissions controls 7

, so the use of NOx reductions in SJVAB ROP calculations over the 1990—2010 time frame is consistent with the overall attainment demonstration strategy for the SJVAB as determined by gridded photochemical modeling. EPA’s guidelines on ROP plans and NOx substitution identify consistency with overall attainment strategy as a key factor affecting the appropriateness and extent of NOx substitution for ROP calculations (EPA 1994).

7.5.2.3 Summary

Table 7-5 summarizes the emission calculations performed to demonstrate achievement of a 57 percent reduction in precursor emissions from 1990 through 2010. Figure 7-2 provides a graphical illustration of the emission trends and

reductions.

5 Based on gridded photochemical modeling and a reduction in NOx emissions of about 15% of the 2010 inventory and a reduction of about 15% of the 2010 VOC inventory. As shown in Figure 5-5, other combinations of NOx and VOC emissions reductions within this general range

can also demonstrate attainment.

6 Reflects the sum of NOx substitution reductions for 2002 (40.9 tpd), 2005 (61.5 tpd), 2008 (125.1 tpd) and 2010 (161.2 tpd).

7 Analyses done for this Extreme OADP , as presented in Chapter 5, also identify the need for

NOx emissions controls to attain the federal 1-hour ozone standard in the SJVAB.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-11 TABLE 7-5

2010 Rate of Progress Demonstration Summary

Line # Emission Calculation Emissions (tons/day)

1 Adjusted 1990 Base Year VOC Inventory 1 548.5

2 VOC Reduction Required (57% of Line 1) 312.6

3 Target 2010 VOC Emissions Inventory (Line 1 minus Line 2) 235.9

4 Actual 2010 VOC Emissions Inventory 2 362.7

5 VOC Reductions Achieved (Line 1 minus Line 4) 185.8

6 VOC Reduction Shortfall (Line 2 minus Line 5) 3 126.8

7 Adjusted 1990 Base Year NOx Inventory 4 805.1

8 NOx Reductions Required 5 161.2

9 Actual 2010 NOx Emissions Inventory 6 384.5

10 NOx Reductions Achieved (Line 7 minus Line 9) 420.6

11 NOx Reductions Used Previously for Substitution 7 227.5

12 Available NOx Reductions for Substitution in 2010 193.1

13 Sufficient NOx Reductions Available for Substitution? Yes

14 Rate of Progress Achieved? 8 Yes

1 Computed by subtracting the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) and Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) emission reductions (Table 7-2) from the 1990 base year inventory (Table 3-1): 633.2 tons/day-84.7 tons/day=548.5 tons/day.

2 The actual 2010 VOC inventory was calculated by subtracting 2.5 tpd from expansion of Enhanced I/M program and 2.4 tons/day [reductions from adopted rules—see Table 7-3] from 367.6 tons/day (2010 planning inventory—see Table 3-1).

3 The VOC emission reduction shortfall can be computed by subtracting line 4 (2010 actual emissions) from line 3 (2010 target emissions).

4 The FMVCP and RVP program emission reductions are zero for NOx, so the adjusted 1990 base year emissions inventory is the same as shown in Table 7-1 (805.1 tons/day).

5 Computed by multiplying the VOC shortfall by 1.27 to reflect the NOx/VOC ratio in the base year.

6 The actual 2010 NOx inventory was calculated by subtracting 5.0 tpd from expansion of Enhanced I/M program and 12.2 tons/day (reductions from adopted rules—see Table 7-3) from 401.7 tons/day (2010 planning inventory—see Table 3-1).

7 Reflects the sum of line 8 and line 11 from Table 7-4.

8 Because the 2010 Rate of Progress demonstration needs 161.2 tons/day of NOx reductions and 193.1 tons/day of NOx reductions are available, the Rate of Progress is achieved.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-12 Figure 7-2 Graphical Summary of 2010 ROP Demonstration for San Joaquin Valley Ozone



# 2010 ROP DEMONSTRATION

100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.019902010

YearPrecursor Emissions (tons/day)

Required VOC emissions

Actual VOC emissions

Constant adjusted 1990 VOC

emissions 548.5

362.7

235.9 185.8 tons of VOC

emission reduction

achieved

A dditional 126.8 tons/day of VOC

needed to meet 57% goal; translated to 161.2 tons/day of

NOx.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-13 

### 7.6 PRIOR ROP AND MILESTONE COMPLIANCE

DEMONSTRATION

7.6.1 Prior ROP

The Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley

Ozone adopted in December 2002 and submitted to EPA in 2003 is based upon an emissions inventory dated December 5, 2001 (except for the on-road mobile source emissions inventory, which is dated November 4, 2002). Emissions

calculations in this Extreme OADP are based upon Version 2.11_RF932PEI of the CCOS Inventory, accessed in January 2004. Given the over two-year difference in these inventories, and the rapidly changing state of knowledge of ozone precursor emissions in the SJVAB, the District chose to reexamine the rate of progress calculations in the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone to see if the rate of progress calculations still show that the SJVAB met its emissions reductions requirements for 2002 and 2005. This section revisits the demonstration of rate of progress with the more recent inventory used in this Extreme OADP . This reexamination is not required by the federal Clean Air Act or associated regulations, but is done to provide the public with a full accounting of emissions as related to regulatory requirements. Furthermore, this reexamination in no way affects SJVAB conformity budgets

established for 2002 and 2005 in the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone ; EPA found these budgets to be adequate on July 10, 2003 (Broadbent 2003).

In general, emissions inventories improve over time through incorporation of more accurate activity data, new emissions factors, new control factors, and better coverage and allocation of emissions to sources. The District and ARB prepare SIP submittals with the best available emissions data at the time of plan development. The emissions inventory used in this Extreme OADP (CCOS Version 2.11_RF932PEI) is generally thought to be a more accurate reflection of emissions than the inventory used in the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone (December 2002). 8 Table 7-6 compares the two inventories for the two ozone precursors of interest and the three years relevant to the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan

.

As noted previously in this chapter and in the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress for San Joaquin Valley Ozone , the federal Clean Air Act specifies ROP milestones as minimum percentages by which 1990 VOC emissions must be reduced at a future date. The emissions reduction for 1990—2002 must be 33%,

8 The more recent inventory does not reflect any changes to the 2002 or 2005 emissions for the emission inventory category of on-road motor vehicles. Most of the inventory changes pertain to the stationary and area source categories.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-14 Table 7-6 Comparison of Unadjusted a Emissions Inventories Used

in Amended 2002/2005 ROP Plan and Extreme OADP (Summer, tons/day)

Amended ROP Plan b Extreme OADP c Ozone

Precursor 1990 2002 2005 1990 2002 2005

VOC 670.4 464.3 439.1 633.2 422.9 388.4

NOx 787.0 533.4 492.2 805.1 519.3 477.3

Total 1457.4 997.7 931.3 1438.3 942.2 815.7

a Emission reductions from federal, state and District rules for year of inventory not reflected

b Inventory dated December 5, 2001 except for mobile [dated November 4, 2002]

c CCOS Version 2.11_RF932PEI accessed January 2004

and the reduction for 1990—2005 must be 42% [Title I, Part D, Section 182 [c](2)]. 9 Alternatively, the 2002 VOC emissions inventory must be no greater than 67% of the 1990 inventory, and the 2005 VOC inventory must be no greater than 58% of the 1990 inventory. Therefore, for the purposes of this section, the relationship between future milestone year emissions and the base year emissions can be compared from inventory to inventory as a screening tool to see if the change in emissions from one inventory to another warrant a full ROP calculation for the new inventory. Since the SJVAB met the federal Clean Air Act ROP requirements with the “old” inventory, all we need to show is that the ratio of future year to base year emissions for the new inventory is equal to or less than the same ratios for the old inventory to know that ROP milestones will be met for the new inventory as well.

Analysis of the data in Table 7-6 shows the following for the future year/1990 ratios of unadjusted 10 VOC emissions for the two different inventories:

Amended ROP Plan Extreme OADP

2002/1990 2005/1990 2002/1990 2005/1990

0.69 11 0.66 8 0.67 0.61

As can be seen, the inventory used in the Extreme OADP has lower future year/1990 ratios of VOC emissions, so rate of progress calculations for this updated inventory would show better progress than those done using the older inventory. Consequently, no additional ROP calculations need to be done to determine if the newer emissions inventory adversely affected rate of progress calculations for the most recent ROP milestone years (2002 and 2005).

9 These are minimum percentages; gridded photochemical modeling showing that reductions in excess of these levels are needed supersedes the 3%/year requirement (EPA 1994).

10 Emissions have not been reduced to account for federal, state and local control programs.

11 The Amended ROP Plan demonstrated ROP for these years (even though the ratios shown would suggest otherwise) because state and District control measures reduced future year VOC emissions and because NOx substitution allowed the ROP requirements to be met.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-15 7.6.2 Milestone Compliance Demonstration

Section 182 (g) of the federal Clean Air Act requires nonattainment areas to determine if they have achieved the emissions reductions identified during previous three-year reasonable further progress (RFP)/rate of progress (ROP) intervals (see Section 7.4) as being needed to meet the RFP/ROP milestones for the intervals in question. In other words, nonattainment areas must look back following the completion of an RFP/ROP interval (e.g., 2000 to 2002) to see if control measures achieved the reductions necessary for that milestone (e.g., 2002).

The District prepared this Extreme OADP in 2004 using the CCOS emissions inventory version 2.11 that reflects state and District control measures adopted through September 2002. For the purposes of this section, this inventory is assumed to be the best available actual 2002 emissions inventory. Since the most recent ROP three-year interval that has been completed is 2000—2002, it is of interest to examine the SJVAB’s 2002 inventory from CCOS version 2.11 to see if the year 2002 ROP milestone of a 33% reduction in emissions (from the 1990 base year specified in the federal Clean Air Act) occurred in the SJVAB.

The adjusted 1990 SJVAB base year VOC emissions (for the 2002 ROP milestone) from the CCOS version 2.11 emissions inventory total 579.6 tons per day (Table 7-2). The 2002 VOC emissions from the same CCOS inventory total 422.9 tons per day (Table 7-6). The 1990—2002 improvement, according to data in version 2.11 of the CCOS inventory, is therefore 156.7 tons per day, or about 27% of the adjusted base year inventory. This is about 6% short of the 33% reduction required for the 2002 milestone. As discussed in the previous sections, the District is allowed to use NOx substitution for ROP in the SJVAB. The adjusted 1990 SJVAB base year NOx emissions from the CCOS version 2.11 inventory total 805.1 tons per day, and the 2002 NOx emissions from the same inventory total 519.3 tons per day (Table 7-6). Transferring this 6%

shortfall to the CCOS version 2.11 1990 NOx emissions shows that about 48.3 tons per day of NOx reductions (6% of 805.1 tons per day) are needed over the

time frame 1990—2002 to meet the 2002 ROP milestone. The NOx reductions achieved in this time, as given in CCOS version 2.11, are 285.8 tons per day (805.1 tons per day minus 519.3 tons per day), which greatly exceeds the amount required. Therefore, the SJVAB met the 2002 ROP milestone.

The above information clearly shows that the SJVAB’s 2002 ozone precursor emissions, as accessed in 2004 from the CCOS version 2.11 inventory, meet the federal Clean Air Act requirements for ozone precursor emissions reductions for the 2002 ROP milestone year. Consequently, the SJVAB meets Section 182(g) requirements at this point in time.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 7 – Rate of Progress Demonstration

7-16 

### 7.6 REFERENCES

Broadbent 2003 Jack Broadbent, Director, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Letter to Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California, July 10, 2003.

EPA 1993 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NOx Substitution

Guidance , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1993

EPA 1994a United States Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan and the Attainment

Demonstration . EPA-452/R-93/015 (corrected version, February 18, 1994).

EPA 1994b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Clarification of Policy for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Substitution , Memorandum from John S. Seitz to EPA Directors, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, August 5, 1994.

Pun, B.K., 1998 A Conceptual Model for Ozone Formation in the San Joaquin Valley, Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, December 15, 1998 (with J-F Louis and C. Seigneur)

SJVAQSA 1996 San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Study Agency, San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Study, Policy Relevant Findings,

November 1996.

SJVUAPCD 2000 2000 Ozone Rate of Progress Report , San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, California, April 20, 2000 (revised April 27, 2000).

SJVUAPCD 1994 Revised 1993 Rate of Progress Plan. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, California, November 4, 1994.

SJVUAPCD 1995 Revised Post 1996 Rate of Progress Plan. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, California, September 20, 1995.

SJVUAPCD 2002 Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, California, December 31,

2002.

## Chapter 8

– CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR ACT

TRIENNIAL PROGRESS REPORT

AND PLAN REVISION

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-1 

### 8 CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR ACT TRIENNIAL PROGRESS

REPORT AND PLAN REVISION

8.1 INTRODUCTION

Section 40910 of the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) requires air pollution control districts in the state to achieve and maintain state ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide at the earliest practicable date. Section 40911 of the CH&SC requires all districts designated as nonattainment for the state standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen dioxide to prepare and submit a plan for attaining and maintaining the standards to the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Section 40924 (b) of the CH&SC requires districts to prepare a report every three years summarizing progress in meeting the schedules for developing, adopting, and implementing the air pollution control measures contained in each district’s plan for attaining the California air quality standards. Section 40925(a) of the CH&SC requires districts to review and revise their original 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) to correct for deficiencies in meeting the interim measures of progress incorporated into the plan pursuant Section 40914 [emission reductions], and to incorporate new data or projections into the Plan. This requirement, termed a Triennial AQAP Revision, is on the same reporting schedule as the Triennial Progress Report, and is usually combined with the progress report.

In January 1992, the District prepared and adopted the 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) [SJVUAPCD 1992]. ARB approved this plan in

December 1992. The 1991 AQAP covers ozone and carbon monoxide, since the

District was classified as nonattainment for these two state standards at that

time. 1 In accordance with the CH&SC, the District subsequently prepared Triennial Progress Reports and Plan Revisions as updates to this initial 1991
AQAP in 1998 and in 2001 (SJVUAPCD 1998; SJVUAPCD 2001).

This Chapter of the Extreme OADP represents the third Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision for the District; as such, it covers the period 2000- 2002, and its original due date was December 31, 2003. However, for Districts preparing State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals in 2004, ARB revised the

due date to be the time of the 2004 SIP submittal.

Because the District has attained the California ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide, ARB no longer requires the District to address carbon

1 The District was also designated as nonattainment for the state particulate matter standard; however, as noted above, Section 40911 does not require the development of plans for districts that are designated nonattainment for California particulate matter standards.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-2 monoxide in progress reports and plan revisions. This chapter of the Extreme
OADP thus focuses on the state ambient air quality standard for ozone (as opposed to the other chapters of the Extreme OADP that address compliance with federal ozone standards).

In 1998, the District adopted the California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision 1995-1997 (1997 Triennial Update); ARB approved this report in October 1999. No change in the District’s ozone attainment strategy was set forth in the Update. In 2001, the District adopted the California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision 1997-1999 (2000 Triennial Update). No change in the District’s ozone attainment strategy was set forth in the Update. The District’s adopted strategy is based on the latter alternative. For the 2000-2002 period, this chapter of the OADP represents the triennial plan (2003 Triennial Update).

8.1.1 Attainment Designation

California’s ambient air quality standard for ozone is 0.09 ppm. For an area to attain the state 1-hour ozone standard, representative and complete ambient air quality monitoring data must show that measured 1-hour average ozone levels did not exceed 0.09 ppm (CH&SC 70303, 70304). Unlike the federal standard, the state ozone standard is strictly a level not to be exceeded. Thus, occurrence of even a single one-hour period with measured ozone levels in excess of 0.09 ppm is enough to designate an area as nonattainment for the state standard (unlike the federal 1-hour ozone standard, in which four exceedances in three years are needed for designation as nonattainment). Also unlike the federal standard, State law does not establish attainment dates for ambient standards, but instead requires evaluation of trends and continued progress in reducing emissions that lead to unhealthy pollutant levels.

Based on the designation criteria established by Section 40921.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, ARB has classified the SJVAB as severe

nonattainment for the California 1-hour ozone standard. Because of this classification, the District is subject to stringent requirements in the CCAA and must apply all feasible measures to reduce emissions.

8.1.2 Air Basin Description

The San Joaquin Valley (Valley) is a major geographic, population, and agricultural region of California. The District, and the corresponding air basin, includes the counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and the Valley portion of Kern County. Comprising about 24,840 square miles, it represents approximately 16% of the geographic area of California and is the second largest air basin in California. The California Department of Finance estimates that the District’s population will grow to 3.6EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-3 million by 2005. Major urban centers include Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto and
Stockton.

The Valley consists of a continuous inter-mountain valley that is approximately 250 miles long and averages 80 miles wide. It is defined by the Sierra Nevada mountains in the east (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Range in the west (reaching 5,020 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi mountains in the south (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation). The Valley opens to the Carquinez Straits in the north where the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta empties into San Francisco Bay. Except for its foothill and mountain areas, the SJVAB is essentially flat with a slight downward gradient to the northwest. Approximately 31 percent of the total land area within the SJVAB is under public ownership. The federal government is the largest public landholder, with approximately 94 percent of the total public-owned land under its jurisdiction. For the most part, the holdings consist of National Forest lands, National Parks, wildlife refuge areas, plus a major military air base located on the Valley floor. The Valley is predominately agriculturally oriented, including foothill and mountain areas devoted to grazing and timber sales. Currently, the majority of industry remains directly or indirectly related to providing services, products and support to agriculture. In addition, industries related to the production of natural resources are scattered throughout the District. Various lumbering operations that process timber harvested from the nearby National Forests and private forestlands are located along the east side of the District. The District also has substantial petroleum production fields in the southern counties, while oil refineries are located in Kern County. See Chapter 2 for more detailed information on the SJVAB.



### 8.2. OZONE AIR QUALITY INDICATORS

8.2.1 Air Quality Indicators

A number of ways exist to characterize ozone air quality trends. ARB has identified three air quality indicators for districts to use in the preparing triennial updates to ozone attainment plans. These are the Expected Peak Day Concentration (EPDC), the Population Weighted Exposure (PWE) and the Area Weighted Exposure (AWE). The following sections provide background information on each, along with an overview of the calculation procedure.

8.2.2 Expected Peak Day Concentration (EPDC)

The EPDC represents the maximum ozone concentration expected to occur once per year, on average. The EPDC is based on a statistical calculation of ambient ozone data collected at each monitoring site in theEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-4 district. The EPDC is useful for tracking air quality progress at individual monitoring locations. Because it is based on a robust statistical calculation, it is relatively stable, thereby providing a trend indicator that is not highly influenced by year-to-year changes in meteorology. The EPDC is calculated using ozone data for a three-year period (the summary year and two years immediately before the summary year). The data included in the calculation are daily maximum 1-hour ozone observations. However, when three years of data are not available, an EPDC can be calculated using only one or two years of data. The EPDC is computed using a statistical procedure that fits an exponential-tail model to the upper tail of the distribution of concentrations. The fitted distribution then is used to determine analytically the concentration that is expected to recur at a one-in-one year rate.

8.2.3 Exposure Indicators

8.2.3.1 Description

The exposure indicators provided are the population-weighted (PWE) and areaweighted exposure (AWE) indictors. These are intended to provide an indication of the potential for chronic adverse health impacts. Unlike the EPDC, whichtracks progress at individual locations, the population-weighted and areaweighted exposure indicators consolidate hourly ozone monitoring data from all sites within the district into a single exposure value. The result is a value representing the average potential exposure in an area, which in this case, is a district. The term “potential” is used, because daily activity affects an individual’s exposure. For example, being indoors during peak ozone concentrations will decrease a person’s exposure to outdoor ozone concentrations. The purpose of the population-weighted indicator is to characterize the potential average outdoor exposure per person to concentrations above the level of the state ozone standard. The population-weighted exposure indicator represents a composite of exposures at individual locations that have been weighted to emphasize equally the potential exposure for each individual in an area. In contrast, the purpose of the area-weighted exposure indicator is to characterize the potential average annual outdoor exposure per unit area. The area-weighted exposure indicator represents a composite of exposures at individual locations that have been weighted to emphasize equally the potential exposure in all portions of the district.

The exposure analysis is based solely on ambient (outdoor) ozone data. The calculation methodology assumes that an “exposure” occurs when a person experiences a 1-hour ozone concentration outdoors that is higher than 0.09 ppm,
the level of the State standard. The PWE and AWE consider both the level and

duration of ozone concentrations above the State standard.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-5 The annual exposure is the sum of all the hourly exposures during the year and presents the results as an average per exposed person or average per exposed

unit land area.

8.2.3.2 Calculation

The Time Period: The population-weighted and area-weighted exposure indicators are computed as an annual value for each year.

Air Quality Data: The air quality data used for computing the exposure indicators are hourly ozone data. All available data for sites in the district are used, regardless of whether the data meet designation criterion for complete and representative data. Because the individual exposure values are interpolated from data for several monitoring sites, the data for all the sites do not need to be complete for all hours.

Census Data: The exposure computations are based on census data collected by the federal government. For the years from 1985 to 1999, the population statistics are based on the 1990 census. For the years 2000, 2001, 2002, population data from the 2000 census was used.

The federal government has divided the nation into census tracts for the purpose of counting population and obtaining demographic information. Each of these census tracts has associated with it: a (1) centroid of the census tract, (2) the population residing within the census tract, and (3) the land area of the census tract. The population within each census tract is used in computing the annual population-weighted exposure, whereas, the land area of the census tract is used in computing the annual area-weighted exposure. The centroid of the census tract is used in computing both exposure

indicators.

Calculation Procedure for Population-Weighted Exposure: Hourly ozone concentrations are interpolated to each census tract centroid. Hourly ozone exposures are computed for each centroid by subtracting the value of the State ozone standard (0.09 ppm) from each interpolated hourly concentration. If negative, the result is set equal to zero. The hourly exposures for each census tract are multiplied by the number of people residing in the census tract. These hourly exposures are then added together and divided by the total population of all of the census tracts for which interpolated exposure

values are available.

The result represents an hourly population-weighted exposure for the district. The hourly exposures are aggregated into a daily population-weighted

exposure.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-6 The daily exposures are then aggregated into an annual population-weighted exposure. This is done for each year from 1985 through 2002, for which data

are available.

Calculation Procedure for Area-Weighted Exposure: The procedure for computing the area-weighted exposure is similar. In this case, the hourly exposures for each census tract are multiplied by the square kilometer land area of the census tract. These hourly exposures are then added together and divided by the total land area of all of the census tracts for which interpolated exposure values are available. The result represents an hourly area-weighted exposure for the district. The hourly exposures are aggregated into a daily area-weighted exposure. The daily exposures are then aggregated into an annual area-weighted exposure. This is done for each year from 1985 through 2002, for which data are available.



### 8.3 PROGRESS TOWARD AIR QUALITY STANDARD

ATTAINMENT

Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) section 40924, on or before December 31, 2003, the District is required to assess the extent of air quality improvement achieved during the preceding three years (2000-2002) 1 . The assessment of improvement should be based on: 1) ambient pollutant measurements; 2) best available modeling techniques; and 3) air quality indicators identified by the State Board for that purpose.Based on the ARB guidance document, Guidance for Using Air QualityRelated Indicators in Reporting Progress in Attaining the State Ambient Air Quality Standards , the District's assessment of improvement is based on air quality indicators and confirmed by ambient measurements and modeling.

Ambient pollutant measurements are collected from monitoring stations within the SJVAB and are incorporated into the ARB's annually published Air Quality Data . Data used to prepare the annual statistics shown in Air Quality Data are reflected in the air quality indicators discussed below. Table 8-1 provides trend data for the SJVAB with respect to the state

ozone standard. 2 As shown in Table 8-1, the number of days per year
with 1-hour ozone levels above the state standard in the SJVAB has decreased slightly from 1990 through 2002. The remainder of this section emphasizes the indicators required by ARB for inclusion in this report.

1 For triennial Reports due in 2003, ARB modified the due date for air basins also preparing SIP submittals, and stated that the triennial Reports could be submitted with, and at the same times as, SIP submittals in the 2003-2004 time frame.

2 Chapter 2 presents SJVAB monitoring data with respect to the federal 1-hour ozone standard.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-7 ARB staff has prepared data showing EPDC trends, population-weighted ozone exposure and area-weighted ozone exposure for many of the monitoring sites in the District that have been in operation long enough to have the necessary data (six years). The EPDC trends for the SJVAB for the period 2000—2002 show a wide degree of variability in that some are relatively steady, others decreasing, and a few showed increases (Figures 8-1 through 8-8). Of the three-year period of interest for this Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision (2000—2002), the year 2002 seemed to be when most sites experienced an increase in EPDC values. Comparison of Figures 8-1 through 8-8 with the SJVAB trends for the federal standard (Chapter 2) indicates that 2002 also showed deteriorating ozone air quality, reflecting the same emissions levels and meteorological conditions that shaped the trends in EPDC levels in this time frame.

TABLE 8-1
SJVAB Ozone Exceedances

1990-2002

Year No. of

Hours

Above
State

Standard No. of Days

Above
State

Standard

1990 711 131

1991 788 133

1992 735 127

1993 743 125

1994 808 118

1995 807 124

1996 936 120

1997 586 110

1998 801 90

1999 775 123

2000 691 114

2001 221 123

2002 850 127

Source: ARB 2004b

The area-weighted exposure chart (Figure 8-9) shows a general improvement in air quality since 1996. For the most recent reporting period (2000-2002), the trend in this metric is generally downward, thereby showing continued improvement. However, AWE does show an increase from 2001 to 2002, again reflecting the same conditions affecting the EPDC trends and federal ozone standard tracking given in Chapter 2.

The population-weighted exposure chart (Figure 8-10) prepared by the ARB shows that exposure to ozone (adjusted to reflect population distributionEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-8 and to give more "weight" to higher ozone values) has declined approximately 100 hours per person per year within the District between 1986 and 1993. Since 1993, the metric has shown year-to-year fluctuation near the value of 1.60 ppm-hrs per person. For the most recent reporting period (2000-2002), the metric showed a downward trend, with again a slight increase from 2001 to 2002.

In summary, the data prepared pursuant to H&SC section 40924 shows that expected "peak day" concentration, per-capita annual exposure, and per-unit-area annual exposure for ozone have slightly declined within the SJVAB since reporting of these statistics began. The nature of the trends varies with monitoring site, and each site’s trend reflects emissions and meteorological conditions, as well as the influence of other parameters (for example, the population weighted average is also affected by trends in population in the SJVAB. As shown in the following sections, the District has been aggressively developing and implementing ozone precursor emission control measures to improve ozone air quality in the SJVAB. Though these emissions reductions have been driven by compliance with federal requirements, they will help the SJVAB demonstrate continued progress toward meeting state ambient air quality standards as well.



### Figure 8-1 Expected Peak Day Concentration (EPDC) at the Arvin-Bear

Site

0.090 0.100 0.110 0.120 0.130 0.140 0.150 0.160 0.170 0.180

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year (End Year of Three)Ozone (ppm) EPDC Baseline

State Standard: 0.09 ppm

Source: ARB and SJVUAPCDEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-9

Figure 8-2 Expected Peak Day Concentration (EPDC) at the Bakersfield

Golden State Site.

0.090 0.100 0.110 0.120 0.130 0.140 0.150 0.160 0.170 0.180

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year (End Year of Three)Ozone ppm

EPDC

Baseline

Figure 8-3 Expected Peak Day Concentration (EPDC) at the Bakersfield

California Ave. Site

0.090 0.100 0.110 0.120 0.130 0.140 0.150 0.160 0.170 0.180

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year (End Year of Three)Ozone (ppm) EPDC

B ase lin e

State Standard: 0.09 ppm

Source: ARB and SJVUAPCDEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-10

Figure 8-4 Expected Peak Day Concentration (EPDC) at the

Clovis N. Villa Ave. Site

0.090 0.100 0.110 0.120 0.130 0.140 0.150 0.160 0.170 0.180

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year (End Year of Three)Ozone (ppm)

EPDC Baseline

Figure 8-5 Expected Peak Day Concentration (EPDC) at the

Fresno 1st Street Site

0.090 0.100 0.110 0.120 0.130 0.140 0.150 0.160 0.170

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year (End Year of Three)Ozone (ppm) EPDC Baseline

State Standard: 0.09 ppm

Source: ARB and SJVUAPCDEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-11 Figure 8-6 Expected Peak Day Concentration (EPDC) at the

Hanford-Irwin Street Site

0.090 0.100 0.110 0.120 0.130 0.140 0.150 0.160 0.170 0.180

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year (End Year of Three)Ozone (ppm)

EPDC Baseline

Figure 8-7 Expected Peak Day Concentration (EPDC) at the Maricopa-Stanislaus Street Site

0.090 0.100 0.110 0.120 0.130 0.140 0.150 0.160 0.170 0.180

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year (End Year of Three)Ozone (ppm)

EPDC

Baseline

State Standard: 0.09 ppm

Source: ARB and SJVUAPCDEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-12

Figure 8-8 Expected Peak Day Concentration (EPDC) at the

Merced-South Coffee Ave. Site

0.090 0.100 0.110 0.120 0.130 0.140 0.150 0.160 0.170 0.180

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year (End Year of Three)Ozone(ppm)

EPDC

Baseline

Figure 8-9 Area Weighted Exposure per Square Kilometer

0.10 0.60 1.10 1.60 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.60 4.10

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year (End Year of Three)Ozone (ppm-hours per square kilomenter

Three Year Moving Average Area-Weighted Exposure BaselineEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-13 Figure 8-10 Population Weighted Exposure per Person

0.10 0.60 1.10 1.60 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.60 4.10

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year (End of Year Three)Ozone (ppm-hours per person)

Three Year Moving Average Population-Weighted Exposure Baseline



### 8.4 TRANSPORT MITIGATION

The movement of air pollutants across jurisdictional boundaries is called longrange transport, or simply transport. ARB, in cooperation with local air districts, is required by the CCAA to evaluate intrastate transport and to suggest mitigation for such transport.

Most violations of ozone ambient air quality standards occur under stagnant weather conditions, when pollutant concentrations build up because emitted pollutants do not disperse either horizontally or vertically. For ozone, these conditions occur on hot, summer days with low wind speed limiting horizontal dispersion, and temperature inversions in the atmosphere limiting vertical dispersion. Prevailing winds carry air pollutants and precursors from emission points to downwind locations, mixing with cleaner air or other emissions along the way. Pollutant and precursor concentrations are much lower on windy days because emissions are dispersed through larger volumes of ambient air.

The air quality management community in California generally agrees that pollutant transport does occur among the various air districts and air basins in California. The wind direction and resulting transport direction may change significantly from day to day, depending on specific weather conditions. The ARB has identified transport couples (source and receptor areas) throughoutEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-14 California. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is identified as both a source and a receptor of transported pollutants.

ARB issued its most recent assessment of ozone transport in California in April 2001 (ARB 2001), and concluded that transport from the San Francisco Bay Area

Air Basin and the Broader Sacramento Area contributes to some exceedances of the state 1-hour ozone standard in the SJVAB, and that the degree of contribution ranges from overwhelming to inconsequential 3 . ARB also found that the SJVAB contributes overwhelmingly to ozone exceedances in the Mojave Desert, Mountain Counties, and Great Basin Valley Air Basins, significantly to the North Central Coast, and significantly to inconsequentially to the Broader Sacramento Area and the South Central Coast (ARB 2001).

ARB is in the process of analyzing CCOS 2000 data to develop improved technical capabilities to better quantify transport. Future triennial progress reports and plan revisions will include the results from this body of work.

In 2003, ARB amended state regulations on ozone transport mitigation. ARB retained, with minor revisions to eliminate outdated provisions, the requirement for upwind transport districts such as the San Joaquin Valley to apply best available retrofit control technology (BARCT). To ensure that upwind districts minimize their impact on downwind districts, ARB also added two new requirements related to the adoption of all feasible measures and no net increase thresholds for new source review permitting programs. The San Joaquin Valley was already required to comply with these provisions due to other existing CH&SC requirements. The District already had the most stringent new source review thresholds and had implemented all feasible measures in lieu of meeting the annual five percent ozone precursors emissions reductions requirements.

Table 8-2 identifies BARCT rules adopted by the District since 1991. The District adopted the majority of these rules before 1994 and continues to update them as new technology is demonstrated. To ensure that the District continues to include all feasible measures applicable to sources under its authority, the District reviewed adopted rules of other California Air Districts to determine if other measures should be incorporated. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has taken a proactive step to assist in this process by developing a list of the most stringent rules adopted by California Air Districts. The District participated in the process of developing the list and has reviewed its own adopted rules and proposed control measures in the Extreme OADP to ensure it meets the “all feasible measure” requirement.

3 ARB uses three classifications to describe transport: inconsequential, significant, and overwhelming (ARB 1990).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-15 1 BARCT rules adopted or amended in 1995-1998.

2 BARCT for larger units was adopted in 1993. BARCT for smaller units was adopted in 1996.

3 Last updated in the 2001 to 2003 time frame

4 Scheduled for update in this Extreme OADP (see Tables 4-1 and 4-2) Table 8-2

BARCT Rules

VOC BARCT

Rule Rule Name

4401 4 Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil Production Well Vents

4402 4 Crude Oil Production Sumps

4403 4 Components Serving Light Crude Oil or Gases at Light Crude Oil and Gas Production Facilities & Components at Natural Gas Processing Facilities 4404 Heavy Oil Test Station - Kern County

4407 In-situ Combustion Well Vents

4451 4 Valves, Pressure Relief Valves, Flanges, Threaded Connections

and Process Drains at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants

4452 4 Pump/Compressor Seals at Petrol. Refineries and Chemical Plants 4453 Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems 4454 Refinery Process Unit Turnaround

4601 3 Architectural Coatings

4602 3,4 Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations

4603 3,4 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products

4604 3 Can and Coil Coating Operations

4605 3,4 Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations

4606 3,4 Wood Products Coating Operations

4607 1,3,4 Graphic Arts

4621 1,4 Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers, Delivery Vessels, and Bulk Plants

4622 1 Gasoline Transfer into Vehicle Fuel Tanks

4624 4 Organic Liquid Loading 4625 Wastewater Separators

4641 4 Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt Paving and Maintenance Operations

4642 1 Solid Waste Disposal Sites

4651 4 Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Soil Decontamination 4652 Coatings and Ink Manufacturing

4653 4 Adhesives 4672 Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning Operations 4681 Rubber Tire Manufacturing

4682 4 Polystyrene Foam, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Manufacturing

4684 4 Polyester Resin Operations 4691 Vegetable Oil Processing Operations

N O x B A R C T

4305 2,3 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters

4352 4 Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters

4354 1,3 Glass Melting Furnaces

4701 1,3 Internal Combustion Engines

4703 3 Stationary Gas TurbinesEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-16 

### 8.5 CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION

8.5.1 Stationary Source Control Measures

Table 8-3 presents the District’s rulemaking schedule and adoption activity for 2001-2003 as developed in the 2000 Triennial Plan Update and Plan Revision (SJVUAPCD 2001).

Table 8-3 

### * 2001-2003 Rulemaking Schedule

RULE CONTROL MEASURE 2000 TRIENNIAL
PLAN SCHEDULE ACTIVITY COMMITMENT

4103 Open Burning 2Q/01 Amendment 1997 Triennial

Plan & EPA Requirement

4106 Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning 2Q/01 New Rule 1997 Triennial

Plan & EPA Requirement

4623 Organic Liquid Storage 2Q/01 Amendment 1997 Triennial

Plan & EPA Requirement

4662 Organic Solvent Degreasing 2Q/01 Amendment 1997 Triennial

Plan & EPA Requirement

4663 Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage and Disposal 2Q/01 New Rule 1997 Triennial

Plan & EPA requirement

Regulation

8 Fugitive Dust 2Q/01 Amendment PM10 ADP &
EPA SIP Deficiency

4411 Oil Production Well Cellars 3Q/01 New Rule 1997 Triennial

Plan & EPA Requirement

4601 Architectural Coatings 3Q/01 Amendment 1997 Triennial

Plan & EPA Requirement

4692 Commercial Charbroiling 3Q/01 New Rule 1997 Triennial

Plan & EPA RequirementEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-17 Table 8-3 2001-2003 Rulemaking Schedule (cont.)

RULE CONTROL MEASURE 2000 TRIENNIAL
PLAN SCHEDULE ACTIVITY COMMITMENT

4354 Glass Melting Furnaces 2Q/02 Amendment EPA SIP Deficiency

4305** Boilers, Process Heaters,
and Steam Generators 3Q/02 Amendment EPA SIP Deficiency

4307 Dryers & Ovens 3Q/02 New Rule EPA RACT Requirement

4311 Flares 3Q/02 New Rule EPA RACT Requirement

4312 Nitric Acid Plants 3Q/02 New Rule EPA RACT Requirement

4313 Foundries 3Q/02 New Rule EPA RACT Requirement

4351** Boilers, Steam Generators

and Process Heaters – Reasonably Available Control Technology 3Q/02 Amendment EPA SIP Deficiency

4610 Mirror Coating Operations 3Q/02 New Rule EPA RACT Requirement

4693 Bakeries 3Q/02 New Rule EPA RACT Requirement

4696 Food Products Cooking 3Q/02 New Rule EPA RACT Requirement

4104 Reduction of Animal Matter 3Q/02 Amendment EPA RACT Requirement

4701** Internal Combustion Engines 3Q/02 Amendment EPA SIP Deficiency

4703** Stationary Gas Turbines 3Q/02 Amendment EPA SIP DeficiencyEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-18 Table 8-3 2001-2003 Rulemaking Schedule (cont.)

RULE CONTROL MEASURE 2000 TRIENNIAL
PLAN SCHEDULE ACTIVITY COMMITMENT

4403 Components Serving Light Crude Oil or Gases at Light

Crude Oil and Gas

Production Facilities and Components at Natural Gas Processing Facilities 3Q/03 Amendment Feasible

Control

Measure

4451 Valves, Pressure Relief Valves, Flanges, Threaded
Connections and Process

Drains at Petroleum
Refineries and Chemical

Plants 3Q/03 New Rule Feasible
Control

Measure

4452 Pump and Compressor Seals at Light Crude oil and

Gases Production Facilities & Components at Natural Gas Processing Facilities 3Q/03 Amendment Feasible
Control

Measure

4701 Internal Combustion Engines 3Q/03 Amendment Feasible
Control

Measure

4703 Stationary Gas Turbines 3Q/03 Amendment Feasible
Control

Measure

Projected emissions reductions associated with the control measures are not included on this table. District staff is still in the process of developing this information. Projected emission reductions and a revised rulemaking schedule are included in Section 4 of this Extreme OADP

. Some measures listed above were included in the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone adopted December 19, 2002. Source: SJVUAPCD 2001.

Section 40924(b)(2) of the CH&SC, as well as ARB’s guidance for triennial progress reports and plan revisions, directs districts to report actual emissions reductions achieved for each measure scheduled for adoption in the three year period addressed by each progress report and plan revision. Table 8-4 presents this information for the SJVAB, in the 2000—2002 time frame that is the focus of this Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-19 8.5.2 Mobile Source Control Measures

8.5.2.1 Introduction

Under the CCAA’s severe nonattainment classification for the state ozone standard, the District is required to include “reasonably available transportation control measures sufficient to substantially reduce the rate of increase in passenger vehicle trips and miles traveled per trip...” in its state air quality plans. The 2000 Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision addressed a number of TCMs, and this 2003 report updates those discussions and addresses new measures identified after the 2000 Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision.

Table 8-4

Actual Emission Reductions for District Rules Affecting Ozone Precursor Emissions 1 (2000-2002)

Rule Date Title Pollutant Baseline (tons/day) Actual

Reductions (tons/day)

4408 12/19/2002 Glycol Dehydration

Systems VOC 1.7 1.5

4601 10/31/01 Architectural Coatings VOC 9.3 1.3

4610 12/19/02 Glass Coating Operations VOC 0.2 0.2

4623 12/20/01 Storage of Organic Liquids VOC 2.8 0.2

4662 4/19/01 Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations VOC 14.0 11.3

4692 3/21/02 Commercial Charbroiling VOC 0.04 0.03

4693 5/16/02 Bakery Ovens VOC 0.2 0.2

4703 4/25/02 Stationary Gas

Turbines NOx 9.6 5.4

1 Rules may also reduce emissions of other pollutants (e.g., PM), but only ozone precursors

are shown.

Reductions from mobile source measures differ from stationary source reductions in that they are limited to a specific time period rather than being permanent, and they are calculated over the projects’ lifetimes (in large part because they are tied to state and federal funding cycles for transportation projects). 4 Stationary source reductions are referenced on a tons/day basis

4 This statement primarily reflects mobile source measures for which the District has authority to implement or assist in implementation. Mobile source measures for which ARB is responsibleEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-20 because they are cumulative in that they continue to occur day after day, year after year, from the same source. The control measures continue to generate reductions as long as the controlled source is operating. Due to the nature of mobile source emissions control measures, quantifying the actual years in which reductions will occur is not possible. For some projects, reductions may be limited or tied to a set number of years. For others, emission reductions may occur over a set number of years.

8.5.2.2 District Committed Measures

The District is continuing to work with the Transportation Planning Agencies (TPAs) in implementing previously-committed TCMs and in developing new

TCMs for SIP submittals

. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the District and the eight county TPAs is still in effect. The 2000 Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision mentioned several 9000-series rules that were no longer being pursued due to state action; these rules are still inactive.

District and TPA staffs are working on specific actions and programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or to reduce emissions through other activities. Local governments in the SJVAB have committed to hundreds of Reasonably Available Control Measures in the period 2000—2002. The reader is referred to

the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley

Ozone for more information. The document is available on the District’s website

at www.valleyair.org . Descriptions of specific control measures are available in hardcopy at the District office in Fresno, at ARB’s office in Sacramento, or at EPA Region 9’s office in San Francisco.

In addition, The District is working on a number of rules involving mobile sources. As shown in Chapter 4 of this Extreme OADP , the rule making schedule includes
a school Bus Fleet Rule and Indirect Source Rules. Each of these rules is directed at reducing emissions from mobile sources.

The Indirect Source Rules represent a major rule development activity. Indirect Source Mitigation is aimed at controlling secondary emissions from development that attracts or generates motor vehicle trips. The District is currently evaluating rules to implement the Indirect Source Mitigation measure that would require mitigation measures and/or emission based fees to fund projects that reduce emissions. Developers would have the option for mitigating emissions on-site through project design and location, credit for the installation of infrastructure and equipment at the project site that would reduce vehicle trips or emissions, and/or the payment of a fee. During the 2000—2002 period, the District began the

address motor vehicle technology changes and are quantifiable in amount of reductions and time period in which reductions occur.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-21 process of revisiting prior rule development activities in this area (that did not result in development of indirect source rules). The 2003 PM10 Plan and state legislation signed into law in 2003 (SB 700 series) are driving the District to adopt indirect source rules in the late 2004/early 2005 time frame.

8.5.2.3 Voluntary Programs

The District continued to implement several successful voluntary mobile source emission reduction programs in the 2000-2002 time frame. These programs are

described below.

During the 2000—2002 time frame covered by this report, the RE duce Mo tor

V ehicle E missions (REMOVE) Program utilized a portion of a $4 motor vehicle registration surcharge fee allowed by State legislation for nonattainment areas for District-operated planning, monitoring, enforcement, technical studies, and emission reduction projects necessary to implement the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The REMOVE Program funded projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions within the Valley through a competitive request for proposal (RFP) process. During the 2000-2001 funding cycle (2 years were treated as one cycle) and 2001-2002 funding cycles, the District continued to implement the REMOVE Program; projects funded at a cost of almost $3,633,389 resulted in an estimated 460 tons of emissions reduction over the lifetime of the projects. The REMOVE Program is no longer in existence as of July 2004, but the District plans to replace it later in 2004 with a similar program.

During 2000, 2001 and 2002, the District received 5,997 calls or report slips regarding smoking vehicles, with about a 17 percent response rate from individuals receiving a “Smoking Vehicle” letter. This voluntary program reduces motor vehicle emissions by encouraging owners of smoking vehicles to have repairs made to correct problems of high emissions.

The Heavy Duty Vehicle Emission Reduction Program provides financial incentives to municipalities, companies, fleet operators and individuals who purchase new heavy-duty, low-emission on-road vehicles from original equipment manufacturers (OEM); new OEM heavy-duty, low-emission engines for replacements; or retrofit technologies for heavy-duty on-road and non-road vehicles meeting criteria guidelines.

The District is funding its Heavy Duty Vehicle Emission Reduction Program with Carl Moyer funds, provided through state legislative action. Since 1999, The District has received $18,308,227 on Carl Moyer Program funding. The District has provided additional match funding in the amount of $7,658,671. To date, the District has obligated all Moyer Program funds for years one, two and three (CMI, CMII and CMIII) and approximately 30% of funds for year four (CMIV).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-22 Implementation has been successful, particularly with the agricultural community. The District has provided Moyer Program incentive funds for projects including agricultural pump engines, refuse haulers, street sweepers, tractors, grape harvesters, delivery trucks, and almond sweepers. Approximately $25,000,000 in Moyer Program funds and matching funds has been awarded to fund over 1,300 cleaner burning engines. Approximately 9,500 tons of NOx reductions have resulted from Moyer Program projects.

Additionally, in 1996, the District began a Spare the Air Program . This voluntary program is designed to encourage ridesharing and discourage use of equipment and products that emit ozone precursors during the ozone season. The program is directed both to employers and the general public. In 1996, 75 employers were enrolled in the employer component. By September 1997, the employer component had increased to nearly 500 participants, while in 1998 and 1999, the employer component ran about 730. The focus of the program in 1999 was increasing the active participation of employers already enrolled in the program rather than increasing the number of employers in the program. Between 2000- 2002, the employer component grew from 710 to 749.

8.5.3 Land Use Programs

Land use programs contain three basic elements: District CEQA review of projects in the SJVAB, District Guidelines for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts , and District Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans

.

In the CEQA Program, the District reviews projects each year from nearly all local planning agencies in the San Joaquin Valley. Local jurisdictions routinely include air quality mitigation measures recommended by the District in development projects. For the period 2000-2002, the District reviewed almost 4000 projects of varying complexity throughout the 8-county region. In addition, the District is increasingly functioning as lead on CEQA documents due to its discretionary action of permit issuance. For the period 2000-2002, the District reviewed and updated the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVUAPCD 2002) to further assist local jurisdictions in analyzing and mitigating impacts, and issued a revised version on January 10, 2002. The District is preparing another update in 2004.

In the District’s program to encourage air quality elements in city and county general plans, District staff provides assistance to cities and counties via its Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans (AQGGP) [SJVUAPCD 1994] and by reviewing general plans as they are updated. The AQGGP has been very well accepted. Nearly all cities and counties in the District that have prepared general plan updates have used the AQGGP since its approval in 1994. In 2002 theEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-23 District began updating the AQGGP, and expects to issue a revised version in

2004.

Also in 2002, the District began developing a manual entitled Internal CEQA

Guidelines for District Staff. When completed, this manual will guide District staff on how to comply with CEQA for the range of District activities, which include serving as lead agency on development projects. Other activities related to land

use include Indirect Source Rules discussed above under Mobile Sources.



### 8.6 PLAN REVISION

8.6.1 Introduction

The California Clean Air Act requires the District to establish a strategy that will achieve an annual average five percent reduction in ozone precursor emissions, or alternatively, to commit to taking all feasible measures to reduce emissions within its boundaries in an expeditious time frame. The District’s adopted strategy is based on the latter alternative. During the 2000-2002 period, the District continued to implement its original control strategy of adopting rules to
fulfill the District’s SIP commitment and then to address additional measures

needed for attainment of the California ozone standard. The District met all of its federally required emission reduction rates (three percent per year for every three year period post 1996 until attainment) for 1-hr ozone precursors for the 2000—2002 period addressed by this report.

During the 2003-2005 planning cycle, the District will continue its efforts to improve its emissions inventory. This will consist of both in-house efforts, joint efforts with ARB, and contracting with consultants for updating or developing inventories for specific sources. The District will also continue to participate with ARB and other districts on analyzing CCOS data and developing modeling tools to improve ozone standard attainment planning. In particular, work in 2003-2005 will focus on developing modeling tools for 8-hour ozone.

8.6.2 Control Strategy

The District’s control strategy to reduce ozone pollution is largely driven at present by emissions reductions needed to attain the federal 1-hour ozone

standards and needed to attain the federal PM10 standards. The District is implementing an intense rule development schedule to meet commitments in the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone (which includes control measures though 2005) and in the 2003 PM10 Plan (which contains control measures for PM10 and its precursors, including the VOC and NOx out to the year 2010). For ozone rate of progress, the District has demonstrated a 33% reduction in ozone precursor emissions over the periodEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-24 1990-2002 by a large margin, thus exceeding federal requirements for ozone precursor emissions reductions. The 2003 PM10 Plan calls for a total annual NOx reduction of 45.3 tons/day and a total annual VOC reduction of 20.8 tons/day by 2010.

Table 8-5 presents the District’s 2003-2005 rulemaking schedule. Beyond 2005, the District’s rulemaking schedule becomes even more intense. The PM10 Plan identifies NOx, VOC and PM10 direct emissions controls through 2010. This plan will be revised and resubmitted to EPA in March 2006, so a significant

evaluation of the control measure commitments will occur in 2005. This Extreme
OADP identifies control measure commitments through 2010 for VOC and NOx. In 2007, the District must develop and submit to EPA an OADP for the 8-hour ozone standard, which is expected to call for even more emissions reductions than have been identified to date for PM10 and the 1-hour ozone standard. By early 2008, the District must develop and submit to EPA plans for attaining the PM2.5 standard and the regional haze standard. These plans will also include control measure commitments for ozone precursor emissions. The District will continue to pursue emissions reductions for VOC and NOx unless and until gridded photochemical modeling results indicate air quality benefits from controlling emissions of one precursor more than the other. The District also intends to continue its strategy of regional control measures and rules; no newrules, nor exemptions to existing rules, are being considered for specific subregions within the SJVAB. All of these future federal planning activities will be addressed in future Triennial Progress Reports and Plan Revisions. The reader

is referred to the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone, to the 2003 PM10 Plan; both documents are available on

the District’s website at www.valleyair.org . Table 4-1 of this Extreme OADP

includes measures for the 2005 to 2007 time frame.

The previous Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision (SJVUAPCD 2001) referred to a number of requirements related to classification of the SJVAB as

severe nonattainment for the federal 1-hour ozone standard. EPA eliminated these requirements upon the effective date of the reclassification to extreme nonattainment (69 FR 20550).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-25 Table 8-5 Rule Making Schedule for 2003-2005

Rule Control Measure Adopt/

Amend

Date Reason

4313 (New) Lime Kilns 2Q/03
1Q-2003 RACT/RACM

4305, 4351, &

4306 Boilers, Steam Generators

and Process Heaters 3Q – 2003 Sanction

Clock/Fixup/RACM 4701 & 4702 Stationary IC Engines 3Q – 2003 Sanction

Clock/Fixup/RACM 4604 Can and Coil Coating 1Q – 2004 RACM 4409 New Oil and Gas Fugitives 2Q – 2005 EOADP (Ch. 4) 4455 New Refinery & Chemical Fugitives 2Q – 2005 EOADP (Ch. 4)

9510 New

3180 New Indirect Source Mitigation 4Q – 2005 EOADP (Ch. 4)

4307 New Small Boilers, Process Heaters, Steam Generators,

2.0 – 5.0 MMBtu/hr 4Q – 2005 EOADP (Ch. 4)

4694 New Wineries – Fermentation and Storage 4Q – 2005 EOADP (Ch. 4)

4702 Stationary IC Engines 2Q – 2005 EOADP (Ch. 4) 4309 New Commercial Dryers 4Q – 2005 EOADP (Ch. 4)

Source : SJVAPCD 2002; EOADP Ch.4, Table 4-1 *Control measures shown as deleted were moved into the post-2005 time frame and thus are beyond the scope of this Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision, they will be addressed in the next Triennial Progress Report and Plan

Revision Note: Bold Text indicates that the control measure has been adopted.

8.6.3 Updated Strategy & Expected Reductions

As requested by ARB in the 2003 “Triennial Assessment and Plan Revisions” guidance, the District has included projections of the planning inventory out to the year 2020. Table 8-6 presents the requested years of 2010, 2015 and 2020 byprimary source sector of stationary, area, and mobile sources to provide a longterm view of how emissions are expected to change in the future in the SJVAB. Table 8-6 shows that ARB projects the SJVAB emissions to decline over the long term. Trends for all three pollutants show a downward trend, with the exceptionEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-26 of VOC, which slightly increases from 2010 to 2020, primarily due to area sources (but also stationary sources). This increase is most likely due to population growth outstripping the ability of area source emission controls in theout years. Also of note is a significant downward trend in NOx emissions for onroad and off-road mobile sources, reflecting state and federal emissions controls on engines.

Table 8-6 Planning Emissions Inventories (summer, tons/day)*

Source Category 2010
VOC 2015
VOC 2020
VOC 2010
CO 2015
CO 2020
CO 2010
NOx 2015
NOx 2020
NOx

Stationary 93.6 97.4 101.2 53.5 54.5 58.0 136.6 138.3 139.1

Area 171.1 180.7 190.7 419.1 413.8 405.7 5.9 5.9 5.9

On-Road

Mobile 58.5 43.3 34.3 592.0 406.2 291.7 137.4 92.3 64.7

Other

Mobile 41.5 35.4 32.0 380.2 371.5 376.3 118.5 96.0 81.8

Total 364.7 356.8 358.2 1444.8 1246.0 1131.6 398.3 332.5 291.4

* Represents direct inventory output, CCOS Version 2.11_RF932PEI; no local or state line item adjustments made. Also may not match Table 3-1 due to changes in Version 2.11 over

time.

8.6.4 Further Study Measures

Further study measures are measures that need to be researched in order to determine its feasibility as a control measure in the future. The District identified several emission source categories that appear to have the potential for emission reductions, but they have highly uncertain emission inventories or estimates of control measure effectiveness. For those sources, the District proposes further study to enable an informed decision on whether to pursue a control measure and to determine a realistic emission reduction estimate. The District’s “Further Study Measures” are presented in Section 4.2 of this Extreme OADP . Note that Chapters 4, 5, and 7 of this Extreme OADP identify and evaluate state and District ozone precursor emission control measures that would be adopted outside the time frame of the California Clean Air Act Plan Revision, and are therefore not mentioned in this Chapter.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN Revised 10/20/05

SJVUAPCD Chapter 8 – California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

8-27 

### 8.7 REFERENCES

ARB 1990 California Air Resources Board, Assessment and Mitigation of the Impacts of Transported Pollutants on Ozone Concentrations within California, June 1990, CARB, Sacramento, California.

ARB 2001 California Air Resources Board, Ozone Transport: 2001

Review , California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California, April 2001.

ARB 2004a California Air Resources Board, EPCD Data Sacramento,

California.

ARB 2004b The 2004 California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California.

SJVAPCD 1992 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan , January 1992, SJVUAPCD, Fresno,

California.

SJVAPCD 1994 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans, SJVUAPCD, Fresno, California, October 20, 1994.

SJVAPCD 1998 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

1995-1997 (1997 Triennial Update), 1998, SJVUAPCD, Fresno, California. Approved by ARB October 1999.

SJVAPCD 2001 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision

1997-1999 (2000 Triennial Update), SJVUAPCD, Fresno, California, 2001.

SJVAPCD 2002a San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts , SJVUAPCD, Fresno, California, January 10, 2002 revision (originally adopted August 20, 1998).

SJVAPCD 2002b San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley Ozone , SJVUAPCD, Fresno, California, December 19, 2002 revision.

# ❖

## Chapter 9

– ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 9

- Acronyms and Glossary

9-1 

### 9.1 ACRONYMS

APCD Air Pollution Control District

AQAP Air Quality Attainment Plan

AQMD Air Quality Management District

AQMP Air Quality Management Plan

APS Achievable Performance Standard (CARB)

AWE Area Weighted Exposure

BACM Best Available Control Measure

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BARCT Best Available Retrofit Control Technology

CAC Citizen’s Advisory Committee

CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers’ Association

CARB California Air Resources Board

CCAA California Clean Air Act

CCAP California Clean Air Plan

CCOS Central California Ozone Study

CDPF Catalytic Diesel Particulate Filter

CE-CERT Center for Environmental Research & Technology

CEIDARS California Emission Inventory Development and Reporting

Air System

CEFS California Emission Forecasting System

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CH&SC California Health and Safety Code

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO 2 Carbon Dioxide

District San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control

District

DMV Department of Motor VehiclesEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 9

- Acronyms and Glossary

9-2 EF Emission Factor

EI Emission Inventory

EMFAC EMissions FACtor (motor vehicle emissions model)

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERC Emission Reduction Credit

FCAA Federal Clean Air Act, as amended

FGR Flue Gas Recirculation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIP Federal Implementation Plan

FR- Federal Register

FMVCP Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program

FTA Federal Transit Administration

g/l grams per liter

I/M Inspection and Maintenance

IC Internal Combustion

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MPOs Metropolitan Planning Organizations

MW Megawatt

N/A Not available

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

ND Not Determined at This Time

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen

NSR New Source Review

OADP Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan

PM10 Particulate Matter of 10 microns and smaller

PM10 ADP PM10 Attainment Demonstration Plan

ppb parts per billion

pphm parts per hundred million

ppm parts per million

PWE Population Weighted ExposureEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 9

- Acronyms and Glossary

9-3 RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology

RACM Reasonably Available Control Measure

REMOVE Reduce Motor Vehicle Emissions Program

RFP Reasonable Further Progress

ROG Reactive Organic Gas

ROP Rate of Progress

RTP Regional Transportation Plan

RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (Valley

Transportation Planning Agencies)

RTPACID Regional Transportation Planning Agency Commitments for Implementation Documentation

RVP Reid Vapor Pressure

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction

SEDAB Southeast Desert Air Basin

SIP State Implementation Plan

SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction

SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

SOx Oxides of Sulfur

TAC Toxic Air Contaminants

TCM Transportation Control Measure

TOG Total Organic Gases

TPAs Valley Transportation Planning Agencies [see Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs)]

TIP Transportation Improvement Programs

tpd tons per day

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

Valley San Joaquin Valley

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

VOC Volatile Organic CompoundsEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 9

- Acronyms and Glossary

9-4 9.2 

### GLOSSARY

Air Basin: An area of the state designated by the CARB pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Section 39606 of the CH&SC that has similar meteorological and geographic conditions.

Air Monitoring: The periodic or continuous sampling and analysis of air pollutants in ambient air or from individual pollutant sources.

Air Pollutants: Substances which are foreign to the atmosphere or are present in the natural atmosphere to the extent that they may result in adverse effects on humans, animals, vegetation, and/or materials.

Air Pollution Control District (APCD): A county agency with authority to regulate sources of air pollution, other than emissions from mobile sources, such as refineries, manufacturing facilities, and power plants within a given county, and governed by a District Air Pollution Control Board composed of elected county supervisors. (Compare AQMD and Unified District)

Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO): A person appointed by the APCB given the authority to appoint district personnel for the purpose of observing and enforcing the provisions of Part 4, Division 26 of the CH&SC.

Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP): An air quality plan prepared in approximately 1991 by each air pollution control district in the California that at that time was classified as nonattainment for specific state ambient air quality standards.

Air Quality Management District (AQMD): A group of counties or portions of counties with authority to regulate sources of air pollution within the region and governed by a regional air pollution control board comprised mostly of elected officials from within the region. An AQMD is established by state legislation. (Compare APCD and Unified District).

Ambient Air: Air occurring at a particular time and place outside of structures. Often used interchangeably with outdoor air.

Anthropogenic: Of, relating to, or influenced by the impact of man on nature;

man-made.

Area-wide Sources: Also known as "area" sources, are those sources which are not large enough to be tracked individually, but when added together can represent a large quantity of pollution. Examples of these sources includeEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 9

- Acronyms and Glossary

9-5 multiple stationary emission sources such as water heaters, gas furnaces, fireplaces, gas stations, dry cleaners and woodstoves. Area sources of pollution are identified by Category of Emission Source (CES) codes.

Attainment: Achieving and maintaining the air quality standards for a given standard. This is generally accomplished by demonstrating that there was no more than one day in a year where the ambient air exceeded the appropriate given standard.

Attainment Area: A geographic area that is in compliance with the National and/or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or CAAQS).

Best Available Control Technology (BACT): The most up to date methods, systems, techniques, and production processes available to achieve the greatest feasible emission reductions for given regulated air pollutants and processes. BACT is a requirement of NSR (New Source Review) and PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration).

Best Available Control Measure (BACM): A term used to describe the “best” measures (according to EPA guidance) for controlling small or dispersed sources of particulate matter and other emissions from sources such as roadway dust, woodstoves, and open burning.

Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT): An emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable, taking into account environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or category of source (Section 40406 CH&SC).

Biogenic: Produced by living organisms. Biogenic emissions are of extreme interest because of the predominance of agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley; however, the District has no authority to regulate biogenic emissions. Preliminary studies indicate that biogenic emissions may be at least two times the total hydrocarbon emissions already quantified in the emissions inventory (in the AQAP).

Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR): An agency of the California Department of Consumer Affairs responsible for the implementation of the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program (smog check).

California Air Resources Board (CARB): The State's lead air quality agency consisting of an eleven-member Governor appointed board and supporting staff fully responsible for motor vehicle pollution control, and having oversight authority over California's air pollution management

program.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 9

- Acronyms and Glossary

9-6 California Clean Air Plan (CCAP): A plan being developed by the California Air Resources Board to help meet state and federal ozone standards throughout California. Originally scheduled for release in 2001 and 2002, it is still in development pending resolution of issues related to mobile

source emission controls.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A California law that sets forth a process for public agencies to make informed decisions on discretionary project approvals. The process aids decision makers to determine whether any environmental impacts are associated with a proposed project. It requires the elimination or reduction of environmental impacts associated with a proposed project and the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce or remove those impacts.

Carbon Monoxide (CO): A colorless, odorless gas resulting from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Over 80 percent of the CO emitted in urban areas is contributed by motor vehicles. CO interferes with the blood's ability to carry oxygen to the body's tissues and results in numerous adverse health effects. CO is a criteria pollutant.

Central California Ozone Study (CCOS): A research effort undertaken in 2001

to collect observations related to formation of ozone at the surface and aloft for a large area of central California, with supporting collection of activity and emissions data, to be followed by analysis and modeling.

Conformity: A demonstration of whether a federally-supported activity is consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) – per section 176(c) of the FCAA. Transportation conformity refers to plans, programs, and projects approved or funded by the Federal Highway Administration or the Federal Transit Administration. General conformity refers to projects approved or funded by other federal agencies.

Consumer Products: Products such as detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, personal care products, and automotive specialty products which are part of our everyday lives and, through consumer use, may produce air emissions which contribute to air pollution.

Criteria Air Pollutant: An air pollutant for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which an federal or state ambient air quality standard has been set. Examples include: Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, and PM 10

.

Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV): The agency responsible for registering drivers and vehicles as well as collecting state and local motor vehicle

fees.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 9

- Acronyms and Glossary

9-7 Design Value : The pollutant concentration used by air quality managers as the basis for determining attainment of an air quality standard, generally by using an air quality model. The design value may or may not be the same as the designation value.

Emission Factor: For stationary sources, the relationship between the amount of pollution produced and the amount of raw material processed or burned. For mobile sources, the relationship between the amount of pollution produced and the number of vehicle miles traveled. By using the emission factor of a pollutant and specific data regarding quantities of material used by a given source, it is possible to compute emissions for

the source.

Emission Inventory: An estimate of the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere from major mobile, stationary, area-wide, and natural source categories over a specific period of time such as a day or a year.

Emission Offset: Actual enforceable emission reductions from existing sources sufficient to offset anticipated emission increases associated with new or modified stationary sources. A rule-making concept whereby approval of a new stationary source of air pollution or increase of emissions from an existing source of air pollution is conditional on the equal or greater reduction of emissions from other existing stationary sources of air pollution. This concept is utilized in addition to reduction in emissions by employing BACT.

Emission Projecting: Utilizing information and growth and control estimates to approximate future emissions.

Emission Reduction Credit (ERC): Credits given for actual emission reductions that are real, enforceable, permanent, quantifiable, and surplus (beyond the required reduction). An actual credit is certified via a District-issued document that specifies the date of issuance, expiration date of credit, type of pollutant, and legal owner of emission reduction credits. In some cases, ERCs can be transferred to another owner or banked for future

use.

Emission Standard: The maximum amount or rate of a pollutant permitted to be discharged from a polluting source such as an automobile or smoke stack.

Emissions Inventory: An estimate of the quantity of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere over a specific period such as a day or a year. Considerations that go into the inventory include type and location of sources, the processes involved, and the level of activity.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 9

- Acronyms and Glossary

9-8 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The United States Environmental Protection Agency is a federal agency charged with protecting human health and safeguarding the natural environment—air, water, and land-- upon which life depends. EPA promulgates national ambient air quality standards and implements other federal programs designed to improve air quality.

Exceedance: An air pollutant that is monitored to be above the state and/or federal ambient air quality standard for that pollutant.

Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA): A federal law passed in 1970 and significantly

amended in 1977 and 1990 that forms the basis for the national air pollution control efforts. Basic elements of the Act include national ambient air quality standards for major air pollutants, air toxics standards, acid rain control measures, and enforcement provisions.

Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: The 1990 amended version of the FCAA that mandates attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by specified dates for nonattainment areas. For ozone nonattainment, urban areas are now sorted into categories (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme) with deadlines established ranging from three years for marginal areas to twenty years

for extreme areas.

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP): In the absence of an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP), a plan prepared by the EPA which provides measures that nonattainment areas must take to meet the requirements of

the FCAA.

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP): This program establishes the tailpipe emissions standards that are implemented by the Federal

Government.

Hydrocarbon (HC): any of a large number of compounds containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms. They may be emitted into the air as a result of fossil fuel combustion and fuel volatilization, and are a major contributor to smog.

Indirect Source: Any facility, building, structure, or installation, or combination thereof, which generates or attracts mobile source activity that results in emissions of any pollutant (or precursor) for which there is a state or federal ambient air quality standard. Examples of indirect sources include employment sites, shopping centers, sports facilities, housingEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 9

- Acronyms and Glossary

9-9 developments, airports, educational institutions, commercial and industrial developments, and parking lots and garages.

Indirect Source Review (ISR): A rule or regulation that governs entities such as stationary facilities, buildings, structures, properties, and/or roads which, through their construction to operation indirectly contributes to air pollution. This includes projects and facilities that attract or generate mobile sources activity (autos and trucks) such as employment sites, shopping centers, sports facilities, housing developments, airports, educational institutions, commercial and industrial developments, and parking lots and garages, that results in the emissions of any regulated pollutant.

Inspection and Maintenance Program (I & M): A motor vehicle inspection program implemented by the Bureau of Automotive Repair. It is designed to identify vehicles in need of maintenance and to assure the effectiveness of their emission control systems on a biennial basis. The program was enacted in 1979 and strengthened in 1990. The standard program is called Basic I & M. Enhanced I & M has more stringent testing requirements and is to be implemented in urbanized areas that are classified as "serious" and above nonattainment for ozone or "high moderate" and above for carbon monoxide and which had a population of 200,000 or more in 1980. Also known as a "smog check".

Internal Combustion Engine (IC): A heat engine in which the combustion generates the heat inside the engine proper instead of in a furnace. An example of an IC engine is an automobile engine.

Inversion: A layer of warm air in the atmosphere that lies over a layer of cooler air, trapping pollutants.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): n agreement made among agencies for the purposes of jointly accomplishing a goal, program, etc. The governing boards of the involved agencies must ratify this agreement.

Mobile Sources: Sources of air pollution that are not stationary by nature such as automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, off-road vehicles, boats, and airplanes.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Standards set by the Federal EPA for the maximum levels of air pollutants that can exist in the ambient air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public

welfare.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 9

- Acronyms and Glossary

9-10 New Source Review (NSR): The mechanism to assure that new and modified stationary sources will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any ambient air quality standard, or prevent reasonable further progress towards the attainment or maintenance of any ambient air quality standard. A program used in a non-attainment area to permit or site new industrial facilities or modifications to existing industrial facilities that emit non-attainment criteria air pollutants. The two major requirements of NSR are Best Available Control Technology and Offsets.

Nonattainment Area : An area identified by the EPA and/or CARB as not meeting either NAAQS or CAAQS standards for a given pollutant.

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx): A general term pertaining to compounds of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and other oxides of nitrogen. Nitrogen oxides are typically created during combustion processes, and are major contributors to smog formation and acid deposition. NO 2 is a criteria pollutant, and may result in numerous adverse health effects.

Ozone (O 3 ): A reactive gas consisting of three oxygen atoms. In the troposphere, it is a product of the photochemical process involving the sun's energy. It is a secondary pollutant that is formed when nitrogen oxides (NO
x ) and reactive organic gases (ROG) react in the presence of sunlight. Ozone at the earth's surface causes numerous adverse health effects and is a criteria pollutant. It is a major component of smog. In the stratosphere, ozone exists naturally and shields life on earth from harmful incoming ultraviolet radiation.

Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (OADP): A plan prepared by air pollution control districts and air quality management districts that proposes and evaluates, through modeling, emission controls deemed necessary to attain ambient air quality standards for ozone.

Ozone Precursors: Chemicals such as volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, occurring either naturally or as a result of human activities, which contribute to the formation of ozone, a major component of smog. They are emitted directly from sources into the atmosphere.

Particulate Matter (PM10): A major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and mists. The size of the particles (10 microns or smaller, about 0.0004 inches or less) allows them to easily enter the air sacs deep in the lungs where they may be deposited to result

in adverse health effects. PM 10 also causes visibility reduction and is a criteria air pollutant.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 9

- Acronyms and Glossary

9-11 parts per hundred million (pphm): Standard of measurement of concentration by which ozone or other atmospheric gases may be measured. One pphm is equal to ten ppb.

parts per million (ppm): Standard of measurement of concentration by which ozone or other atmospheric gases may be measured. One ppm is equal to 100 pphm or 1000 ppb.

Photochemical Reaction: A term referring to chemical reactions brought about by the light energy of the sun. Photochemical reactions create harmful air pollutants such as ozone.

Public Workshop: A workshop held by an air district for the purpose of informing the public and obtaining its input on the development of a regulatory action or control measure by that agency.

Rate of Progress (ROP) : The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments [Section 182(c)(2)] require ozone nonattainment areas designated as “serious” or above to demonstrate post-1996 volatile organic compound emission reductions of three percent per year, averaged over a 3-year period. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency refers to these reductions as the rate-of-progress requirement.

Reactive Organic Gas (ROG): A reactive chemical gas, composed of hydrocarbon compounds that may contribute to the formation of smog by their involvement in atmospheric chemical reactions. Also sometimes referred to as Non-Methane Organic Compounds (NMOCs). VOC

emissions are a subset of ROG emissions.

Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) The eight governmental bodies in the San Joaquin Valley primarily responsible for transportation planning in compliance with federal and state requirements. Also referred to as Valley Transportation Planning Agencies (TPAs).

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): Devices, systems, process modifications, or other apparatus or techniques that are reasonably available taking into account the necessity of imposing such controls in order to attain and maintain a national ambient air quality standard; the social, environmental, and economic impact of such controls; and alternative means of providing for attainment and

maintenance of such standard.

Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP): The absolute vapor pressure of volatile crude oil and volatile nonviscous petroleum liquids, except liquefied petroleum

gases.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 9

- Acronyms and Glossary

9-12 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB): An air basin established by CARB that has similar meteorological and geographical conditions that consist of all of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties, and the Valley portion of Kern County.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or District): Also known as the "Valley Air District". The eight member counties include Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare Counties, and the Valley portions of Kern County.

Smog: A combination of smoke, ozone, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and other chemically reactive compounds, which, under various conditions of weather and sunlight, may result in a murky brown haze that causes adverse health effects. A primary source of smog is automobiles.

Smog Check Program: A motor vehicle inspection program implemented by the Bureau of Automotive Repair. It is designed to identify vehicles in need of

maintenance and to assure the effectiveness of their emission control systems on a biennial basis. The program was enacted in 1979 and strengthened in 1990. Also known as the Inspection and Maintenance Program (I & M).

State Implementation Plan (SIP): A document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures which will be taken to attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards.

Stationary Sources: Non-mobile sources such as power plants, refineries, and manufacturing facilities that emit air pollutants.

Transportation Control Measure (TCM): Any control measure to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, or traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle emissions. TCMs can include encouraging the use of carpools and mass transit.

Transportation Planning Agency (TPA): See Regional Transportation Planning Agency.

Unified Air Pollution Control District: A specialized APCD in which two or more contiguous counties merge their county districts into one. A unified district is formed by action of the member counties. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District is a Unified District pursuant to Division 26, Part 3, Chapter 11 of the CH&SC. (Compare APCD and AQMD)EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Chapter 9

- Acronyms and Glossary

9-13 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The United States agency charged with setting policy and guidelines, and carrying out legal mandates for the protection of national interests in environmental

resources.

Valley: All references to the "Valley" in this plan refer to the San Joaquin Valley.

Valley Transportation Planning Agencies (TPAs): The eight governmental bodies in the San Joaquin Valley primarily responsible for transportation planning in compliance with federal and state requirements. Also referred to as Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs).

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): A measure of both the volume and extent of motor vehicle operation; the total number of vehicle miles traveled within a specified geographical area over a given period of time.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): Hydrocarbon compounds that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog and/or may themselves be toxic. VOC emissions are a major precursor to the formation of ozone. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints.

# ❖

## APPENDIX A County Emission Inventories

for On-Road Motor Vehicles

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix A – County Emission Inventories

for On-Road Motor Vehicles

A-1 PREFACE

This Appendix presents the county by county planning emissions inventories for 2008 and 2010 for the emission inventory category of on-road motor vehicles. Data for the pollutants Reactive Organic Gases (ROG, the same as VOC used elsewhere in this document), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). ARB compiled the emissions data in this Appendix on July 23, 2004 using EMFAC2002, Version 2.2 (April 2003), San Joaquin Valley by subarea, summer, WIS enabled with updated vehicle populations and vehicle miles traveled data. The data in this appendix serve as further detail to Table 3-1 and Table 3-4, and are intended to support the derivation of conformity emissions budgets for counties in the SJVAB. Table 3-4 sets the conformity budgets; any discrepancy between totals in this Appendix and Table 3-4 are due to rounding conventions, and no totals in this Appendix represent conformity budgets.

The District used the following protocol to round emissions data to the nearest 0.1 tons per day:

• If the digit to be discarded is less than five, the last digit retained is unchanged;

• If the digit to be discarded is five or greater, the last digit retained is increased by one unit.

This rounding convention is consistent with practices given under the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) “Standard for Metric Practice E 380”. The original data was expressed to the nearest 0.01 tons per day; the District computed totals using the original data expressed to the nearest 0.01 tons per day and then rounded the total to tenths; consequently, the sums of columns may be slightly off due to rounding.

The emissions inventories are presented in the following order: 2008 ROG, 2008 CO, 2008 NOx, 2010 ROG, 2010 CO, and 2010 NOx.

The “I/M Adjustment” row in selected tables refers to the motor vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program (I & M), which is implemented by the Bureau of Automotive Repair. The standard program is called Basic I & M. Enhanced I & M has more stringent testing requirements and is to be implemented in urbanized areas that are classified as "serious" and above nonattainment for ozone or "high moderate" and above for carbon monoxide and which had a population of 200,000 or more in 1980. The program is also known as a "smog check". The “ISR/Incentive” adjustment refers to an emission reduction from the District’s Indirect Source Rules and Incentive Program that reduces emissions (NOx only for 2008 and 2010) from mobile sources. Adjustments for state measures reflect the state emission control measures given in Table 4-3 that affect mobile source emissions (2010 ROG and NOx only).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix A - County Emission Inventories for On-Road Motor VehiclesA-2Table A-1. SJVAB On-Road Motor Vehicle ROG Emissions, 2008 by County (summer, tons/day)Vehicle ClassGrand TotalFresnoKern (SJV)KingsMaderaMercedSan JoaquinStanislausTulareLDA 23.05.7 3.3 0.8 1.2 1.8 4.1 3.2 2.9LDT1 14.53.4 2.5 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.9 2.1LDT2 10.42.5 1.8 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.5 1.4 1.4MDV 4.51.0 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.5LHDT1-Gas 1.50.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2LHDT1-Dsl 0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0LHDT2-Gas 0.50.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1LHDT2-Dsl 0.20.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MHDT-Gas 2.70.6 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4MHDT-Dsl 0.60.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1HHDT-Gas 1.60.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2HHDT-Dsl 3.70.8 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5SBUS 0.30.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1UB-Gas 1.10.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1UB-Dsl 0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MH 0.80.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1MCY 2.00.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2Totals 67.8 16.1 11.8 2.6 4.1 5.3 10.2 8.9 8.9I/M Adjustment3.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.5EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix A - County Emission Inventories for On-Road Motor VehiclesA-3Table A-2. SJVAB On-Road Motor Vehicle CO Emissions, 2008 by County (summer, tons/day)Vehicle ClassGrand TotalFresnoKern (SJV)KingsMaderaMercedSan JoaquinStanislausTulareLDA 240.357.2 36.5 9.6 12.8 20.5 44.5 29.6 29.8LDT1 163.736.0 29.6 7.6 12.5 17.3 19.9 17.9 22.9LDT2 117.427.6 22.0 4.9 6.2 11.1 17.0 13.8 15.0MDV 51.011.4 9.3 1.9 3.4 4.9 8.0 6.1 6.1LHDT1-Gas 8.42.0 1.8 0.3 0.8 0.4 1.1 0.9 1.1LHDT1-Dsl 0.70.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1LHDT2-Gas 2.90.8 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3LHDT2-Dsl 0.50.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1MHDT-Gas 19.94.6 3.9 0.6 1.2 1.4 2.9 2.6 2.8MHDT-Dsl 4.11.0 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.5HHDT-Gas 21.14.5 3.3 1.2 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.4 3.0HHDT-Dsl 15.33.5 3.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 2.0 1.6 1.9SBUS 3.30.6 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.7UB-Gas 9.91.8 2.4 0.4 1.2 0.5 1.3 1.1 1.2UB-Dsl 0.70.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1MH 18.33.3 3.3 0.7 1.6 1.6 3.0 2.6 2.3MCY 18.34.3 4.5 0.9 0.7 0.8 2.8 2.2 2.1Totals 695.7 158.9 123.2 29.1 44.3 62.3 106.2 82.1 89.7EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix A - County Emission Inventories for On-Road Motor VehiclesA-4Table A-3. SJVAB On-Road Motor Vehicle NOx Emissions, 2008 by County (summer, tons/day)Vehicle ClassGrand TotalFresnoKern (SJV)KingsMaderaMercedSan JoaquinStanislausTulareLDA19.44.3 3.1 0.9 1.1 1.7 3.6 2.3 2.5LDT113.12.6 2.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.9LDT212.62.7 2.4 0.6 0.7 1.2 1.9 1.4 1.7MDV6.41.3 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.8LHDT1-Gas2.30.5 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3LHDT1-Dsl2.40.5 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3LHDT2-Gas0.70.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1LHDT2-Dsl1.80.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2MHDT-Gas2.10.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2MHDT-Dsl15.93.8 3.8 0.5 0.7 0.9 2.4 1.9 1.9HHDT-Gas2.80.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4HHDT-Dsl69.615.5 15.9 2.7 3.5 4.8 10.5 8.2 8.6SBUS2.60.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3UB-Gas1.00.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1UB-Dsl3.60.7 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.4MH1.80.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2MCY0.50.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1Totals158.4 34.8 33.8 6.5 8.7 12.1 24.4 18.3 19.8I/M Adjustment5.7 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.7 0.7 0.9ISR/Incentive0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix A - County Emission Inventories for On-Road Motor VehiclesA-5Table A-4. SJVAB On-Road Motor Vehicle ROG Emissions, 2010 by County (summer, tons/day)Vehicle ClassGrand TotalFresnoKern (SJV)KingsMaderaMercedSan JoaquinStanislausTulareLDA19.24.8 2.8 0.7 0.9 1.5 3.5 2.6 2.4LDT112.52.9 2.1 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.6 1.6 1.8LDT29.42.3 1.7 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.4 1.3 1.2MDV4.11.0 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.5LHDT1-Gas1.40.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2LHDT1-Dsl0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0LHDT2-Gas0.50.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1LHDT2-Dsl0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MHDT-Gas2.40.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3MHDT-Dsl0.60.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1HHDT-Gas1.40.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2HHDT-Dsl3.40.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4SBUS0.30.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1UB-Gas1.10.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1UB-Dsl0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MH0.70.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1MCY1.90.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2Totals59.3 14.1 10.5 2.3 3.6 4.5 8.9 7.7 7.7I/M Adjustment2.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.4State Measures0.9 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix A - County Emission Inventories for On-Road Motor VehiclesA-6Table A-5. SJVAB On-Road Motor Vehicle CO Emissions, 2010 by County (summer, tons/day)Vehicle ClassGrand TotalFresnoKern (SJV)KingsMaderaMercedSan JoaquinStanislausTulareLDA202.148.0 31.1 8.2 10.4 17.1 37.8 24.7 24.7LDT1138.630.2 25.2 6.6 10.8 14.7 17.0 15.0 19.2LDT2103.524.3 19.6 4.4 5.4 9.7 15.0 12.0 13.1MDV45.710.2 8.4 1.7 3.0 4.4 7.2 5.4 5.4LHDT1-Gas7.01.7 1.6 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.9LHDT1-Dsl0.70.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1LHDT2-Gas2.50.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3LHDT2-Dsl0.50.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1MHDT-Gas16.73.8 3.4 0.5 1.0 1.1 2.4 2.2 2.3MHDT-Dsl4.01.0 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.5HHDT-Gas17.83.9 2.8 1.2 2.3 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.5HHDT-Dsl14.23.2 3.3 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.8 1.5 1.8SBUS3.20.6 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.7UB-Gas9.61.7 2.4 0.4 1.2 0.5 1.3 1.1 1.0UB-Dsl0.70.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1MH15.72.8 2.7 0.6 1.5 1.4 2.7 2.1 1.9MCY16.43.9 4.1 0.8 0.6 0.6 2.4 2.0 1.9Totals598.6 136.2 107.5 25.6 38.3 53.2 91.7 70.0 76.1EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix A - County Emission Inventories for On-Road Motor VehiclesA-7Table A-6. SJVAB On-Road Motor Vehicle NOx Emissions, 2010 by County (summer, tons/day)Vehicle ClassGrand TotalFresnoKern (SJV)KingsMaderaMercedSan JoaquinStanislausTulareLDA16.13.6 2.6 0.7 0.9 1.4 3.0 1.9 2.0LDT111.02.2 2.1 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.6LDT211.02.4 2.1 0.5 0.6 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.4MDV5.61.1 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.7LHDT1-Gas2.40.5 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3LHDT1-Dsl2.10.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3LHDT2-Gas0.70.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1LHDT2-Dsl1.60.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2MHDT-Gas1.90.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2MHDT-Dsl14.13.4 3.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 2.1 1.7 1.7HHDT-Gas2.40.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3HHDT-Dsl60.913.8 14.1 2.5 3.3 4.0 8.8 7.0 7.5SBUS2.60.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3UB-Gas1.00.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1UB-Dsl3.50.7 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.4MH1.70.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2MCY0.50.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1Totals138.9 30.6 30.1 5.9 8.0 10.3 20.9 15.8 17.3I/M Adjustment5.0 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.5 0.6 0.8ISR/Incentive0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3State Measures1.8 1.8 0.3 0.5 0.6 1.2 0.9 1.0

# ❖

## CURRENT LIST OF EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS (ERCS) 

## APPENDIX B

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-1 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1st
QTR 2nd
QTR 3rd
QTR 4th
QTR

AERA ENERGY LLC C 39 2 NOx 33123 33123 33123 33123

AERA ENERGY LLC C 219 2 NOx 1738 1923 2100 1931

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/CORCORAN C 81 2 NOx 0 0 0 264

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/DAIRYLAN C 332 2 NOx 0 0 0 203

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/DAIRYLND C 472 2 NOx 0 0 0 353

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP/EL

DORAD C 427 2 NOx 18 0 0 408

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP/FIVE

PTS C 78 2 NOx 0 0 0 223

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/HANFORD C 74 2 NOx 0 0 0 73

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP/IDRIA

#2 C 250 2 NOx 0 0 0 263

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/KEARNY C 75 2 NOx 0 0 0 196

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/KERMAN C 428 2 NOx 0 0 0 298

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/KINGSRIV C 460 2 NOx 34 0 0 550

A NDERSON CLAYTON CORP/MURIT

#1 C 334 2 NOx 0 0 0 200

A NDERSON CLAYTON CORP/MURIT

#2 C 336 2 NOx 0 0 0 203

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/MURRAY C 234 2 NOx 0 0 0 343

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP/NAPA

GIN C 335 2 NOx 0 0 0 140

A NDERSON CLAYTON CORP/PLSNT

VA C 326 2 NOx 0 0 0 514

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP/SAN
JOAQ C 79 2 NOx 0 0 0 155

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/SETTER C 76 2 NOx 0 0 0 198

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/STRATFOR C 56 2 NOx 0 0 0 68

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/SUNSET C 333 2 NOx 0 0 0 154

ANDERSON CLAYTON
CORP/TRANQLTY C 80 2 NOx 0 0 0 201

BRITZ AG FINANCE CO., INC. C 557 2 NOx 0 0 0 232EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-2 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

BRITZ INCORPORATED C 586 2 NOx 0 0 0 381

CALAVERAS MATERIALS INC C 89 2 NOx 284 257 294 236

CALAVERAS MATERIALS INC. C 233 2 NOx 1265 3371 3913 2469

CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC. C 454 2 NOx 30 30 30 30

CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC. C 583 2 NOx 0 1782 2914 2940

CALMAT CO. C 50 2 NOx 104 111 154 159

CALMAT OF FRESNO C 40 2 NOx 74 355 163 547

CALPINE CORPORATION C 375 2 NOx 12500 12500 12500 12500

CALPINE CORPORATION C 376 2 NOx 54301 54301 54301 54301

CALPINE CORPORATION C 447 2 NOx 0 0 0 212

CANDLEWICK YARNS C 507 2 NOx 90 77 63 58

CHEVRON USA INC C 221 2 NOx 2311 2557 2792 2567

CHEVRON USA INC C 331 2 NOx 23739 23739 23740 23740

CHEVRON USA INC C 364 2 NOx 30130 29673 29217 29217

CLARK BROTHERS-DERRICK GIN C 511 2 NOx 0 0 0 43

COALINGA FARMERS CO-OP GIN C 537 2 NOx 0 0 0 257

COIT RANCH C 532 2 NOx 0 0 0 132

CORCORAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT C 560 2 NOx 352 356 321 209

CRAYCROFT BRICK COMPANY C 71 2 NOx 417 336 328 332

DE FRANCESCO & SONS INC. C 603 2 NOx 1188 1163 1138 1137

DUKE ENERGY NORTH AMERICA C 400 2 NOx 2243 2243 2243 2243

DUNCAN ENTERPRISES C 33 2 NOx 450 446 472 315

E & J GALLO WINERY C 37 2 NOx 238 2086 8184 5402

HANSEN BROTHERS C 249 2 NOx 0 0 0 256

J.G. BOSWELL CO. (EL RICO) C 135 2 NOx 14 4 0 40

KRAFT FOODS INC C 149 2 NOx 284 284 284 284

KRAFT FOODS INC C 150 2 NOx 1632 1632 1632 1632

KRAFT FOODS INC C 386 2 NOx 9774 9883 9992 9992

KRAFT FOODS INC C 387 2 NOx 5 5 4 4

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO, LLC C 344 2 NOx 4702 6728 3983 1831

LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY C 60 2 NOx 7878 7985 7810 7898

LONE STAR GAS C 437 2 NOx 1024 1024 1023 1023

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT C 562 2 NOx 1054 2162 2162 2164

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT C 564 2 NOx 2578 4267 7351 10262

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT C 566 2 NOx 3582 1647 4608 843

NAS LEMOORE C 330 2 NOx 221 221 221 221

NRG POWER MARKETING INC C 589 2 NOx 753 0 0 310

NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY C 242 2 NOx 2357 2654 2937 2661EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-3 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY C 322 2 NOx 3336 3689 4029 3704

NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY C 323 2 NOx 2977 2977 2977 2977

NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY C 452 2 NOx 2236 0 5755 6063

PARAMOUNT FARMS, INC. C 343 2 NOx 0 4611 4573 1214

PARAMOUNT FARMS, INC. C 497 2 NOx 1000 2000 4000 3000

PASTORIA ENERGY LLC C 481 2 NOx 16404 7142 1086 10577

PIRELLI TIRE CORP. C 27 2 NOx 12628 7460 6641 3662

PIRELLI TIRE CORP. C 505 2 NOx 129 137 122 117

PRODUCERS COTTON OIL (MADERA) C 48 2 NOx 0 0 0 74

R F MACDONALD C 579 2 NOx 0 8 0 0

R M WADE & COMPANY C 152 2 NOx 326 373 379 370

SEQUOIA FOREST INDUSTRIES C 67 2 NOx 16 70 0 44

SEQUOIA FOREST INDUSTRIES C 72 2 NOx 154 0 20 24

TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT C 482 2 NOx 24685 34404 40916 31425

VALLEY AIR CONDITIONING &

REPAIR INC C 584 2 NOx 0 0 409 0

WELLHEAD POWER PANOCHE, LLC. C 529 2 NOx 0 255 255 0

WESTSIDE FARMERS COOP. GIN C 164 2 NOx 0 0 0 846

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP. N 181 2 NOx 0 0 1 111

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORPORATION N 135 2 NOx 0 0 0 97

BROWN SAND INC N 46 2 NOx 90 98 46 83

CALPINE CORPORATION N 195 2 NOx 41829 41829 41829 41828

CALPINE CORPORATION N 272 2 NOx 308 36838 15649 308

CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY N 127 2 NOx 1515 454 409 924

CASTLE AIRPORT AVIATION &

DEVELOP CENTER N 109 2 NOx 38954 39386 39819 39819

CITY OF VISALIA N 317 2 NOx 0 0 7160 0

CONAGRA CONSUMER FROZEN

FOODS N 37 2 NOx 718 526 606 663

CONAGRA CONSUMER FROZEN

FOODS N 318 2 NOx 0 0 3380 0

CONOPCO DBA UNILEVER BEST

FOODS N AMER N 91 2 NOx 0 0 9120 180

DEL MONTE CORPORATION N 316 2 NOx 321 274 790 147

DEL MONTE CORPORATION/PLANT

#1 N 58 2 NOx 0 0 27616 0

DUKE ENERGY NORTH AMERICA N 229 2 NOx 0 1166 88317 1422

DUKE ENERGY NORTH AMERICA N 231 2 NOx 0 9 1255 437

DUKE ENERGY NORTH AMERICA N 232 2 NOx 0 0 4728 0EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-4 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

E & J GALLO WINERY N 2 2 NOx 2587 2434 7175 7642

E & J GALLO WINERY N 260 2 NOx 0 172 515 71

ECKERT FROZEN FOODS N 133 2 NOx 146 545 2047 395

ENRON CAPITAL & TRADE

RESOURCE N 183 2 NOx 574 565 475 445

FIBREBOARD CORP. N 209 2 NOx 535 447 204 583

FOSTER FOOD PRODUCTS N 254 2 NOx 1825 1824 1822 1823

GALLO GLASS COMPANY N 54 2 NOx 21897 20995 21313 21532

GALLO GLASS COMPANY N 276 2 NOx 69524 70655 72080 67173

GALLO GLASS COMPANY N 278 2 NOx 83525 66849 77176 81929

GALLO GLASS COMPANY N 280 2 NOx 89634 87268 90814 85504

GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS, INC N 139 2 NOx 288 245 243 337

GRAHAM ROYALTY, LTD N 6 2 NOx 18467 18467 18467 18467

H. J. HEINZ COMPANY N 39 2 NOx 0 1509 8208 148

H. J. HEINZ COMPANY, L.P. N 21 2 NOx 0 1026 3112 1060

HERSHEY CHOCOLATE & CONF.

CORP N 42 2 NOx 24 19 32 24

HERSHEY CHOCOLATE & CONF.

CORP N 373 2 NOx 156 188 224 202

HILMAR CHEESE COMPANY N 424 2 NOx 729 0 3540 0

HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION N 257 2 NOx 3505 9788 11695 9157

INTERLAKE MATERIAL HANDLING N 414 2 NOx 1131 1183 1027 1132

LA PALOMA GENERATING

COMPANY N 365 2 NOx 0 9612 23105 0

LEPRINO FOODS N 108 2 NOx 2335 2529 2412 2143

LIDESTRI FOODS, INC N 391 2 NOx 0 0 1527 0
LOS BANOS GRAVEL GROUP,

ASPHLT N 125 2 NOx 23 113 359 120

MODESTO ENERGY LIMITED

PARTNER N 89 2 NOx 9480 9480 9480 9480

MODESTO ENERGY LIMITED

PARTNER N 425 2 NOx 18860 11467 22662 22553

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT N 371 2 NOx 3971 10226 0 17390

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT N 372 2 NOx 0 9439 51165 922

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT N 407 2 NOx 8000 8000 8000 8000

MORNING STAR PACKING

COMPANY N 138 2 NOx 4882 8207 4833 3163

MORNING STAR PACKING

COMPANY N 332 2 NOx 0 0 8139 0

PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS N 12 2 NOx 0 0 10015 0

PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS N 293 2 NOx 195 1396 3923 312EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-5 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. N 126 2 NOx 1840 4712 4259 1636

PARAMOUNT FARMS, INC N 284 2 NOx 3670 3580 3488 3488

PILKINGTON NORTH AMERICA, INC N 410 2 NOx 272 4 43 275

POSDEF POWER COMPANY, L.P. N 14 2 NOx 1085 1097 1109 1109

POSDEF POWER COMPANY, L.P. N 15 2 NOx 7792 7878 7965 7965

SAN JOAQUIN COGEN N 90 2 NOx 4686 4738 4790 4790
SIGNATURE FRUIT COMPANY, LLC -

PLANT 4 N 399 2 NOx 177 172 1273 128
SIGNATURE FRUIT COMPANY, LLC -

PLANT R N 387 2 NOx 10542 3731 2487 5171
SIGNATURE FRUIT COMPANY, LLC -

PLANT T N 388 2 NOx 0 0 5529 581

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS

CORORATION N 299 2 NOx 0 1311 1415 0

STOCKDALE OIL & GAS N 384 2 NOx 173 0 3 0

SUN GARDEN-GANGI CANNING CO

LL N 222 2 NOx 0 0 12886 540

THE BEVERAGE SOURCE N 92 2 NOx 220 800 520 900

THE NESTLE COMPANY INC N 93 2 NOx 2975 2650 2476 3352

TRIANGLE PACIFIC CORPORATION N 18 2 NOx 187 54 54 161

VINTAGE PETROLEUM N 346 2 NOx 0 165 1432 14

WESTERN STONE PRODUCTS, INC. N 17 2 NOx 543 543 619 619

AERA ENERGY LLC S 133 2 NOx 3203 0 0 0

AERA ENERGY LLC S 135 2 NOx 5032 1152 0 0

AERA ENERGY LLC S 137 2 NOx 5115 6792 5437 9206

AERA ENERGY LLC S 139 2 NOx 11686 11816 11946 11946

AERA ENERGY LLC S 140 2 NOx 36695 46397 47292 36806

AERA ENERGY LLC S 158 2 NOx 38057 29690 32405 43791

AERA ENERGY LLC S 162 2 NOx 1E+05 2E+05 1E+05 1E+05

AERA ENERGY LLC S 163 2 NOx 96698 1E+05 1E+05 78678

AERA ENERGY LLC S 257 2 NOx 1508 1272 2 2

AERA ENERGY LLC S 259 2 NOx 5519 6499 0 2156

AERA ENERGY LLC S 470 2 NOx 3478 4930 5390 5212

AERA ENERGY LLC S 662 2 NOx 9433 18919 3766 817

AERA ENERGY LLC S 784 2 NOx 7140 3993 228 0

AERA ENERGY LLC S 796 2 NOx 16403 14218 15065 18484

AERA ENERGY LLC S 838 2 NOx 442 218 338 338

AERA ENERGY LLC S 865 2 NOx 6713 6788 6863 6863

AERA ENERGY LLC S 883 2 NOx 632 160 2073 2061

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1030 2 NOx 93295 83665 32600 77083EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-6 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1061 2 NOx 8071 8777 10695 9555

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1062 2 NOx 8530 9784 10046 9903

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1063 2 NOx 9423 10057 12159 9776

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1064 2 NOx 5126 5705 5881 6709

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1065 2 NOx 10366 10483 11017 8841

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1066 2 NOx 5542 7367 5038 6117

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1067 2 NOx 1255 893 2650 4592

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1068 2 NOx 7648 9620 6968 8415

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1069 2 NOx 4713 5029 4352 2082

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1070 2 NOx 495 4228 2744 99

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1092 2 NOx 348 242 246 236

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1136 2 NOx 2522 4568 1346 162

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1151 2 NOx 96355 1E+05 1E+05 1E+05

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1270 2 NOx 4586 4637 4688 4688

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1437 2 NOx 42372 49588 46800 43954

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1476 2 NOx 1242 0 0 350

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1477 2 NOx 2153 0 0 607

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1821 2 NOx 5974 7291 7466 4158

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1851 2 NOx 914 455 0 1154

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1935 2 NOx 474 508 543 543

AERA ENERGY LLC S 2023 2 NOx 1108 636 737 993

AERA ENERGY LLC S 40130321 2 NOx 9180 6501 2218 3514

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP S 314 2 NOx 0 0 23 330

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP S 471 2 NOx 0 0 0 416

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP S 1045 2 NOx 0 0 3 174

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP S 1171 2 NOx 23 0 0 188

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP S 1262 2 NOx 2 0 7 148

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP S 1263 2 NOx 76 0 0 211

ANDERSON CLAYTON-MARICOPA

GIN S 697 2 NOx 0 0 0 348

BERRY PETROLEUM COMPANY S 567 2 NOx 8752 106 0 1833

BERRY PETROLEUM COMPANY S 884 2 NOx 326 446 179 392

BERRY PETROLEUM COMPANY S 2066 2 NOx 1211 339 275 1247

CALPINE CORPORATION S 1280 2 NOx 20238 17410 19037 19604

CALPINE CORPORATION S 1666 2 NOx 0 0 0 256

CHEVRON U S A INC S 519 2 NOx 990 1001 1012 1012

CHEVRON U S A INC S 629 2 NOx 2316 2041 2088 1975

CHEVRON U S A INC S 1325 2 NOx 260 118 276 211

CHEVRON U S A INC S 1428 2 NOx 1968 1990 2011 2011EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-7 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

CHEVRON USA INC S 1100 2 NOx 62167 62857 63548 63548

CHEVRON USA INC S 1102 2 NOx 57160 57795 58430 58430

CHEVRON USA INC S 1106 2 NOx 11814 11942 12075 12075

CHEVRON USA INC S 1254 2 NOx 13332 13480 13627 13627

CHEVRON USA INC S 1256 2 NOx 45238 45741 46244 46244

CHEVRON USA INC S 1419 2 NOx 4875 4928 4983 4983

CHEVRON USA INC S 1445 2 NOx 17602 20114 20328 15867

CHEVRON USA INC S 1730 2 NOx 7823 15506 22039 12182

CHEVRON USA INC S 77 2 NOx 2038 1840 1733 2274

CHEVRON USA INC S 496 2 NOx 5160 233 1734 4212

CHEVRON USA INC S 909 2 NOx 3990 3412 3474 3072

CHEVRON USA INC S 1487 2 NOx 11663 11793 11923 11923

CHEVRON USA INC S 1584 2 NOx 78972 79850 80728 80728

CHEVRON USA INC S 1589 2 NOx 48737 49278 49820 49820

CHEVRON USA INC S 1605 2 NOx 5672 7143 7028 6447

CHEVRON USA INC S 1967 2 NOx 973 955 855 984

CHEVRON USA INC S 2031 2 NOx 5694 4723 4406 0

CHEVRON USA INC S 20410241 2 NOx 2E+05 1E+05 1E+05 2E+05

CHEVRON USA INC S 20410281 2 NOx 3806 3765 3765 3848

CHEVRON USA INC S 40088101 2 NOx 41166 42720 41536 41222

CHEVRON USA INC S 40410441 2 NOx 20385 20612 20838 20838

CHEVRON USA INC (REFINERY) S 20050011 2 NOx 52919 53507 54095 54095

CHEVRON USA INC LOST HILLS GP S 704 2 NOx 5564 5626 5687 5687

CHEVRON USA INC LOST HILLS GP S 1470 2 NOx 780 789 797 797

CHEVRON USA PRODUCTION INC S 674 2 NOx 507 781 226 485

COTTON ASSOCIATES, INC S 25 2 NOx 0 0 0 157

ELK HILLS POWER LLC S 1622 2 NOx 1373 1389 1404 1404

ELK HILLS POWER LLC S 1994 2 NOx 12485 12624 12762 12762

ENRON NORTH AMERICA CORP S 1702 2 NOx 1E+05 1E+05 1E+05 1E+05

ENRON NORTH AMERICA CORP S 1788 2 NOx 2395 2395 2395 2395

ENRON NORTH AMERICA CORP S 1794 2 NOx 11605 11605 11605 11605

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC S 1014 2 NOx 4645 5658 5190 4325

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC S 1650 2 NOx 1425 1689 1612 1776

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC S 1652 2 NOx 2E+05 2E+05 2E+05 2E+05

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION S 84 2 NOx 1648 1666 1685 1685

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION S 188 2 NOx 5175 5197 5494 4871

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION S 301 2 NOx 3010 2818 2052 3565

GAF DBA BUILDING MATERIALS

MFG. CORP. S 1662 2 NOx 5832 5840 5848 5848EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-8 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

GOTLAND OIL (GAS PLANT) S 2011 2 NOx 417 345 508 572

GROWERS COOP S 88 2 NOx 0 0 22 406

GWF ENERGY LLC S 1910 2 NOx 0 0 3 0

HILMAR CHEESE COMPANY S 2057 2 NOx 3921 2784 2976 5720

KRAFT FOODS, INC S 116 2 NOx 0 3296 538 2660

KRAFT FOODS, INC S 117 2 NOx 0 2971 2714 2156

KRAFT FOODS, INC S 118 2 NOx 0 3374 5552 6708

KRAFT FOODS, INC S 119 2 NOx 0 0 3425 1107

KRAFT FOODS, INC S 120 2 NOx 0 0 1229 0

KRAFT FOODS, INC S 129 2 NOx 7208 0 0 0

KRAFT FOODS, INC S 130 2 NOx 3887 3670 0 733

KRAFT FOODS, INC S 131 2 NOx 2070 0 0 94

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO LLC S 1357 2 NOx 22379 22627 22876 22876

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO LLC S 1386 2 NOx 1457 0 1145 2959

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO LLC S 1389 2 NOx 11282 16892 9045 13640

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO LLC S 1390 2 NOx 0 9294 4654 14613

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO LLC S 1399 2 NOx 5123 5415 2148 3593

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO LLC S 1400 2 NOx 2682 3241 938 687

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO LLC S 1401 2 NOx 23349 23151 24224 24469

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO LLC S 1402 2 NOx 1019 2105 1303 264

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO LLC S 1403 2 NOx 2296 16202 9353 954

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO LLC S 1920 2 NOx 0 1437 0 0

LAND O' LAKES, INC. S 1816 2 NOx 27269 18630 20700 20796

LIVE OAK LIMITED S 3 2 NOx 1585 1603 1620 1620

MID-VALLEY COTTON GROWERS

INC S 317 2 NOx 0 0 0 296

MONTEREY RESOURCES, INC. S 432 2 NOx 2053 2081 1707 1898

NRG POWER MARKETING, INC S 2041 2 NOx 1837 0 0 598

NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY S 1580 2 NOx 13229 10050 6765 15163

NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY S 1581 2 NOx 10010 10691 10155 6716

NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY S 1582 2 NOx 8908 7571 8947 9569

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 826 2 NOx 6684 6259 5625 6369

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 829 2 NOx 2393 2504 2988 2422

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1617 2 NOx 49124 49669 50215 50215

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1619 2 NOx 66550 67290 68029 68029

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1891 2 NOx 156 275 140 224

PACIFIC PIPELINE SYSTEM, LLC S 575 2 NOx 0 4693 10418 3569

PACIFIC PIPELINE SYSTEM, LLC S 577 2 NOx 4090 5007 5251 5251

PACIFIC PIPELINE SYSTEM, LLC S 1099 2 NOx 0 13703 12649 0EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-9 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY, LLC S 1340 2 NOx 45681 47927 46196 44813

PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY, LLC S 1341 2 NOx 4319 5348 5007 4447

PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY, LLC S 1342 2 NOx 3233 0 3511 5000

PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY, LLC S 1343 2 NOx 1847 2417 1590 2044

PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY, LLC S 1543 2 NOx 10354 8381 11018 11467

PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY, LLC S 1544 2 NOx 3384 2194 2118 3141

PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY, LLC S 1545 2 NOx 1696 3526 1536 1221

PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY, LLC S 1547 2 NOx 3986 9681 19140 9076

PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY, LLC S 1550 2 NOx 1160 7055 4075 3491

PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY, LLC S 1554 2 NOx 3E+05 3E+05 3E+05 3E+05

RECOT INC S 1862 2 NOx 13752 13939 14110 14110

SAN JOAQUIN FACILITIES MGMT S 89 2 NOx 1855 1489 1875 1907

SAN JOAQUIN FACILITIES MGMT S 200 2 NOx 597 493 600 649

SAN JOAQUIN FACILITIES MGMT S 1253 2 NOx 459 509 544 481

SAN JOAQUIN FACILITIES MGMT S 1509 2 NOx 34 45 45 45

SAN JOAQUIN FACILITIES MGMT S 1735 2 NOx 9 8 6 4

SEMI TROPIC COOP GIN S 426 2 NOx 50 0 24 1282

SENECA RESOURCES S 1427 2 NOx 88 57 76 98

SIERRA POWER CORPORATION S 2910001 2 NOx 2115 2138 2162 2162

SOUTHERN CALIF GAS CO S 1016 2 NOx 283 288 289 289

STOCKDALE OIL & GAS INC S 1948 2 NOx 22 0 0 0

TAFT PRODUCTION COMPANY S 1960 2 NOx 5840 5905 5970 5970

TAFT PRODUCTION COMPANY S 1961 2 NOx 130 131 132 132

TEXACO EXPLOR & PROD INC S 436 2 NOx 12891 9861 9530 10101

TEXACO EXPLOR & PROD INC S 20250361 2 NOx 7037 7356 6314 6778

TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT S 1834 2 NOx 27815 18096 11584 21075

WATERMAN INDUSTRIES INC S 2003 2 NOx 1347 1294 804 875

WESTERN COTTON SERVICES S 98 2 NOx 0 0 0 184

AERA ENERGY LLC C 183 1 VOC 11307 11761 11802 11504

AERA ENERGY LLC C 219 1 VOC 268 297 324 298

AMERICAN YEAST CORPORATION C 247 1 VOC 6939 7016 7094 7094

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/CORCORAN C 81 1 VOC 0 0 0 15

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/DAIRYLAN C 332 1 VOC 0 0 0 7

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/DAIRYLND C 472 1 VOC 0 0 0 13

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP/EL

DORAD C 427 1 VOC 1 0 0 17

A NDERSON CLAYTON CORP/FIVE C 78 1 VOC 0 0 0 8EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-10 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

PTS

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/HANFORD C 74 1 VOC 0 0 0 5

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP/IDRIA

#2 C 250 1 VOC 0 0 0 9

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/KEARNY C 75 1 VOC 0 0 0 7

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/KERMAN C 428 1 VOC 0 0 0 11

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/KINGSRIV C 460 1 VOC 2 0 0 31

A NDERSON CLAYTON CORP/MURIT

#1 C 334 1 VOC 0 0 0 7

A NDERSON CLAYTON CORP/MURIT

#2 C 336 1 VOC 0 0 0 7

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/MURRAY C 234 1 VOC 0 0 0 12

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP/NAPA

GIN C 335 1 VOC 0 0 0 5

A NDERSON CLAYTON CORP/PLSNT

VA C 326 1 VOC 0 0 0 18

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP/SAN
JOAQ C 79 1 VOC 0 0 0 5

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/SETTER C 76 1 VOC 0 0 0 7

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/STRATFOR C 56 1 VOC 0 0 0 4

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORP/SUNSET C 333 1 VOC 0 0 0 5

ANDERSON CLAYTON
CORP/TRANQLTY C 80 1 VOC 0 0 0 12

ARCO PIPELINE FACILITY C 271 1 VOC 419 417 417 417

BERRY PETROLEUM COMPANY C 542 1 VOC 6442 4348 3828 4584

BERRY PETROLEUM COMPANY C 543 1 VOC 41 42 38 37

BERRY PETROLEUM COMPANY C 568 1 VOC 1249 1248 944 1068

BRITZ AG FINANCE CO., INC. C 557 1 VOC 0 0 0 8

BRITZ INCORPORATED C 586 1 VOC 0 0 0 21

BUILDERS CONCRETE, INC. C 41 1 VOC 35 35 35 35

CALAVERAS MATERIALS INC C 89 1 VOC 92 83 95 76

CALAVERAS MATERIALS INC. C 233 1 VOC 148 410 483 300

CALMAT CO. C 50 1 VOC 2 2 3 3

CALMAT OF FRESNO C 40 1 VOC 2 11 5 17

CALPINE CORPORATION C 348 1 VOC 30485 30519 30470 30501EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-11 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

CALPINE CORPORATION C 447 1 VOC 0 0 0 7

CANDLEWICK YARNS C 507 1 VOC 23 20 16 14

CHEVRON USA INC C 221 1 VOC 357 395 431 396

CHEVRON USA INC C 277 1 VOC 2209 2209 2209 2209

CHEVRON USA INC C 331 1 VOC 1220 1220 1221 1221

CLARK BROTHERS-DERRICK GIN C 511 1 VOC 0 0 0 2

COALINGA FARMERS CO-OP GIN C 537 1 VOC 0 0 0 8

COIT RANCH C 532 1 VOC 0 0 0 8

CORCORAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT C 560 1 VOC 154 163 159 90

CRAYCROFT BRICK COMPANY C 71 1 VOC 24 20 19 19

DART CONTAINER CORPORATION C 555 1 VOC 30481 26626 14213 50680

DUKE ENERGY AVENAL, LLC C 464 1 VOC 5480 6496 4696 6616

DUKE ENERGY NORTH AMERICA C 400 1 VOC 45 45 45 45

DUNCAN ENTERPRISES C 33 1 VOC 26 26 27 18

HANSEN BROTHERS C 249 1 VOC 0 0 0 13

J.G. BOSWELL CO. (EL RICO) C 135 1 VOC 1 0 0 1

LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY C 60 1 VOC 137 139 136 138

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT C 539 1 VOC 513 616 819 689

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT C 552 1 VOC 669 1765 1586 659

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT C 553 1 VOC 266 686 1005 1062

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT C 554 1 VOC 216 684 1077 949

NAS LEMOORE C 330 1 VOC 12 12 12 12

NAS LEMOORE C 346 1 VOC 1765 610 1223 215

NATIONAL CEMENT COMPANY C 283 1 VOC 10311 10311 10311 10313

NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY C 324 1 VOC 10126 10123 10121 10121

NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY C 452 1 VOC 1729 27 3599 3523

NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY C 509 1 VOC 192 207 253 270

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. C 280 1 VOC 21981 68020 71348 53244

PACTIV CORPORATION C 162 1 VOC 14172 14172 14172 14172

PACTIV CORPORATION C 397 1 VOC 3189 3189 3189 2201

PACTIV CORPORATION C 522 1 VOC 6449 6035 6686 6301

PACTIV CORPORATION C 551 1 VOC 68102 23673 20343 38447

PACTIV CORPORATION C 561 1 VOC 64098 0 0 0

PACTIV CORPORATION C 593 1 VOC 9986 9206 9494 9041

PAR III INC C 506 1 VOC 0 7125 7589 0

PARAMOUNT FARMS, INC. C 291 1 VOC 0 0 63 12

PELCO C 29 1 VOC 374 374 349 349

PELCO C 167 1 VOC 1842 2601 2219 1756EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-12 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

PRODUCERS COTTON OIL (MADERA) C 48 1 VOC 0 0 0 4

SEALED AIR CORPORATION C 409 1 VOC 29500 29500 29500 29500

SEQUOIA FOREST INDUSTRIES C 67 1 VOC 2 9 0 6

SEQUOIA FOREST INDUSTRIES C 72 1 VOC 7 0 1 1

SHELL CALIFORNIA PIPELINE

COMPANY LLC C 467 1 VOC 185 0 0 0

SILGAN CONTAINER CORP. C 359 1 VOC 4501 4813 4481 5201

SILGAN CONTAINER CORP. C 360 1 VOC 3414 3423 3418 3425

TRI-TECH GRAPHICS C 215 1 VOC 753 546 783 564

TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT C 484 1 VOC 13350 13350 13350 13350

UNOCAL CALIF PIPELINE CO C 590 1 VOC 3155 2048 3304 1323

UNOCAL CALIF PIPELINE CO C 591 1 VOC 4064 4908 4834 4505

VENDO COMPANY C 165 1 VOC 2509 3099 1865 1338

WESTSIDE FARMERS COOP. GIN C 164 1 VOC 0 0 0 31

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP. N 181 1 VOC 0 0 0 6

ANDERSON CLAYTON

CORPORATION N 135 1 VOC 0 0 0 5

APTCO LLC N 390 1 VOC 1370 1266 1618 948

APTCO LLC N 397 1 VOC 12104 11748 9416 0

APTCO LLC N 398 1 VOC 3141 4397 3194 0

BARBOSA CABINETS, INC. N 420 1 VOC 11000 2000 2000 0

BERRY PETROLEUM COMPANY N 427 1 VOC 2988 4184 4658 3379

BROWN SAND INC N 46 1 VOC 2 2 1 2

CALIFORNIA DAIRIES N 412 1 VOC 792 792 792 792

CALIFORNIA DAIRIES N 415 1 VOC 1006 1006 1006 1006

CALIFORNIA-WASHINGTON CAN

CO. N 77 1 VOC 2664 0 0 1583

CALIFORNIA-WASHINGTON CAN

CO. N 187 1 VOC 3081 1485 2118 1547

CALPINE CORPORATION N 208 1 VOC 26 1107 904 26

CALPINE CORPORATION N 303 1 VOC 53352 43607 47208 38670

CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY N 127 1 VOC 84 58 52 61

CASTLE AIRPORT AVIATION &

DEVELOP CENTER N 109 1 VOC 33690 34064 34438 34438

CONAGRA CONSUMER FROZEN

FOODS N 37 1 VOC 55 40 46 50

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY N 428 1 VOC 2695 2843 966 1851

CONOPCO DBA UNILEVER BEST

FOODS N AMER N 52 1 VOC 0 0 278 0

CONOPCO DBA UNILEVER BEST N 91 1 VOC 0 0 180 0EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-13 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

FOODS N AMER

DEL MONTE CORPORATION N 316 1 VOC 82 71 116 28

DOPACO INC. N 249 1 VOC 34162 18446 18900 32156

DUKE ENERGY NORTH AMERICA N 232 1 VOC 0 0 709 0

DUKE ENERGY NORTH AMERICA N 233 1 VOC 0 0 241 0

E & J GALLO WINERY N 2 1 VOC 9 9 26 28

ECKERT FROZEN FOODS N 133 1 VOC 3 11 41 8

ENRON CAPITAL & TRADE

RESOURCE N 183 1 VOC 30 30 25 24

FABRICATED EXTRUSION

COMPANY N 286 1 VOC 2087 2185 2284 2284

FIBREBOARD CORP. N 209 1 VOC 41 34 16 45

GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS, INC N 139 1 VOC 16 13 13 19

H. J. HEINZ COMPANY N 60 1 VOC 0 23 129 0

H. J. HEINZ COMPANY, L.P. N 21 1 VOC 0 60 180 60

HANFORD, L.P. N 101 1 VOC 40 184 131 98

HERSHEY CHOCOLATE & CONF.

CORP N 42 1 VOC 1 1 1 1

HERSHEY CHOCOLATE & CONF.

CORP N 373 1 VOC 9 11 13 11

HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION N 257 1 VOC 841 506 897 1831

INTERLAKE MATERIAL HANDLING N 414 1 VOC 6309 7827 6255 5476

J.R. WOOD, INC. N 132 1 VOC 3 11 41 8

KINGS RIVER CONSERVATION

DISTRICT N 416 1 VOC 1196 0 0 0

KINGS RIVER CONSERVATION

DISTRICT N 418 1 VOC 684 3120 4980 0

LIDESTRI FOODS, INC N 391 1 VOC 0 0 389 0
LOS BANOS GRAVEL GROUP,

ASPHLT N 125 1 VOC 16 81 258 86

MODESTO ENERGY LIMITED

PARTNER N 224 1 VOC 255 174 267 249

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT N 285 1 VOC 2050 2050 2050 2050

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT N 389 1 VOC 858 1303 694 560

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT N 406 1 VOC 31 31 31 31

MORNING STAR PACKING

COMPANY N 138 1 VOC 157 264 156 102

NATIONAL CEMENT COMPANY OF

CAL N 174 1 VOC 36077 39363 40649 33826

NATIONAL CEMENT COMPANY OF

CAL N 178 1 VOC 8260 9792 6902 0

NATIONAL CEMENT COMPANY OF N 179 1 VOC 12338 12264 12139 12300EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-14 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

CAL

NATIONAL CEMENT COMPANY OF

CAL N 180 1 VOC 12608 4735 9811 7692

PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS N 417 1 VOC 1945 4396 3184 0

PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS N 421 1 VOC 0 6627 2435 0

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. N 126 1 VOC 3143 8046 7255 2832

PACTIV CORPORATION N 339 1 VOC 27192 27192 27192 27192
SIGNATURE FRUIT COMPANY, LLC -

PLANT 4 N 399 1 VOC 23 22 164 16
SIGNATURE FRUIT COMPANY, LLC -

PLANT R N 387 1 VOC 457 183 143 253
SIGNATURE FRUIT COMPANY, LLC -

PLANT T N 388 1 VOC 0 0 691 75

SILGAN CONTAINERS MFR CORP N 191 1 VOC 1063 936 808 808

STOCKDALE OIL & GAS N 348 1 VOC 16 16 14 14

STOCKDALE OIL & GAS N 386 1 VOC 30 30 32 30

THE NESTLE COMPANY INC N 93 1 VOC 997 1820 1874 1007

WESTERN STONE PRODUCTS, INC. N 17 1 VOC 6 6 7 7

AERA ENERGY LLC S 663 1 VOC 544 495 483 454

AERA ENERGY LLC S 728 1 VOC 67328 68076 68824 68824

AERA ENERGY LLC S 868 1 VOC 724 735 729 672

AERA ENERGY LLC S 898 1 VOC 5312 5371 5429 5429

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1058 1 VOC 8179 8280 8354 8353

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1082 1 VOC 1E+05 1E+05 1E+05 1E+05

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1138 1 VOC 162 233 2 25

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1142 1 VOC 39631 39976 40411 40489

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1157 1 VOC 1522 0 2176 1998

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1162 1 VOC 713 719 730 730

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1186 1 VOC 3811 3432 3876 3953

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1476 1 VOC 190 0 0 54

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1477 1 VOC 329 0 0 93

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1481 1 VOC 2270 2296 2320 2320

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1587 1 VOC 26 28 26 26

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1681 1 VOC 10 10 10 10

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1732 1 VOC 379 354 395 484

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1740 1 VOC 94 88 98 119

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1742 1 VOC 590 551 614 752

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1744 1 VOC 458 428 476 583

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1849 1 VOC 28243 29571 28868 28766

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1872 1 VOC 0 1018 0 0EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-15 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1874 1 VOC 40 10 1 22

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1880 1 VOC 360 591 251 0

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1899 1 VOC 62458 63160 63861 63861

AERA ENERGY LLC S 1979 1 VOC 2E+05 2E+05 2E+05 2E+05

AERA ENERGY LLC S 2021 1 VOC 21531 1489 3659 2623

AERA ENERGY LLC S 2039 1 VOC 36 6 55 161

AERA ENERGY LLC S 2045 1 VOC 16809 18377 18805 16268

AERA ENERGY LLC S 2047 1 VOC 2167 2024 2256 2762

AERA ENERGY LLC S 2049 1 VOC 5905 5974 6050 6050

AERA ENERGY LLC S 2053 1 VOC 6537 6645 6757 6757

AERA ENERGY LLC S 2059 1 VOC 25865 26261 26659 26659

AGRI-CEL INC S 1901 1 VOC 6304 7646 8132 4838

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP S 314 1 VOC 0 0 1 18

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP S 471 1 VOC 0 0 0 9

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP S 1045 1 VOC 0 0 0 22

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP S 1171 1 VOC 3 0 0 24

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP S 1262 1 VOC 1 0 0 19

ANDERSON CLAYTON CORP S 1263 1 VOC 9 0 0 24

ANDERSON CLAYTON-MARICOPA

GIN S 697 1 VOC 0 0 0 25

APTCO LLC S 872 1 VOC 9 8 9 9

APTCO LLC S 1990 1 VOC 1306 1709 1829 1157

APTCO LLC S 2017 1 VOC 5 14 25 25

CALPINE CORPORATION S 1575 1 VOC 4021 3700 6230 3026

CALPINE CORPORATION S 1665 1 VOC 8440 8546 8621 8621

CALPINE CORPORATION S 1666 1 VOC 0 0 0 9

CHEVRON U S A INC S 357 1 VOC 28 24 24 31

CHEVRON U S A INC S 629 1 VOC 48 42 43 41

CHEVRON U S A INC S 1973 1 VOC 2676 2707 2737 2737

CHEVRON U S A INC S 2037 1 VOC 32 34 35 35

CHEVRON USA INC S 474 1 VOC 651 659 666 666

CHEVRON USA INC S 1952 1 VOC 572 498 626 626

CHEVRON USA INC S 77 1 VOC 42 38 36 47

CHEVRON USA INC S 165 1 VOC 2970 3003 3036 3036

CHEVRON USA INC S 246 1 VOC 218 220 223 223

CHEVRON USA INC S 409 1 VOC 5 7 18 12

CHEVRON USA INC S 410 1 VOC 5 7 11 15

CHEVRON USA INC S 411 1 VOC 4 9 12 12

CHEVRON USA INC S 412 1 VOC 230 170 188 205EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-16 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

CHEVRON USA INC S 413 1 VOC 20 20 20 16

CHEVRON USA INC S 616 1 VOC 85663 86614 87567 87567

CHEVRON USA INC S 619 1 VOC 1E+05 1E+05 1E+05 1E+05

CHEVRON USA INC S 620 1 VOC 83316 84241 85167 85167

CHEVRON USA INC S 621 1 VOC 37551 37968 38385 38385

CHEVRON USA INC S 623 1 VOC 29047 29369 29692 29692

CHEVRON USA INC S 626 1 VOC 8668 8764 8860 8860

CHEVRON USA INC S 628 1 VOC 18193 18395 18598 18598

CHEVRON USA INC S 640 1 VOC 3230 3264 3298 3298

CHEVRON USA INC S 647 1 VOC 235 699 540 95

CHEVRON USA INC S 703 1 VOC 2084 2107 2130 2130

CHEVRON USA INC S 755 1 VOC 8053 8143 8232 8232

CHEVRON USA INC S 1432 1 VOC 1E+05 1E+05 1E+05 1E+05

CHEVRON USA INC S 1592 1 VOC 4273 4320 4368 4368

CHEVRON USA INC S 1699 1 VOC 2591 2620 2650 2650

CHEVRON USA INC S 1793 1 VOC 1420 1443 1335 1334

CHEVRON USA INC S 1878 1 VOC 230 136 143 82

CHEVRON USA INC S 1908 1 VOC 7677 7762 7849 5795

CHEVRON USA INC S 1912 1 VOC 225 238 250 250

CHEVRON USA INC S 1987 1 VOC 473 479 484 484

CHEVRON USA INC S 2004 1 VOC 3143 2826 2020 2227

CHEVRON USA INC S 2005 1 VOC 640 696 679 621

CHEVRON USA INC S 2033 1 VOC 301 304 307 259

CHEVRON USA INC S 2051 1 VOC 1199 1222 1247 1247

CHEVRON USA INC S 2073 1 VOC 17141 17337 17533 17533

CHEVRON USA INC (REFINERY) S 657 1 VOC 35011 35399 35788 35788

CHEVRON USA INC LOST HILLS GP S 1847 1 VOC 2764 2793 2825 2825

CHEVRON USA PRODUCTION INC S 674 1 VOC 5779 5851 5903 5902
CLEAN HARBORS BUTTONWILLOW,

LLC S 685 1 VOC 31195 31541 31888 31888

CONOCOPHILLPS S 2067 1 VOC 1340 1170 1170 1340

COTTON ASSOCIATES, INC S 25 1 VOC 0 0 0 8

DELTA TRADING ICO CRIMSON

RESOURCE MGMT S 2056 1 VOC 8848 8946 9044 9044

DUKE ENERGY AVENAL, LLC S 1700 1 VOC 87500 87500 87500 87500

DUKE ENERGY AVENAL, LLC S 1797 1 VOC 31432 31424 31417 31417

DUKE ENERGY AVENAL, LLC S 1805 1 VOC 31431 31424 31417 31417

ENRON OIL & GAS COMPANY S 1044 1 VOC 5516 5576 5638 5638

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC S 1785 1 VOC 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-17 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC S 1885 1 VOC 59372 60236 60677 60578

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION S 645 1 VOC 127 129 130 130

FOSTER FOOD PRODUCTS S 1501 1 VOC 432 437 442 442

FOSTER FOOD PRODUCTS S 1502 1 VOC 68 63 58 58

GOTLAND OIL (GAS PLANT) S 2011 1 VOC 362 290 454 518

GOTLAND OIL INC S 1995 1 VOC 1325 4629 6301 1518

GOTLAND OIL INC S 1996 1 VOC 838 3608 4714 954

GOTLAND OIL INC S 1997 1 VOC 653 2997 4027 763

GOTLAND OIL INC S 1998 1 VOC 105 1473 2033 152

GOTLAND OIL INC S 1999 1 VOC 123 1513 2068 162

GOTLAND OIL INC S 2000 1 VOC 540 2873 3896 660

GOTLAND OIL INC S 2001 1 VOC 1190 4465 5981 1360

GOTLAND OIL INC S 2002 1 VOC 1178 4452 6003 1377

GROWERS COOP S 88 1 VOC 0 0 1 15

GWF POWER SYSTEMS S 1956 1 VOC 10000 10000 10000 10000

HOLMES WESTERN OIL

CORPORATION S 439 1 VOC 281 595 667 265

HOLMES WESTERN OIL

CORPORATION S 458 1 VOC 31 63 70 31

INERGY PROPANE LLC S 2055 1 VOC 248 237 148 160

KRAFT FOODS, INC S 138 1 VOC 383 508 489 663

KRAFT FOODS, INC S 141 1 VOC 123 57 121 0

KRAFT FOODS, INC S 472 1 VOC 82 82 82 82

KRAFT FOODS, INC S 630 1 VOC 330 398 459 413

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO LLC S 1374 1 VOC 4213 4272 4307 4307

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO LLC S 1377 1 VOC 950 1016 1152 1093

LA PALOMA GENERATING CO LLC S 1918 1 VOC 470 1408 299 358

LAND O' LAKES, INC. S 1178 1 VOC 527 1043 813 0

LIVE OAK LIMITED S 3 1 VOC 198 200 202 202

LIVE OAK LIMITED S 601 1 VOC 873 882 892 892

LONE STAR GAS LIQUIDS S 2071 1 VOC 1582 3251 3995 2661

LOS ALAMOS FARMS INC S 1869 1 VOC 0 9 345 350

LOS ALAMOS FARMS INC S 1870 1 VOC 7 15 38 38

MACPHERSON OIL COMPANY S 1836 1 VOC 785 794 803 803

MCFARLAND ENERGY INC. S 624 1 VOC 227 230 232 232

MID-VALLEY COTTON GROWERS

INC S 317 1 VOC 0 0 0 6

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT S 1963 1 VOC 1661 1640 1406 1058

MONTEREY RESOURCES, INC. S 1983 1 VOC 708 720 557 640EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-18 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 829 1 VOC 57 60 72 58

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1170 1 VOC 1E+05 1E+05 1E+05 1E+05

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1492 1 VOC 75450 84130 86706 82019

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1593 1 VOC 3128 3163 3197 3197

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1668 1 VOC 4168 3886 3453 3948

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1679 1 VOC 748 1855 2026 905

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1703 1 VOC 394 1333 1998 1038

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1704 1 VOC 1695 3741 4523 1688

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1705 1 VOC 1759 4105 4872 2140

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1706 1 VOC 2314 5505 6449 2760

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1707 1 VOC 1717 3992 4929 2029

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1708 1 VOC 1664 3970 4474 1890

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1709 1 VOC 315 1237 1357 410

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1710 1 VOC 1655 4021 5103 2114

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1712 1 VOC 1663 3366 3194 1481

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1713 1 VOC 1093 2620 3078 1181

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1714 1 VOC 1290 3038 3527 1472

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1715 1 VOC 4321 9955 12590 5444

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1716 1 VOC 1136 2806 3570 1534

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1717 1 VOC 1239 3804 4274 1639

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1718 1 VOC 2007 4650 5387 2519

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1719 1 VOC 928 1948 2037 1118

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1720 1 VOC 729 1479 2150 697

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1721 1 VOC 1729 4201 5109 2056

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1722 1 VOC 1132 2723 3230 1359

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1723 1 VOC 1723 4185 4934 2003

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1724 1 VOC 1399 3732 4724 2025

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1725 1 VOC 1169 2764 3251 1348

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1726 1 VOC 1603 3911 4662 1932

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1727 1 VOC 1061 2580 3064 1240

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1728 1 VOC 1692 4025 4596 2098

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1754 1 VOC 0 653 619 0

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1773 1 VOC 379 0 0 468

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1775 1 VOC 604 591 0 577

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1776 1 VOC 594 607 467 614

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1777 1 VOC 419 454 0 0

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1778 1 VOC 0 1021 0 0

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1779 1 VOC 0 656 559 0EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-19 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1780 1 VOC 0 1678 0 0

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1782 1 VOC 454 464 398 0

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1783 1 VOC 587 2 35 4

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1889 1 VOC 147 233 220 207

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1931 1 VOC 192 1183 1553 309

OCCIDENTAL OF ELK HILLS, INC. S 1977 1 VOC 141 144 143 128

OILDALE ENERGY LLC S 1096 1 VOC 100 100 100 100

OXY USA INC S 730 1 VOC 69 97 110 67

OXY USA INC S 732 1 VOC 2515 3279 4266 2964

OXY USA INC S 733 1 VOC 1646 2248 2602 1805

OXY USA INC S 734 1 VOC 4 8 8 4

OXY USA INC S 735 1 VOC 7 11 13 8

OXY USA INC S 736 1 VOC 80 157 165 81

OXY USA INC S 737 1 VOC 310 575 603 317

OXY USA INC S 738 1 VOC 192 375 395 198

OXY USA INC S 1755 1 VOC 53 109 120 52

OXY USA INC S 1756 1 VOC 360 778 883 372

OXY USA INC S 1757 1 VOC 2 7 9 4

OXY USA INC S 1758 1 VOC 88 193 195 93

OXY USA INC S 1759 1 VOC 137 267 382 193

PACIFIC PIPELINE SYSTEM, LLC S 776 1 VOC 28 67 77 34

PACTIV CORPORATION S 1839 1 VOC 9504 9955 9794 9744

PACTIV CORPORATION S 1840 1 VOC 21 23 22 22

PACTIV CORPORATION S 1863 1 VOC 24274 24274 24274 24274

PACTIV CORPORATION S 1974 1 VOC 10754 10855 10978 10999

PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY, LLC S 1549 1 VOC 82952 83873 84795 84794

RECOT INC S 1464 1 VOC 54968 57523 60078 60078

RECOT INC (DBA FRITO-LAY) S 16 1 VOC 76 96 74 72

RECOT INC (DBA FRITO-LAY) S 768 1 VOC 55 57 58 58

SAN JOAQUIN FACILITIES MGMT S 648 1 VOC 116 93 118 120

SAN JOAQUIN FACILITIES MGMT S 677 1 VOC 61 50 61 66

SAN JOAQUIN FACILITIES MGMT S 1253 1 VOC 41 46 50 44

SAN JOAQUIN FACILITIES MGMT S 1509 1 VOC 11 14 14 14

SAN JOAQUIN FACILITIES MGMT S 1813 1 VOC 51741 46456 50539 55824

SEMI TROPIC COOP GIN S 426 1 VOC 1 0 1 28

SENECA RESOURCES S 874 1 VOC 94 1541 2266 1754

SENECA RESOURCES S 875 1 VOC 7 11 1 3

SHELL PIPELINE COMPANY LP S 1807 1 VOC 86 58 26 26EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix B- Current List of Emission

Reduction Credits

B-20 

### List of NOx and VOC Emissions Reduction Credits July 2004- (cont.)

Emissions (lbs/quarter)

Facility Name Certificate Number Pollutant 1 st

QTR 2 nd

QTR 3 rd

QTR 4 th

QTR

SMITHERS-OASIS S 1838 1 VOC 160 179 159 159

SOUTHERN CALIF GAS CO S 671 1 VOC 570 576 583 583

SOUTHERN CALIF GAS CO S 1739 1 VOC 1322 1337 1354 1352

TAFT PRODUCTION COMPANY S 1960 1 VOC 122 124 125 125

TEXACO EXPLOR & PROD INC S 904 1 VOC 492 551 403 459

TEXACO EXPLOR & PROD INC S 1049 1 VOC 3461 0 0 0

TEXACO EXPLOR & PROD INC S 1055 1 VOC 14573 13985 11845 12671

TRC OPERATING COMPANY INC S 767 1 VOC 394 399 403 403

UNIVERSITY ENERGY SERVICES S 561 1 VOC 63 54 59 61

VISALIA WASTEWATER

TREATMENT S 1837 1 VOC 5067 2634 4107 4614

WESTERN COTTON SERVICES S 606 1 VOC 0 0 0 9

## Regional Transportation Planning Agency Commitments APPENDIX C

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix C- Regional Transportation Planning Agency Commitments

C-1 

### PREFACE

This Appendix consists of several hundred pages of control measure commitments developed by local governments in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and compiled and submitted through the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies. The two-volume set is organized by county, and the resolution and associated specific commitments for each are presented in alphabetical order by local government name within each county. A summary table at the beginning of each county section gives an overview of the control measure commitments adopted by each government within the county. The complete title of the documents comprising this uncirculated appendix is Regional Transportation Planning Agency Commitments for Implementation

Document (Volumes 4 and 5, dated March 2004).

This appendix is available for viewing in hardcopy at the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E. Gettysburg, Fresno, California, 93726. Contact: Don Hunsaker at (559) 230-5800.

This Appendix is also available for viewing in hardcopy at the following locations:

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Contact: David Wampler at (415) 972-

3975

• California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 95812. Contact: Ravi Ramalingam at (916) 322-2085

# ❖

## MODELING AND ATTAINMENT

DEMONSTRATIONS APPENDIX D

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-1 

### D.1 Overview

This document presents modeling documentation and results in support of a 1-hour ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) update for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The modeling results are for the July/August 2000 Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) episode, one of three ozone episodes intensively measured during the summer 2000 field study. Of the three CCOS episodes, the July/August episode was selected for use in this SIP. This determination was based on both the representativeness of the meteorology, ozone concentrations, and the performance of model for this period. Other ozone episodes are in development by the districts and their contractors, and may also be available for ozone SIP use by some or all of the districts in the region.

The process to develop and validate an air quality model is very complex and resource intensive. The development of the July/August CCOS episode was no exception. A great deal of time and effort was spent in the development and review of the modeling inputs, and in the application and validation of the air quality model. Many stakeholders have participated in this process, including local air districts and transportation planning agencies in the region, and members of the CCOS Technical Advisory Committee. The modeling for this episode is an ongoing effort, since it will eventually support many uses in addition to one-hour ozone SIP planning, and to reflect new information and improvements in the science. However, the modeling results presented in this document satisfy accepted model performance criteria and we believe they are acceptable and appropriate for use in SIP planning.

The remaining sections and appendices of this document provide a description of the model development and application process, the episode, the model inputs, the results of the model performance evaluation, and the results from application of the model to future years.



### D.2 Episode Characterization

The characteristics and evolution of the July/August 2000 Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) episode are comprehensively documented by Technical and Business Systems (T&B, 2003). The reader is referred to that document for detailed information about the episode. In this section we briefly summarize the air quality and meteorology of the episode, and describe the CCOS database, which provides online access to all of the data collected during the field study.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-2 Table D-1 summarizes the peak one-hour ozone concentrations measured during the July/August episode. The highest ozone concentration during this episode was 151 ppb on August 2 at Edison in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Peak ozone values on July 30 occurred in the San Joaquin Valley, where values near 130 ppb were recorded at Parlier and Edison; the Bay Area and Sacramento region experienced no federal 1-hour exceedances that day. On July 30, only the San Joaquin Valley
exceeded the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concentrations at Parlier and Edison were 129 and 128 respectively. The highest reading on July 31 occurred at Livermore in the Bay Area; the measured peak value was 126 ppb. This was the only exceedance of the federal standard on that day in the CCOS domain. The only federal 1-hour exceedances on August 1 occurred in the Sacramento region, which experienced its highest ozone readings of the episode. On that day the Sloughouse site recorded a peak value of 133 ppb. Similarly, the only exceedances on August 2 occurred in the San Joaquin Valley, which had peak readings of 131 ppb in the northern part of the valley (Turlock and Modesto) and the maximum concentration for the episode at Edison of 151 ppb.

Table D-1 Measured ozone concentrations during the July/August CCOS Episode

Peak 1-Hour Ozone Concentrations

Date Sacramento

Nonattainment Area Bay Area San Joaquin Valley - North San Joaquin Valley - South

Basin

Max (ppb) Station Basin

Max (ppb) Station Basin

Max (ppb) Station Basin

Max (ppb) Station

7/30/2000 121 Sloughhouse 82 Livermore (old) 129 Parlier 128 Edison

7/31/2000 103 Davis 126 Livermore (old) 118 Clovis 115 Edison

8/1/2000 133 Sloughhouse 94 Livermore (new) 118 FresnoSierra Skypark

#2 116 Arvin

8/2/2000 116 Cool 98 Livermore (old) 131 Modesto &

Turlock 151 Edison

There were several large wildfires during the July/August CCOS episode, and some of the peak ozone readings during the episode are suspected to have been influenced at least in part by wildfire emissions. Day-specific emissions from these wildfires have been included in the modeling inventories for the episode. Table D-2 summarizes the locations of, and total acres burned from, the largest fires that occurred during the episode.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-3 Table D-2 Summary of wildfire activity and acreage burned during the July/August 2000 CCOS episode.

Day-Specific

Point

Sources? DaySpecific

Wildfires? Characterization of Wildfires

Total Acres Burned July 29 - Aug 2,

2000 Largest Fires in Domain, Acres County

67,300 Tulare

2,500 Washoe, NV

700 Kern Yes Yes 99,000 acres burning in California (92,000 acres in CCOS domain). Fires burning in Oregon (9,100 acres) and in Nevada (112,000 acres).

300 Kern



### D.3 Meteorological Conditions During the July/August 2000 CCOS Episode

The CCOS episode of July 27 through August 2, 2000, was typical of the weather types where exceedances of the one hour NAAQS have occurred. Historically exceedances of the NAAQS in the CCOS region occur during strong ridging. Lehrman, et. al., (2003) typed weather patterns and determined that the episode began as a stagnant/flat type and ended with strong ridging. This was the same sequence of meteorology that occurred in the last episode used for the San Joaquin Valley ozone attainment plan done in 1994. That episode, August 3—6, 1990, also began with a stagnant/flat type and ended with strong ridging. Statistical analyses indicate that this episode is in the upper range of poor air pollution dispersion meteorology that results in exceedances of the NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. Lehrman (2003) reported that all days during the July-August 2000 ozone episode fall into meteorology categories within one standard deviation of the mean for days greater than the NAAQS.

A typical Great Basin high pressure system was observed during the course of this episode. The 500 mb analysis also showed the existence of a relatively large high pressure ridge with a maximum geopotential height of 5960 m that was centered over Utah and vicinity. A second high pressure center was also located off the coast of

California around 35 o N latitude.

The high pressure ridge recorded by both surface and 500 mb analyses resulted in relatively calm winds with magnitude of less than 2 m/s near the surface. Dry bulb temperatures recorded by the surface observational network at 2 m height exceeded

100 o F, and dew point temperatures were around 40 o F within the SJV. TemperaturesEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-4 at 850 mb over the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) were larger in magnitude (80 o F/27 o C) than those recorded in a typical steady state atmosphere (less than 20 o C).

The pressure, temperature, and wind patterns observed near the surface persisted throughout the episode. The Great Basin high pressure system and 500 mb ridge remained nearly stationary, while the high pressure system located off the coast of California increased in strength and moved in a north-south direction during the episode.

Analysis of upper level winds at 300 mb did not indicate the existence of a well defined subtropical jet-stream, while the polar jet-stream was located at 55 o N latitude. The subtropical jet appears to have been reduced in magnitude over the continental United States, and was especially weak over California with a maximum value of only 20 m/s. Since upper level winds are the driving forces for near surface conditions, their absence typically implies weak near-surface winds.

An overall analyses of near-surface winds and temperature, 850 mb temperatures, 500 mb pressures, and 300 mb winds all suggest the existence of a blocking high pressure ridge located over the California-Nevada corridor. This pressure pattern can slow the progression of atmospheric motion from west to east, and its main effect can be seen as the creation of a relatively stagnant atmosphere within the SJV. While some inland penetration of the sea breeze was noted from surface and upper level weather maps, its effect on the circulation pattern within the SJV and its inland penetration distance does not appear to have been significant.



### D.4 Field Study Data

The CCOS database is comprised of data collected under contract to CCOS as well as a variety of routine, supplemental sources. More specific information regarding the CCOS field study design and CCOS data collection efforts, including information on the supplemental data sources, can be found in the documents located under the following

link:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/CCOS/CCOS.htm

In addition, CCOS field data can be accessed in two ways:

• CCOS data and version-specific documentation are available under the following FTP link (Version 1A-06092003 of the CCOS database is used for model performance):

ftp://eos.arb.ca.gov/pub/DATA/ccos/

• Interactive web queries (using the latest version of the database) are available at:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/Datamaintenance/default.aspEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-5 D.4.1 Field Data Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC)

CCOS field study contractors were required to provide data to the database manager at QA Level 1B (a description of data QA/QC levels is provided at the end of this section). Sources of routinely collected, supplemental data (e.g. AIRS and CIMIS data) are also represented in the database and are assumed to be at QA Level 2. Further information on the CCOS database (e.g. data validity flags, system design, etc.) can be found at:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/CRPAQS/lookups.htm

Prior to utilizing data in model validations, the data are plotted and screened for outliers by modeling staff. In general, few changes are made in elevating the status of a data record from Level 1B to Level 2 (i.e. in terms of the entire quantity of records in the database). Since some analyses are applied to episodes rather than to all samples, some data records in a file will achieve Level 2 designation while the remaining records will remain at Level 1B. Only a few data records will be designated as Level 3 to identify that they have undergone additional investigation. Data designated as Levels 2 or 3 validations are not necessarily “better” than data designated at Level 1B. The level only signifies that they have undergone additional scrutiny as a result of the tests

described above.

D.4.2 Summary of QA/QC Levels

Level 1A (1A): These data have passed several validation tests applied by the field operator/investigator prior to data submission. The general features of Level 1A QA are:

1. Retain all data values and use the appropriate flags. Missing values should be ‘null’ and flagged as missing; 2. Flagging measurements when significant deviations from measurement assumptions have occurred; 3. Verifying computer file entries against data sheets; 4. Replacement of data from a backup data acquisition system in the event of failure of the primary system;

5. Adjustment of measurement values for quantifiable baseline and span or interference biases; and 6. Identification, investigation, and flagging of data that are beyond reasonable bounds or that are unrepresentative of the variable being measured (e.g. high light scattering associated with adverse weather).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-6 Level 1B (1B): Level 1B consists of univariate checks such as maxima and minima, rates of change, and diurnal variations.

Level 2 (2): Level 2 validation is the first step in data analysis. Level 2 data validation takes place after data from various measurement methods have been assembled in the master database. Level 2 tests involve the testing of measurement assumptions (e.g. internal nephelometer temperatures do not significantly exceed ambient temperatures), comparisons of collocated measurements (e.g. filter and continuous sulfate and absorption), and internal consistency tests (e.g. the sum of measured aerosol species does not exceed measured mass concentrations).

Level 3 (3): Level 3 is applied when the results from different modeling and data analysis approaches are compared with each other and with measurements. The first assumption upon finding a measurement, which is inconsistent with physical expectations, is that the unusual value is due to a measurement error. If upon tracing the path of the measurement, nothing unusual is found, the value can be assumed to be a valid result of an environmental cause. The Level 3 designation is applied only to those variables that have undergone this re-examination after the completion of data analysis and modeling. Level 3 validation continues for as long as the database is maintained. A higher validation level assigned to a data record indicates that those data have gone through, and passed, a greater level of scrutiny than data at a lower level.

D.4.3 Database File Format and File Naming Convention

The data are organized in Parameter Group files as listed below in Table D-4. These files are in a standard, normalized file format and consist of data that span all CCOS monitoring periods and parameters. Documentation regarding these parameter group files is available at the following URL:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/CRPAQS/lookups.htm

The file format standard is designed to facilitate incorporating user validation and QA back into the database. If users require to or intend to have data validation work integrated back into the database, a specific re-submittal process is required. Documentation of the file format, file naming convention, and data resubmittal standards is contained in the following two documents:

• Standard File Format and File Naming Convention: FINAL – Parameter Groups – Record Layout – Rev. 2.0: http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/CRPAQS/lookups.htm

• Resubmittal Standards: Data Review, Revision and Resubmits – release v2.0 (12/20/02) : http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/CRPAQS/lookups.htmEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-7 Table D-4 Parameter Groups*

Aircraft Air Quality and Meteorological – Parameter Group #14

Surface Continuous Gaseous Air Quality – Parameter Group #5

Surface Continuous Meteorological – Parameter Group #1

Surface VOC Canister – Parameter Group #13

Upper Level Air Quality – Parameter Group #6

Upper Level Virtual Temperature – Parameter Group #3

Upper Level Wind – Parameter Group #2

Upper Level Meteorological – Parameter Group #4

Surface DNPH Cartridge Carbonyl – Parameter Group #XX (still being created)

* Some of these



### D.5 Meteorological Modeling

D.5.1 Introduction Meteorological conditions leading to elevated ozone levels during summer 2000 Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) episodes were studied using the Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (PSU/NCAR) Mesoscale Model version 5 (MM5) (Grell et al, 1995) and the CALMET objective/diagnostic model (Earth Tech, 2000). The MM5 model best describes the physics that define the movement of the atmosphere. However, the meteorological regimes defined by such models do not always reproduce what is shown by meteorological measurements. As an alternative, the CALMET model generates meteorological fields by extrapolation of existing measurements. Therefore, the CALMET model may be better suited for use with the extensive measurements collected during the summer 2000 CCOS field study. However, meteorological measurements were not collected uniformly across the CCOS study domain. To best utilize the available CCOS meteorological measurements and to take advantage of the physics in MM5, a hybrid approach was utilized which matches measured meteorological parameters where measurements were made and relies on the physics within MM5 to estimate meteorological parameters where measurements were not available. This approach is described in more detail in sub-section D.5.3.

D.5.1.1 MM5

MM5 is a limited area, terrain-following sigma coordinate model based on a Lambert Conformal projection, and was developed by PSU and NCAR as a community mesoscale model. It is a non-hydrostatic numerical model that allows users to study the atmospheric motions at small scales by explicitly treating the effects of convective motions on atmospheric circulations. It has continuously been improved byEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-8 contributions from a broad scientific community and improvements into the model are regularly incorporated. MM5 is maintained by and at NCAR, along with the necessary input meteorological and geographical data.

MM5 was set up with three nested grids of 36, 12 and 4 km (Figure D.1). The coarse grid nest with 36 km horizontal resolution provides the synoptic scale conditions to all three grids while the innermost grid with 4 km horizontal resolution resolves the fine details of atmospheric motions within the modeling domain. There are several options in MM5 to calculate the components of internal and external forces acting on a volume of air, such as radiation and microphysics, which may affect model results. Therefore, a number of alternative parameterizations were tested to develop the best possible meteorology for the CCOS episodes. Among the options tested were the Kain and Fritsch (1993) cumulus parameterization scheme for coarse grids, the MRF or Gayno Seaman planetary boundary layer (PBL) scheme for calculation of boundary layer fluxes, Dudhia’s simple ice scheme for the treatment of excess moisture, the RRTM scheme for longwave radiation calculation (Mlawer, 1997) along with Dudhia’s short wave radiation calculation, and the Blackadar multi-layer, force-restore method soil

model.

Initial and boundary conditions were prepared using the analyses of observations prepared by the National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) and archived at NCAR. Surface and upper air synoptic observations obtained by NCEP were also used to further refine the initial and boundary conditions. CCOS episodes were first simulated using initial and boundary conditions (IC/BCs) with no analysis or observational nudging on the two coarse grids. Then, IC/BCs were prepared from the 12 km grid output for the 4 km grid. Four-dimensional data assimilation, using surface and upper air observations collected during CCOS by surface stations, towers, rawinsondes, sodars, and radar wind profilers was used to improve IC/BCs for the 4 km grid. The model was used to simulate a 144 hour period during July 29-August 4, 2000, which included one of the CCOS episodes. The 3-D wind and temperature values simulated by the model were compared against surface and upper air observations to study the temporal and 3-D spatial structure of atmospheric motions as well as to evaluate the model performance.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-9 Figure D.1 The location of the three nested grids adopted for the

numerical modeling of CCOS episodes using MM5.

D.5.1.2 CALMET

The CALMET program is essentially a model that develops 2- and 3-dimensional fields of meteorological parameters using distance-weighted averaging (i.e., objective analysis). It is considered a 'diagnostic' model because it also includes features for averaging the results of the objective analysis with an input 'initial guess' wind field, for terrain adjustments, and algorithms for minimizing mass divergence. In addition to geographical inputs such as terrain heights and land use, CALMET requires meteorological observations over land and water, and upper-air meteorological profiles.

D.5.2 Domain and Vertical Structure

The CCOS study domain was defined in a Lambert Conical Projection with 2 Parallels (Table D-5). The domain extends from Los Angeles County in the south to the California/Oregon boundary in the north, and from the Pacific Ocean into Nevada in the east (Figure D.2). The horizontal study domain is comprised of 189 x 189, 4-km grid cells. Conventional wisdom indicates that cells on the boundary of a modeling domain can contain numerical anomalies, therefore a 2-cell offset was used to create an air quality modeling domain of 185 x 185, 4-km grid cells.

The vertical structure of the air quality modeling domain was defined based on the source of the meteorological inputs. For the July/August, 2000 CCOS episode, twoEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-10 meteorological models were used; each with a unique vertical structure: MM5 and CALMET. The MM5 prognostic meteorological model uses as vertical coordinates a normalized pressure index in a 'sigma' coordinate system. In this coordinate system, vertical heights are temperature- and pressure- dependent. Approximate vertical layer heights for sea level are shown in Table D-6. The CALMET meteorological model uses a fixed-height vertical structure and these levels are also shown in Table D-6. Both the MM5 model and the CALMET model use terrain-following coordinate systems and the heights are defined as height (meters) above ground level (magl).

The number and thickness of the vertical layers in the air quality modeling domain is also dependent on the height of the top of the domain. Ozonesonde measurements (data not shown) during the July/August, 2000 CCOS episode showed relatively high concentrations of ozone at heights above 5000 magl. Because these measurements suggested a natural vertical boundary, the top of the air quality modeling domain was set at 5000 magl (see Table D-6). For both meteorological models, 16 vertical layers

were selected.

Table D-5 Lambert Conical Projection coordinate system used to define the CCOS modeling domain

Reference Latitudes 30 N 60 N

Central Meridian 120.5 W Northing Offset 768.28 km Easting Offset 0.0 km

Grid Cell Number 189 x 189

Grid Cell Size 4 km Northing Origin -300.0 km Easting Origin -384.0 kmEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-11 Table D-6 The vertical structure of the air quality modeling domain for the July/August, 2000 CCOS episode based on the MM5 and CALMET meteorological models

MM5 CALMET

Layer

Number Thickness (m) Height (m AGL) Thickness (m) Height (m AGL)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 24

26

56

66

74

133

161

182

205

232

265

356

488

666

926

1140 24

50

106

172

246

379

540

722

927

1159

1424

1780

2268

2934

3860

5000 20

40

40

100

100

100

200

200

200

500

500

500

500

500

500

1000 20

60

100

200

300

400

600

800

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

5000EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-12 Figure D.2 Air quality modeling domain for the CCOS July/August, 2000 episode.

D.5.3 Developing CALMET/MM5 Hybrid Meteorological Fields for CCOS Modeling

Prognostic meteorological models such as MM5 have shown promise for modeling areas that include complex meteorology. However, historically it has proven difficult to apply them successfully within California without modification. The 1994 San Joaquin Valley SIP was based on a version of MM5 that was altered from its original form (referred to as the “SARMAP Meteorological Model (MM5)” – Tesche and McNally, 1997). In their 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, the South Coast Air QualityManagement District used MM5 for some ozone modeling; however, only after postprocessing the MM5 outputs to make corrections (SCAQMD, 2003). Kumar and Russell (1996) concluded that prognostic meteorological models tend to overestimate wind velocities and underestimate air temperatures. They recommended that air quality models could get improved results with meteorological inputs from diagnostic models. The SCAQMD (2003) used CALMET for the greater part of their ozone modeling. Robe and Scire (1998) recommended a hybrid approach that combines MM5 and CALMET and this approach was successfully applied for ozone modeling by Barna et. al. (2000).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-13 As described previously, a hybrid approach was utilized in this study which best utilizes the available CCOS meteorological measurements and takes advantage of the physics in MM5. This approach matches measured meteorological parameters where measurements were made and relies on the physics within MM5 to estimate meteorological parameters where measurements were not available. The CALMET/MM5 hybrid meteorological fields developed for the July/August 2000 CCOS episode include a weighted average of the wind fields generated by an objective analysis and the wind fields resulting from the prognostic meteorological model MM5. The CALMET meteorological model (EarthTech, 2000) has provisions for the incorporation of MM5 wind fields as CALMET 'initial guess' fields. However, because of the size of the CCOS modeling domain and the necessity of converting MM5 fields into text format for input into CALMET, this approach for developing hybrid meteorological fields is cumbersome. Also, the approach described by EarthTech presumes sufficient observational data for objective analysis throughout the modeling domain. The Central Valley of California is well represented with routine meteorological observational sites and the CCOS field study included a supplemental network of upper-air meteorological measurements. However, there are relatively few meteorological measurements for large portions of the CCOS domain, including over the Pacific Ocean and in Nevada. Therefore, an alternative approach to developing a hybrid meteorological field was developed that allows the use of 'virtual observations' from MM5-generated meteorological fields to fill in where other observations were not available.

To generate the CALMET/MM5 hybrid meteorological fields for the CCOS episodes, four pieces of software were used. The first piece of software was the CALMET model itself. For the CCOS modeling study, the CALMET v3.0 model code was used with modifications. Earth Tech (2000) describes CALMET v5.x and contains a number of improvements over version v3.0. However, these improvements were not sufficient to supercede CALMET v3.0 when considering the modifications to the code that had already been made (however, incorporating the modifications into CALMET v5.x would be straightforward). The most significant modification was to allow a CALMET output file to be used as an initial-guess field. This, and other modifications to CALMET v3.0, are described in following sections.

The second piece of software used is called 'mm5fmt'. This program reads the output file from the MM5 v3.x prognostic meteorological model and performs two functions. The first function is to extract meteorological parameters at selected spatial intervals and format them for input into CALMET as over-water observations, surface observations, and upper-air meteorological profiles. The second function is to reformat the MM5 model output into a CALMET output format.

The other two pieces of software required are utility programs to allow the list of virtual meteorological observations from MM5 and their respective site identifications to be merged with those actual observations and site locations.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-14 D.5.3.1 Software

D.5.3.1.1 CALMET v3.0 and Code Modifications for CCOS

To use the CALMET output meteorological fields for CCOS air quality modeling, a number of modifications to the CALMET code were made. The air temperature fields are calculated within CALMET using objective analysis. However, the CCOS modeling domain includes complex topography with large changes in terrain elevations. Since most of the monitoring sites recording air temperatures within the domain were at lower elevations, the air temperatures at higher elevations would be over-estimated using objective analysis. To correct for this over estimation of temperatures, the CALMET code was modified so that air temperatures are adjusted for differences in terrain elevation prior to averaging. The vertical air temperature gradient was set to -0.0049 °C/m (note: the vertical temperature gradient was originally set to -0.0098 °C/m for the July/August, 2000 episode, but this was latter considered too extreme).

For some areas of the CCOS modeling domain, the network of monitoring sites for surface meteorology was fairly dense. However, in its default mode, CALMET uses these surface-based observations only in the vertical layer closest to the ground with a depth of 20 m. Above 20 m, meteorological parameters are averaged from the much less dense upper-air profile measurements. The CALMET model has a provision to extrapolate surface measurements vertically, but if this option is selected, the surface observations are extrapolated to the top of the modeling domain. For CCOS thedomain top was set at 5000 magl and considered too high to be represented by surfacebased observations. The CALMET code was modified to allow surface wind observations to be extrapolated for a set number of vertical layers. For the CCOS modeling study, an exponential increase in wind speed with height was assumed to a height of 200 magl.

The upper-air meteorological profiles input into CALMET must extend from the surface to the top of the modeling domain. For the CCOS model domain, the top was set to 5000 magl. However, the radar wind profilers used during the field study rarely recorded winds and temperatures above 2500 magl. To meet the CALMET input requirements, these profiles were extended to above 5000 magl, with the resulting potential for inaccuracies above the highest measurements. To partially compensate for these potential inaccuracies, a vertical profile of weighting factors was assigned and used to weight the objective analysis wind field with respect to the initial guess wind field (see Table D-7 – in CALMET, this weighting factor normally has a constant value for all levels). In the modified CALMET, the relative weight of the objective analysis field was gradually decreased with height until the 16th layer (above 4000 magl) where the objective analysis was weighted less than 10% relative to the initial guess field.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-15 Table D-7 Vertical profile of weighting factors used to weight the objective analysis wind components relative to the initial guess field in CALMET

Layer Layer Top (magl) Weighting

Factor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 20

60

100

200

300

400

600

800

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

5000 1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.91

0.82

0.73

0.64

0.55

0.45

0.36

0.27

0.18

0.09

D.5.3.1.2 The Program ‘mm5fmt’

The program 'mm5fmt' was written to reformat MM5 v3.x model output as a CALMET model output. As a secondary function, the program outputs MM5-generated meteorological parameters at selected spatial intervals as 'virtual observations' for input into the CALMET model. The CALMET output file format contains 3-dimensional arrays of meteorological parameter fields, 2-dimensional arrays of dynamic variables, and 1- dimensional arrays of meteorological parameters specific to surface-based monitoring

sites.

The 3-dimensional parameter fields within a CALMET output file are hourly horizontal wind speed components, vertical wind velocity, and air temperatures. These wind and temperature fields are mapped from the MM5 output file into the fixed-height vertical domain defined for CALMET (see Table D-10). The hydrostatic assumption was usedto map the vertical layers in MM5, which is based on 'sigma' coordinates, to the fixedheight domain of CALMET.

The 2-dimensional parameter fields in the CALMET output file define the modeling domain, and hourly dynamic variables. Terrain heights and land use are taken directly from the MM5 output fields (the 24 MM5 land use categories are mapped into the 11 expected by CALMET). However, many of the hourly dynamic meteorology variables must be calculated. The PBL heights and aerodynamic roughness can be taken directly from MM5 output fields. However, the Monin-Obukov length, friction velocity, and scaleEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-16 convective velocity must be calculated. The energy fluxes necessary to calculate the Monin-Obukov length explicitly are available in the MM5 output fields; however, it was found that the sensible heat flux was not always consistent with the vertical temperature gradient near the surface. Therefore, the Monin-Obukov length is approximated from the gradient Richardson number, calculated using the 2 vertical layers closest to the

surface.

The CALMET output file format also includes hourly air temperature, air density, solar radiation, and relative humidity at each of a number of surface monitoring sites. To satisfy the CALMET requirement for data at monitoring sites, arbitrary site locations were specified and extracted from MM5 (note: even though they are created in the same manner, this list of monitoring sites is distinctly different from the 'virtual sites' created in the following section). The parameter values for these arbitrary sites were taken from the appropriate grid cells in the MM5 output fields.

The second function of the program 'mm5fmt' is to generate files containing observations for 'virtual monitoring sites' required in CALMET files. The 3 types of CALMET input files that require observational data are for surface monitoring sites, over-water surface monitoring sites, and upper-air meteorology profiles. A fourth file is also required to identify and locate the 'virtual' sites.

The locations of the 'virtual monitoring sites' are selected at a user-specified spatial interval. For the CCOS modeling domain, the interval was 40 grid cells, resulting in 25 individual sites within the domain (Figure D.3); for simplicity, the surface and upper-air monitoring sites are identical. However, a separate distinction is made for surface sites located over water (based on land use). For the CCOS modeling domain, there were 7 sites over water. To be consistent with CALMET input requirements, the over-water and upper-air profiles are output as individual files, one for each site, in the appropriate formats required for input into CALMET. The surface meteorology parameters were output in a single file, again in the required CALMET input format. The site list and location file is output in a format consistent with the CALMET input control file.

D.5.3.1.3 Utility Programs 'cm_sfmt' and 'cm_contr'

The utility programs 'cm_sfmt' and 'cm_contr' allow the CALMET input files generated from MM5 using 'mm5fmt' to be merged with CALMET input files containing actual observations. The program 'cm_sfmt' reads 2 files, both of which contain hourly surface meteorology observations formatted for CALMET input, and generates a CALMET input file containing the merged observations from both files. The program 'cm_contr' reads the site list file generated by 'mm5fmt' and a CALMET control file. The output of 'cm_cntr' is a new CALMET control file in which the surface and upper-air sites lists from the two input files have been merged.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-17 Figure D.3 Locations of virtual monitoring sites defined for the CCOS modeling

domain.

A BC D E FGH I J K LM NO P Q R ST U VW X Y

D.5.3.2 Generating the CALMET/MM5 Hybrid Meteorology Fields

The generation of the CALMET/MM5 hybrid meteorological fields for the CCOS modeling domain, once the software described above is in place, was no more difficult than running CALMET by itself. The most difficult task was preparing the CALMET input files using available surface and upper-air meteorological observations (for file requirements and formats, see Earth Tech, 2000). Once these files were prepared, the files generated from MM5 using 'mm5fmt' were merged and CALMET was run (note that if no actual observations are available, the data files generated by 'mm5fmt' are sufficient to run CALMET).

The program 'cm_cntr' merges the site list generated by 'mm5fmt' with the list in theCALMET input control file. However, in the control file, the assigned names of the overwater site files and the upper-air site files must be edited by the user. The CALMET model used for the CCOS domain was modified to accept a file formatted as CALMET output as the input initial guess field. For the CCOS domain, the file output in CALMET format by 'mm5fmt' containing the MM5 wind field was used as this initial guess field.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-18 For the objective analysis and the initial guess fields to be averaged by CALMET, the keyword in the CALMET input file 'IPROG=' must be set to '2' (Input Group 5). The CALMET model averages only the wind components for the 2 meteorological fields. All other parameter fields within the 'initial guess' input file are ignored.

Because the program 'mm5fmt' generates 'virtual' sites at regular intervals throughout the modeling domain, there will be some overlap in coverage between the network of actual meteorological monitoring sites and the 'virtual sites'. However, because the density of the 'virtual sites' is relatively low (at least compared to sites within the Central Valley) the impact of this overlap on the resultant wind fields was expected to be

minimal.

D.5.3.3 Application of the CALMET/MM5 Hybrid to the July/August, 2000 CCOS Episode

For the July/August, 2000 CCOS episode, meteorological fields required by the CAMx air quality model were developed using the CALMET/MM5 hybrid model. A brief summary of the CALMET model inputs is described within this section. For the period July 29-August 2, 2000, surface meteorological variables were available at 109 sites, and 21 upper-air meteorological profiles were available. However, the monitoring locations were not distributed uniformly across the modeling domain. Most of the monitoring sites were located within the Central Valley of California, and relatively few were located east and north of the Valley. Also, many of the monitoring sites were clustered in urban areas where adjacent wind speed, direction, and temperature measurements often showed significant differences

. To prepare the surface meteorological measurements for input into CALMET, a subset of the monitoring network was selected. Where wind measurements were clustered, the number of monitoring sites was reduced. Monitoring sites for which measured wind speeds or directions appeared to be influenced by small-scale, local topography were also removed. Ultimately, 86 sites with surface wind measurements were used in the CALMET input file. Surface temperatures were also edited to minimize strong local temperature gradients that could not be accounted for by geography or topography. Interpolation barriers were defined to minimize the extrapolation of observed winds across mountain boundaries (Figure D.4).

The vertical wind measurements from the 21 available monitoring sites were used for CALMET inputs (see Figure D.5). The top of the CALMET modeling domain was set to 5000 magl. However, few of the vertical wind measurements extended that high. Where they did not, the wind speed and direction of the highest level was assigned to 5010 magl and the highest available temperature was extended vertically assuming an adiabatic lapse rate.

Because of the lack of observed meteorological monitoring sites in some regions of the CCOS modeling domains, and because of the uncertainties in winds higher than a few thousands of meters, CALMET/MM5 hybrid meteorological fields were generated usingEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-19 the methodologies described in subsection D.5.3. The CALMET/MM5 hybrid is an overlay of MM5 generated wind fields with the objective analysis wind fields generated within CALMET. The MM5 wind fields used were a from a simulation run by NOAA (2003) using ETA initialization and no observational FDDA (this MM5 simulation was selected based on a comparison of CAMx simulation results using meteorological fields generated solely from MM5).

Figure D.4 Wind speed and direction interpolation barriers defined within CALMET for the July/August, 2000 CCOS episode.

The program 'mm5fmt' was used to reformat the MM5 model output into a file with a CALMET format and to generate a series of 'virtual' monitoring sites. Virtual monitoring sites were generated at intervals of 40 grid cells, resulting in a total of 25 for the CCOS modeling domain (see Figure 3.2.1). The wind speed and direction, and air temperatures simulated by MM5 at these 25 virtual sites were added to the 86 surface and 21 upper-air sites from the CCOS field study with actual meteorological measurements. The CALMET model was run in 26 hour intervals and the resulting meteorological fields were reformatted for input into the CAMx air quality model.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-20 Figure D.5 The location of upper-air wind measurements in the CCOS modeling domain.

D.5.3.4 Preparation of CAMx Input Meteorological Files

The CAMx air quality model requires 5 input files for meteorological parameters. These files define hourly, 3-dimension horizontal wind speed components, air temperatures, relative humidities, vertical diffusivities, and pressure and height fields. The wind components and air temperatures can be mapped directly from the CALMET output fields. The relative humidities, vertical diffusivities, and pressure vs. height fields must

be calculated.

The CALMET output file includes relative humidities, but only for identified surface monitoring sites. To develop 3-dimensional relative-humidity fields, these surface values were extrapolated throughout the modeling domain. For each cell in the surface layer, the nearest surface site was identified and the relative humidity from that site was assigned. For grid cells above the surface, the relative humidity was assumed constant to the mixing height, and then was assumed to be one-half that value above the mixing height.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-21 To calculate vertical diffusivity, algorithms were borrowed from 2 sources. The subroutine for calculating vertical diffusivity was taken from the CALGRID air quality model (Scire, et al., 1989). However, the vertical diffusivity equations for an unstable atmosphere were replaced with those of McRae et.al. (1982). These algorithms calculate vertical diffusivity as functions of the height of the planetary boundary layer (PBL – also known as mixing height). Most meteorological models (including CALMET and MM5) tend to overestimate PBL heights. Therefore, prior to the calculation of vertical diffusivity, PBL heights within the Central Valley were scaled to approximate mid-day values measured at Granite Bay and Parlier using the results from ozonesonde flights.

The CAMx air quality model requires as input a file defining the height and pressure for the vertical boundaries of each grid cell. For the CCOS modeling domain, a fixed-height vertical layer structure was assumed (see Table D-10). However, the CALMET meteorological model does not output atmospheric pressures. To calculate the required pressures, a constant sea-level pressure of 1013 mb was assumed. The adiabatic lapse rate was used to extrapolate the temperature of the surface layer from the cell terrain height to sea level. The hydrostatic equation was then used to extrapolate the sea-level pressure vertically, to the surface, and then above the surface using available grid-cell air temperatures.



### D.6 Emissions

One of the necessary inputs to air quality modeling is temporally and spatially resolved emissions estimates. Emissions are broadly categorized into major stationary or point sources, area sources (which include off-road mobile sources), on-road mobile sources, and biogenics. In the following sections, we will describe how the emissions data are estimated and how they were used to develop base case and future year emissions

estimates.

Due to the large area covered by CCOS, the development of the emission inventory has been a major effort. In addition to the size of the study domain, the emission inventory needed to support the modeling of the field study data must be much more detailed than the more routine summer seasonal emission inventory. The emission inventory needed to support the CCOS modeling is a series of day-specific, hourly, gridded emission inventories that cover each day of the ozone episodes captured during the field study.

To help coordinate this effort, an Emission Inventory Coordination Group (EICG) was established in February 1999 to determine the process for preparing the emission inventories needed to support air quality modeling for CCOS. Participating in the group were many local air districts, several local councils of government, Caltrans, the California Energy Commission, U.S. EPA, and the ARB. Local air districts that participated included San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, Bay Area AQMD, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Mendocino County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Yolo-SolanoEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-22 AQMD, Placer County APCD, San Luis Obispo County APCD, and Monterey Bay Unified APCD. All local air districts in the CCOS region were invited to participate.

The EICG met on a regular basis to discuss CCOS emission inventory development issues into 2002. As modeling inventories became available, the Air Resources Board established a Gridded Inventory Coordination Group (GICG) in February 2003. The GICG consists primarily of government agencies and their contractors that are responsible for the variety of data used to develop gridded emission inventories. Many of the participants in the EICG now participate in the GICG. The purpose of the GICG is to conduct quality assurance of the emissions, and to distribute and coordinate the development of emission inputs for SIP modeling. Minutes from the GICG meetings are provided in section D.9.

D.6.1 Background

California’s emission inventory is an estimate of the amounts and types of pollutants emitted from thousands of industrial facilities, millions of motor vehicles, and of hundreds of millions of applications of other products such as paint and consumer products. The development and maintenance of the inventory is a multi-agency effort involving the ARB, 35 local air pollution control and air quality management districts (districts), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), councils of governments (COGs), and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The ARB staff is responsible for the compilation of the final, statewide emission inventory, and maintains this information in a complex electronic database. Each emission inventory reflects the

best information available at the time.

To produce regulatory, county-wide emissions estimates, the basic principle for estimating emissions is to multiply an estimated, per-unit emission factor by an estimate of typical usage or activity. For example, on-road motor vehicle emission factors are estimated for a specific vehicle type and model year based on dynamometer tests of a small sample of that vehicle type and applied to all applicable vehicles. The usage of those vehicles is based on an estimate of such activities as a typical driving pattern, number of vehicle starts, typical miles driven, and ambient temperature. It is assumed that all vehicles of this type in each region of the state are driven under similar

conditions.

Developing emission estimates for stationary sources involves the use of per unit emission factors and activity levels. Under ideal conditions, facility-specific emission factors are determined from emission tests for a particular process at a facility. More commonly, a generic emission factor is developed by averaging the results of emission tests from similar processes at several different facilities. This generic factor is then used to estimate emissions from similar types of processes when a facility-specific emission factor is not available. Activity levels from point sources are measured in such terms as the amount of product produced, solvent used, or fuel used.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-23 As mentioned previously, ARB maintains an electronic database of emissions and other useful information. Annual average emissions are stored for each county, air basin and district. The database is called the California Emission Inventory Development and Reporting System (CEIDARS). Emissions are stored in CEIDARS for criteria and toxic pollutants. The criteria pollutants are total organic gases (TOG), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulfur (SOx), and total particulate matter (PM). Reactive organic gases (ROG) and particulate matter 10 microns in diameter and smaller (PM 10 ) are calculated from TOG and PM, respectively. Following are more details on how emissions are estimated for point and area sources, on-road motor vehicles, and biogenics. Additional information on emission inventories can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/emisinv/eib.htm

.

D.6.2 Point and Area Source Emissions

D.6.2.1 Base Year Emissions

The stationary source component of the emission inventory is comprised of more than 11,000 individual facilities, called “point sources”, and over 100 categories of “aggregated point sources”. Aggregated point sources are many small point sources that are grouped together and reported as a single source category (gas stations, dry cleaners, and print shops are some examples). These emission estimates are based mostly on area source methodologies or emission models. Thus, the aggregated point sources include emissions data for the entire category of point sources, not each specific facility. Some districts include only the larger stationary sources in the inventory as point sources and include the smaller sources as aggregated point sources, whereas other districts include all stationary sources as point sources.

The area-wide source component includes emissions data only at the aggregated level. Examples of the categories are emissions from consumer products, pesticide applications, and wind-blown dust from agricultural lands. There are several hundred categories of area-wide sources. The emissions for these categories, which are associated with human activity, are located mostly within major population centers. Some of the emissions in these categories come from agricultural centers and from oil production complexes.

The off-road mobile sources are an estimate of the population, activity, and emissions estimate of the varied types of off-road equipment. The major categories of engines and vehicles include agricultural, construction, lawn and garden, and off-road recreation, and includes equipment from hedge trimmers to cranes. The OFF-ROAD model estimates the relative contribution of gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas powered vehicles to the overall emissions inventory of the state. For more information , see http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/off-road/off-road.htm

. Local air districts estimate emissions from point sources. Estimating emissions from area sources is a cooperative effort between ARB and air district staffs. The emissionEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-24 inventory for CCOS will be developed from the 1999 CEIDARS inventory for TOG, NOx,

SO X , CO and PM.

D.6.2.2 Forecasted Emissions

Air pollution programs have always depended on predictive models for gaining a better understanding of what the emissions will be in the future—these predictions are based on expectations of future economic conditions, population growth, and emission

controls.

ARB’s model to forecast emissions is known as the California Emission Forecasting System (CEFS). A major feature of the model is its ability to track the effects of emission control rules and growth activity for stationary and other mobile sources by linking these factors directly to the emission categories. A key component of the new model is the Rule Tracking Subsystem (RTS), which was developed to link emission control rules to the emission process level (identified by Source Classification Code (SCC) and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) or Emission Inventory Code (EIC)— which comprises more than 30,000 possible emission process/industry categories statewide).

Reports of forecasted emissions are available on-line. The reports can be generated for a variety of years, pollutants, source types, seasons and geographical areas. The forecasted reports for use in SIP modeling within the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) domain can be accessed at:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ccos/tableofcontent.php

Please note that the reports provided under this link do not take into account dayspecific emission adjustments, which are described in section D.6.2.3.

D.6.2.2.1 Growth Factors

Growth factors are derived from county-specific economic activity profiles, population forecasts, and other socio/demographic activity. These data are obtained from a number of sources: data from districts and local COGs are used when they are available; economic activity studies contracted by the ARB; and demographic data (e.g. population survey data from DOF, and VMT data from CALTRANS). Growth profiles are typically associated with the type of industry and secondarily to the type of emission process. For point sources, economic output profiles by industrial sector are linked to the emission sources via SIC. For area-wide and aggregated point sources, other growth parameters such as population, dwelling units and fuel usage may be used.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-25 D.6.2.2.2 Control Factors

Control factors are derived from adopted State and Federal regulations and local district rules that impose emission reductions or a technological change on a particular emission process. These data are provided by the agencies responsible for overseeing the regulatory action for the particular emission categories affected. For example, the ARB staff develops the control factors for sectors regulated by the ARB, such as consumer products and clean fuels; the districts develop control factors for locally enforceable stationary source regulations that affect emissions from such equipment as IC engines or power plant boilers; and the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) supplies control data for pesticides. In general, control factors account for three

variables: Control Efficiency which estimates the technological efficiency of the abatement strategy; Rule Effectiveness which estimates the “real-world” application of the strategy taking into account factors such as operational variations and upsets; and

Rule Penetration which estimates the degree a control strategy will penetrate a certain regulated sector taking into account such things as equipment exemptions. Control factors are closely linked to the type of emission process and secondarily to the type of industry. Control levels are assigned to emission categories, which are targeted by the rules via emission inventory codes (SCC/SIC, EIC etc.) that are used in CEIDARS.

D.6.2.3 Day-specific Emissions

As part of CCOS, the Emission Inventory Coordination Group (EICG), made up of ARB and district staff to guide inventory development for CCOS, requested that districts within the CCOS domain collect day-specific data from facilities and other sources within their jurisdiction. The EICG requested hourly/daily emission information from:

1) large point sources (> 100 tons per year of NOx or ROG)

2) sources with large variability in emissions (e.g. power plants)

3) unusual events (e.g. source shut down, variances, breakdowns)

4) agricultural or prescribed burning

5) wildfires

D.6.2.3.1 Point Sources

Eleven air districts provided daily or hourly emission estimates for 67 facilities. The districts which provided data were Amador County APCD, Bay Area AQMD, Colusa County APCD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, Placer County APCD, Sacramento Metro AQMD, San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, San Luis Obispo County APCD, Shasta County AQMD, Tehama County APCD, and Yolo/Solano AQMD. Day-specific emissions replaced emissions estimated from CEFS. Additionally, the Bay Area AQMD provided emission estimates from unusual events, such as breakdowns. TheseEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-26 emissions were added to the modeling inventories on the day when the unusual event

occurred.

D.6.2.3.2 Area Sources

Three districts provided day-specific data for agricultural burning. In most districts, no agricultural burning occurred because no-burn days were declared during the episode.

D.6.2.3.3 Wildfires

Emissions were estimated for known wildfires that occurred during the CCOS episodes. Two large wildfires occurred during the July/August 2000 episode: the Manter fire in Tulare County and the Plaskett fire in Monterey County. UC Berkeley’s Center for the Assessment and Monitoring of Forest and Environmental Resources (CAMFER) laboratory estimated the emissions for these two fires, in consultation with the ARB. To develop emission estimates, CAMFER implemented the fire emissions module of the USDA Forest Service First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM, Reinhardt et al. 1997) within a Geographic Information System (GIS). FOFEM is a standard fire effects model used by federal and state land management agencies. The CAMFER model, called the Emissions Estimation System (EES), was initially devised to develop annual ARB fire

emission inventories. CAMFER was tasked to extend the EES to enable the model to estimate temporally resolved emissions for individual fires, for an expanded suite of pollutants.

The CAMFER EES runs within ArcView software and utilizes emission algorithms, emission factors, combustion efficiencies, fuel loadings, and other parameters from FOFEM. In the EES, GIS-based spatial data layers (polygon shapefiles), representing burned areas, are overlayed onto a GIS vegetation data layer in which vegetation community types are coupled with corresponding FOFEM biomass fuel profiles. For each fuel component (there are 10 fuel components representing foliage, litter, and stem diameter classes) in each vegetation type, the EES determines pre-burn fuel loadings (tons per acre), fuel mass consumed by the fire, combustion efficiency, and emissions released. Burning occurs in two distinct phases: flaming and smoldering. The temporal evolution of emissions from a burning area is therefore a function of the phase in which a fire is burning, and the time elapsed since ignition. The FOFEM and CAMFER EES models generate daily emissions from both phases. Emissions generated by the EES from flaming and smoldering phases are combined in the final outputs.

These emissions were then utilized to develop a plume profile, using the techniques outlined in a recent report of the Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) (Air Sciences, 2002). The hourly emissions were assigned based on the following standard profile (all values are taken directly from the FEJF report):EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-27 Hour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

% 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 2.0 4.0 7.0

Hour 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

% 10.0 13.0 16.0 17.0 12.0 7.0 4.0 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53

For each hour of the episode, the wildfire virtual acreage was calculated using the fuel loading factors provided by ARB, and the virtual acreage sizes were used to determine

the size classes of the fires. The size classes were then used to determine the parameters required to calculate the plume characteristics:

Class 1 2 3 4 5 Size (virtual acres) 0-10 >=10-100 >=100-1000 >=1000-5000 >=5000

BE (size) 0.4 0.6 0.75 0.85 0.9 Ptop Max (m) 160 2400 6400 7200 8000 Pbot Min (m) 0 300 800 1600 1600

These values, along with the buoyancy efficiency as a function of the hour of the day, were used to calculate the bottom of the plume, the top of the plume, and the proportion of the emissions fumigated into the first layer, for each grid cell in the fire area, and for each hour of the episode.

To model the vertical distribution of the plumes, a series of stack parameters were constructed for each grid cell, and each hour of the episode. The portion of the emissions attributed to the plume, rather than the fumigation layer, was distributed to each of the stack release points, with the fumigation portion going directly to the first layer (zero plume rise). The stack points were inserted into the emissions model at 25, 75, and 100 meters, and then at every 100 meters up to the top of the plume. Emissions were evenly allocated to each release point, beginning in the layer corresponding to the bottom of the plume, and continuing to the top of the plume.

For all other fires, emissions were calculated based on the number of acres of three vegetation types: chaparral, grass, and timber. The U.S. Forest Service provided fuel loading and emission factors. The number of acres, vegetation type, fire duration, and location information were taken from California Department of Forestry (CDF) fire incident reports and newspaper articles. The vertical distributions of the plumes were calculated using the FEJF methodology described above.

D.6.2.4 Temporally and Spatially Resolved Emissions

In addition to forecasting emissions, CEFS can create temporally resolved inventories for modeling purposes, for the base year and future years. The annual average emissions are adjusted to account for monthly and weekly variations. CEFS will generate an inventory for point and area sources (including off-road mobile sources) for a weekday and weekend day in the year and months needed for the CCOS episodesEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-28 (e.g. July 2000 and August 2000). Emissions will be estimated for each county, air basin and district combination. In addition, information on how the daily emissions are to be distributed to each hour of the day is carried forward to the emissions processor.

D.6.2.5 Terminology

There can be confusion regarding the terms “point sources” and “area sources”. Traditionally, these terms have had two different meanings to the developers of emissions inventories and the developers of modeling inventories. The following table summarizes the difference in the terms. In the context of this document, section 4.2 (point and area source emissions) uses the emission inventory terms. In the remainder of the document, modeling terms are used. In modeling terminology, “point sources” refers to emission sources that exit from a stack and have a potential plume rise. “Area sources” refers collectively to area-wide sources, stationary-aggregated sources, and

other mobile sources.

Emission Inventory Term Examples Modeling Term

On-Road Mobile Automobiles On-road Motor Vehicles Off-Road Mobile Farm Equipment, Construction Equipment, Aircraft, Trains Area

Area-wide Consumer Products, Architectural Coatings,

Pesticides Area

Stationary - Aggregated Industrial Fuel Use Area Stationary – Point Facilities Stacks at Individual

Facilities Point

Biogenic Trees Biogenic

D.6.3 Surface T and RH Objective Analysis

The calculation of gridded emissions for some categories of the emissions inventory is dependent on gridded air temperature, relative humidity, and solar radiation fields. Biogenic emissions are sensitive to air temperatures and solar radiation, and emissions from on-road mobile sources are sensitive to air temperature and relative humidity. Gridded temperature, humidity, and radiation fields are readily available from prognostic meteorological models such as MM5, used to prepare meteorological inputs for the air quality model. However, analysis of the MM5 outputs prepared for the July/August, 2000 episode revealed poor agreement between simulated humidity and temperature

fields and the available measurements.

As an alternative to the data fields generated using the prognostic meteorological model, air temperature and humidity fields for calculation of the emission inventory were prepared by objective analysis. In the objective analysis, hourly temperatures for eachEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-29 grid cell within the study domain were calculated using a distance-weighted average of the nearest three temperature measurements. Because few temperature measurements were available at higher terrain elevations, temperatures were adjusted using the adiabatic lapse rate (-0.0098 C/m) multiplied by elevation differences prior to averaging.

Relative humidity measurements show a wide range of variability. Within the CCOS study domain, it was not unusual to find differences in relative humidity of 40% among sites within a 25 km radius. To reduce large horizontal variations in the relative humidity fields developed for the emission inventory calculations, relative humidity fields were calculated assuming a daily constant absolute humidity for each grid cell, based on an assumed daily maximum relative humidity of 80%.

The solar radiation fields needed for emission inventory calculations were taken directly

from the MM5 simulation.

D.6.4 On-Road Mobile Source Emissions

D.6.4.1 Introduction

EMFAC is the ARB approved on-road motor vehicle emission inventory model. The current version is EMFAC2002 v2.2 [1]. This model provides emission estimates for 13 classes of vehicles for exhaust, evaporation, and PM emissions from tire wear and brake wear. EMFAC also produces estimates of fuel consumption, vehicle mile traveled (VMT), and the number of vehicles in use. EMFAC does not output a gridded emission file. However, EMFAC will also produce a file of emission rates that can be used with the Direct Travel Impact Model (DTIM) or other external on-road motor vehicle emission gridding program. These same emission rates are part of the information used by EMFAC to produce emission estimates for California counties or air basins.

It is important to recognize that EMFAC (and its associated activity), and not DTIM, is used to calculate county-specific emissions. DTIM output, using the Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) activity as inputs, were used to create hourly emission

ratiosfor each grid-cell in a county. These ratios were used to distribute countyspecific, daily EMFAC emissions to each hour and grid cell. A horizontal grid resolution

of 4 x 4 kilometers was used.

DTIM4 [2] is the latest version of DTIM, and is used to estimate gridded on-road motor vehicle emissions. In addition to the EMFAC emission rate file, DTIM4 uses digitized roadway segments (links) and traffic analysis zone activity centroids to allocate emissions for travel and trip ends. DTIM4 gridded emission files have fewer categories than EMFAC outputs. Each DTIM4 output category were used to spatially allocate emissions for several EMFAC emission categories. There are also several categories of emissions that EMFAC produces that are not estimated by DTIM4.

DTIM4 is used to estimate both the spatial and temporal distribution of all on-road motor vehicle emissions. The DTIM4 results are used as surrogates to distribute the EMFACEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-30 emissions for each category. Below we describe the procedures that were used with EMFAC and DTIM4 to produce day-specific gridded on-road motor vehicle emission estimates. The procedures described here are carried out separately for each of the 53 counties in the CCOS emission modeling region.

D.6.4.2 EMFAC Emission Categories

EMFAC produces emission estimates for the following 13 vehicle classes:

1. LDA Light Duty Autos 2. LDT1 Light Duty Trucks < 3,750 pounds GVW 3. LDT2 Light Duty Trucks > 3,750 - 5,750 4. MDV Medium Duty Vehicles > 5,750 – 8,500 5. LHD1 Light Heavy Duty Vehicles > 8,500 – 10,000 6. LHD2 Light Heavy Duty Vehicles > 10,000 – 14,000 7. MHD Medium Heavy Duty Vehicles > 14,000 – 33,000 8. HHD Heavy Heavy Duty Vehicles > 33,000

9. LHV Line Haul Vehicles

10. SBUS School Bus

11. UBUS Urban Bus

12. MH Motorhomes 13. MCY Motorcycles

Additionally, there are up to 3 technology groups within each vehicle type:

1. Catalyst

2. Non-catalyst

3. Diesel

For each of the combinations of vehicle type and technology there can be many emission categories:

1. Start Exhaust 2. Running Exhaust

3. Idle Exhaust

4. Hot Soak 5. Running Evaporatives 6. Resting Evaporatives 7. Partial Day Resting Evaporatives 8. Multi-Day Resting Evaporatives 9. Diurnal Evaporatives 10. Partial Day Diurnal Evaporatives 11. Multi-Day Diurnal Evaporatives

12. Break Wear PM

13. Tire Wear PMEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-31 A DTIM4 preprocessor calculates fleet average emission factors for each EMFAC technology type for each emission category. The vehicle type distribution used to calculate fleet emission factors is an input, so it can be varied as needed.

D.6.4.3 DTIM4 Emission Categories

During DTIM4 operation, all emissions are collapsed into a total of 20 emissioncategories that depend only on the technology and whether the vehicle is catalyst, noncatalyst or diesel:

SCC Description

1. Non TOG Exhaust Emissions 2. Catalyst Start Exhaust 3. Catalyst Running Exhaust 4. Non-catalyst Start Exhaust 5. Non-catalyst Running Exhaust

6. Hot Soak 7 Diurnal Evaporatives

8. Diesel Exhaust 9. Running Evaporatives 10. Resting Evaporatives 11. Multi-Day Resting 12. Multi-Day Diurnal

13. PM Tire Wear

14. PM Brake Wear 15. Catalyst Buses 16. Non-catalyst bus

17. Diesel Bus 18. Catalyst Idle 19. Non-catalyst Idle

20. Diesel IdleEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-32 D.6.4.4 Creating the Emission Rate File

EMFAC will create an emission rate file for any desired combination of vehicle speeds, ambient temperatures, and relative humidities. However, DTIM places restrictions on the total array size. The sets of values we use to build the array are:

Speed: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65

Temp: 30, 45, 60, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 100, 110

RH: 0, 30, 50, 70, 80, 90, 100

D.6.4.5 Day-specific EMFAC Inventories

EMFAC is used to produce emission estimates for each day of each episode, by county. County average hourly temperatures, weighted by gridded VMT, are input to EMFAC to produce a ‘BURDEN’ inventory in a comma separated (.bcd) format. Both DTIM exhaust and evaporative emissions are scaled by category to the EMFAC emissions estimates for each county/air basin area. EMFAC bus and idle emission categories are not estimated by DTIM. These categories are added to the gridded emission files.

D.6.4.6 CCOS Emission Gridding

The method to estimate on-road mobile emissions at the grid cell level is described briefly in the following five steps:

Step 1 . Gridded, hourly temperature (T) and relative humidity (RH) fields for each episode day are prepared for input to DTIM. The T and RH fields are derived either from meteorological model predictions, observations, or some hybrid combination of model predictions and observations.

Step 2 . EMFAC is run to prepare on-road mobile source emissions factors by speed, temperatures, and relative humidities for each county.

Step 3 . DTIM4 is run using data from the Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) and EMFAC to estimate gridded, hourly on-road mobile source emission estimates by day for DTIM categories.

Step 4 . EMFAC is run again using episode-specific T and RH data to provide countywide on-road mobile source emission estimates by day for EMFAC categories. The episode-specific meteorological inputs for EMFAC are generated via averaging (VMT-weighted) the gridded, hourly meteorology from Step1 by county and hour.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-33 Step 5 . Two sub-steps are taken:

Weekend adjustments . EMFAC currently does not make weekend day estimates, so EMFAC daily emissions are scaled to represent weekend estimates based upon available data. The ITN network has activity estimates for a weekend day. In order to approximate an EMFAC weekend day inventory we scaled each county’s EMFAC pollutants, except NOx, by the ratio of DTIM VMTfor a weekend day divided by the DTIM VMT for a midweek day. Since heavyduty diesel VMT is drastically reduced on weekends and their effect is largely on NOx emissions, we reduced the NOx by a factor of 0.536, which represents the average reduction in NOx for a South Coast Air Basin weekend day. This NOx reduction was derived from CalTrans Weigh-in-Motion traffic counts that can differentiate between vehicle types. This NOx factor could be improved by using traffic count data specific to Northern California counties. Monday and Friday EMFAC emissions were also factored by the DTIM VMT for Monday vs. midweek or Friday vs. midweek, for all pollutants.

Spatial/Temporal Distribution. EMFAC daily, countywide emissions (adjusted for weekend days, if needed), are disaggregated by category into grid-cells for each hour of the day using the DTIM output (Step 3) as a spatial and temporal surrogate. The disaggregation follows the equation:



### E p,ij,hr,cat = 

### EF p,cat * DTIM p,ij,hr,cat / DTIM p,daily,cat,cnty

where:

E = grid cell emissions

EF = EMFAC emissions

DTIM = DTIM emissions P = pollutant Ij = grid cell hr = hourly emissions cat = Emission Category daily = daily emissions cnty = county

The 5 steps above are used to generate sets of day-specific, gridded on-road emissions. These emissions are our best estimates at the present time, however future work in two areas will improve the estimates. The most important may be in the allocation of heavy-duty truck emissions. At present, the only heavy-duty transportation modeling is done for Southern California counties. Also, weekend emissions should be considered an approximation since there are no transportation models to describe weekend traffic. Even though we feel that the weekend inventories are approximate at the hour and county level, the lack of weekend transportation models result in the same hourly spatial distribution for each county for both weekday and weekend days. As aEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-34 result, there is considerable uncertainty in the spatial distribution within each county for

weekends. Weekend on-road inventories should be used with caution.

Fleet Emission Factors

An important input to DTIM emissions is the vehicle type weighting for emission rate compositing done in IRS4. We use the vehicle type VMT for each county/air basin output from EMFAC. If we run LM and HDV separately the VMT for LM is the sum of LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, MCY and MH. The HDV VMT is the sum of LHDV1, LHDV2,

MHD and HHD.

Besides the composite emission rate file from EMFAC/CNVIRS4/IRS4, DTIM4 needs link and trip end activity files. All activity has been resolved to one-hour periods for each county by Jim Wilkinson of Alpine Geophysics under contract to the ARB. This was done for midweek days, Mondays, Fridays, and an average weekend day. The estimated activity for Mondays, Fridays, and weekend days are different than the midweek activity. The differences are due to the differences seen in traffic counts. When we processed Mondays, Fridays, and weekend days, we scaled the daily emissions according to the ITN county VMT to EMFAC VMT ratio.

D.6.4.7 Evaporative Emissions

DTIM4 and EMFAC use different methods to estimate evaporative emissions. However, as mentioned previously, we use the DTIM4 evaporative emissions as spatial and temporal “surrogates” to resolve EMFAC emission estimates. During processing, we drop the DTIM evaporative categories 11 and 12 (because those emissions are included in EMFAC’s estimates for diurnal and resting emissions) and put all EMFAC resting emissions in category 10, and all diurnal emissions in category 7.

D.6.4.8 Exhaust Emissions

The exhaust emissions from EMFAC are also resolved spatially and temporally by DTIM4 emission estimates. Since transportation models do not estimate VMT for buses or excess idling categories, these are added to DTIM4 emissions. The exhaust CO, NOx, SOx, and PM emissions that DTIM4 allocates to category 1 are reassigned to catalyst starts, non-catalyst starts, catalyst stabilized, non-catalyst stabilized, and diesel exhaust categories according to the appropriate day-specific EMFAC inventory.

D.6.5 Biogenic Emissions

Development of effective ozone control strategies in California requires accurate emission inventories, including biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) such as isoprene and monoterpenes. Due to the heterogeneity of vegetation landcover, species composition, and leafmass distribution in California, quantifying BVOC emissions in this domain requires an emission inventory model with region-specific input databases andEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-35 a high degree of spatial and temporal resolution. In response to this need, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has developed a GIS-based model for estimating BVOC emissions, called BEIGIS, which uses California-specific input databases with a minimum spatial resolution of 1 square km and an hourly temporal

resolution. The BEIGIS isoprene emission algorithm (Guenther et al. 1991, 1993) is of the form

I = I S × C L × C T

where I is the isoprene emission rate (grams per gram dry leafmass per hour) at temperature T and photosynthetically active radiation flux PAR. I S is a base emission rate (grams per gram dry leafmass per hour) at a standard temperature of 30 ° C and

PAR flux of 1000 μ mol m -2 s -1 . C L and C T are environmental adjustment functions for PAR and temperature, respectively. The monoterpene emission algorithm adjusts a base monoterpene emission rate by a temperature function (Guenther et al. 1993). Methylbutenol (MBO) emissions are modeled with an algorithm developed by Harley et al. (1998) similar to that for isoprene. Dry leaf mass/leaf area ratios, and base emission rates for isoprene, monoterpenes, and MBO, are plant species-specific and assembled from the scientific literature. Modeled BVOC emissions for a given spatial domain therefore represent the contribution by various plant species (through their leaf mass and emission rates) to the total BVOC emissions.

The main inputs to BEIGIS are land use and vegetation landcover maps, gridded leaf area indices (LAI) derived from AVHRR satellite data (Nikolov 1999), leaf area/dry leaf mass factors, base emission rates, and gridded hourly ambient temperature and light intensity data (from a meteorological model). For urban areas, land use/vegetation landcover databases were developed from regional planning agency data and botanical surveys (Horie et al. 1990; Nowak 1991; Sidawi and Horie 1992; Benjamin et al. 1996, 1997; McPherson et al. 1998). Natural areas are represented using the GAP vegetation database (also satellite-derived and air photo interpreted) developed by the U.S.G.S. Gap Analysis Program (Davis et al. 1995). Agricultural areas are represented using crop landcover databases developed by the California Department of Water Resources ( http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov ). Ground surveys have been funded by ARB to validate the vegetation landcover and LAI input databases used in BEIGIS (Winer et al. 1998; Karlik and McKay 1999; Winer and Karlik 2001, Karlik 2002). Validation using flux measurements in the field is on going.

Using BEIGIS, the ARB developed develop hourly-resolved emissions of isoprene, monoterpenes, and methyl butanol (MBO), gridded at a 1-km resolution. Two additions are then made to the biogenic emissions estimate for input to air quality models.

First, biogenic OVOCs (other VOCs) are added. Biogenic OVOCs comprise around twenty percent of some biogenic inventories and are known to affect air quality modeling predictions (e.g. Hanna et al., 2002). Guenther et al. (1994) estimate that the OVOCs comprise 8-73% of total BVOCs. OVOCs are estimated by ARB as an added fraction of 30%, scaled to the total isoprene, monoterpene, and MBO emissions.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-36 Second, biogenic NO emissions are added. Biogenic NO emissions were estimated using a soil NO algorithm found in BEIS-3. However, due to the large uncertainty associated with these emissions, they were not used in the air quality modeling.

For a more detailed description of the estimation of biogenic emissions, see section

D.10.

D.6.6 Emissions Processing

ARB used an emissions processor, such as the EMS-95 emissions modeling system, to develop spatially and temporally resolved emissions for the point and area sources.ARB will chemically speciate the VOC component of the point, area, biogenics and onroad mobile sources. ARB will then reformat the emissions estimates for input to air quality models.

Other data are necessary to prepare emissions estimates for input to air quality models. These data include the following:

• Spatial surrogates

• Assignment of spatial surrogate to area source category

• Organic gas speciation profiles

• Assignment of organic gas speciation profile to source category

The spatial surrogates are used to spatially allocate countywide area source emissions to individual grid cells. In this context, “area source emissions” refers to all source categories that are not point sources, biogenics or on-road motor vehicles. Each area source category is assigned a spatial surrogate.

The organic gas speciation profiles are used to separate the TOG emissions into the individual organic gas components that are modeled within the chemistry processes of the air quality model. Organic gas speciation profiles exist for both the CB-IV and SAPRC99 chemical mechanisms. Each source category, including area, point, biogenics, or on-road motor vehicles is assigned an organic gas speciation profile.

D.6.7 Modeling Files

The development of the inventory for SIP modeling has been a process that has spanned many years and much effort by many people. The first complete set of modeling files that included all source types was available in March 2003. Since then, there have been many revisions of the modeling files to correct errors or include updated data. Emissions summaries from these files were prepared to aid ARB and district staff to QA the information. These modeling files can be found on the ftp site provided by Alpine Geophysics.

A file naming convention was established to track the changes made to each inventory. The files were named according to the following formula:EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-37 CCAQS_ Episode

_ Type

_ Version

_ Revision

_ Chemistry

_ Model _MODELFILES.tar.gz

Where:

Episode = JULY2000 (July/August 2000)

Type = ELEV, AR, MV, BI, FIRES (Elevated point, area, motor vehicles, biogenics, or fires)

Version = “V” + date produced (e.g. V050503 for May 5, 2003) (Note: When emissions data undergo a major revision, the new file is given a version number corresponding to the date it was produced.)

Revision = “R” + revision number (e.g. R001 or R002) (Note: Minor changes, such as small revisions to only a few sources are noted with a revision number; the version number remains the same.)

Chemistry = CBIV or SAPRC (Note: Several changes occurred to the version of the chemical mechanism used to produce the files. Following is a description of each version name and its description.

Version Description CBIVV01 Initial CBIV without MEOH, ETOH CBIVV02 CBIV, including MEOH and ETOH CBIVV03 CBIVV02 with adjustments to split factors for hot soak and agricultural pesticides

SAPRCV1 ARB SAPRC version S01

SAPRCV2 ARB SAPRC version S02 SAPRCV3 SAPRC with adjusted pollutant list, MTBE, MBUT and ETOH not

broken out SAPRCV4 SAPRC with adjusted pollutant list, including MTBE, MBUT and ETOH SAPRCV5 SAPRCV4 with adjustments to split factors for hot soak and agricultural pesticides

Model = CAMX or SAQM

Following is a list of modeling file names that have been produced since January 2003 and the reason for each revision. This list covers only changes to the base case July/August 2000 episode. It is provided as an example of the changes that have occurred to the emission inventories over time. Similar file changes have occurred to other episodes as well. This information helped ARB and district staff track the latest revision to the inventory for use in modeling and QA. The tables are separated by source type. Rather than list the entire file name, only the version and revision numbers are listed. Follow the naming convention described above to determine the entire name of the modeling file.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-38 Area Sources:

Version and Revision Number Reason for Change V030303_R001 CEFS version RF#861 V050503_R001 Revised to include CEFS emissions dropped during original processing V050503_R002 Adjust TOG and SOx emissions for Bay Area refinery one-time events V071003_R001 Adjustments to household pesticides; adjustments to Bay Area gas can emissions; adjustment of train emissions; revisions to growth for agricul. categories V091203ship_R001 Adds the day-specific shipping emissions

Point Sources:

Version and Revision Number Reason for Change V030303_R001 CEFS version RF#861 V050503_R001 Revised to include CEFS emissions dropped during original processing; include revised Bay Area refinery one-time events V050503_R002 Adjust TOG and SOx emissions for Bay Area refinery one-time events V050503_R003 Revise stack parameters for flaring emissions in

Solano and Contra Costa Counties V071003_R001 Re-run of all point sources to ensure that all corrections are in place (in conjunction with changes to area sources) V092703_R001 Added locations for facilities with missing UTMs, especially Solano County refineries (Exxon and Huntway). Added refinery default stack parameters to Exxon facility in Solano County.

Fires:

Version and Revision Number Reason for Change V030303_R001 Wildfire and controlled burn emissions, with large wildfires treated as elevated point sources V060903_R003 Revised plume rise calculation, resulting in higher plume distributions V100203_R001 Added plume rise for smaller wildfires, in addition to major fires

On-Road Motor Vehicles:

Version and Revision Number Reason for Change V032403_R001 Original MV emissions files V042903_revmet Revised using CALMET temperaturesEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-39 Biogenics:

Version and Revision Number Reason for Change V010103_R001 Original biogenic emissions files V042803_revmet Revised using CALMET temperatures V060903_remet Added biogenic NOx V091703_R001 Revised to correct temporal error in data inputs

D.6.7.1 July/August 2000 Base Case

Below is a list of the names of the modeling files used in the base year modeling runs. The files follow the naming convention described above.

Type File Name

Point CCAQS_JULY2000_ELEV_V071003_R001_SAPRCV5_CAMX_MODELFILES.tar.gz

Area CCAQS_JULY2000_AR_V071003_R001_SAPRCV5_CAMX_MODELFILES.tar.gz

MV CCAQS_JULY2000_MV_revmet_V042903_R001_SAPRCV5_CAMX_MODELFILES.tar.gz

Bio CCAQS_JULY2000_BI_revmet_V091703_R002_SAPRCV5_CAMX_MODELFILES.tar.gz

Fires CCAQS_JULY2000_FIRES_V060903_R003_SAPRCV5_CAMX_MODELFILES.tar.gz

D.6.7.2 July/August 200 Future Year Base Case- 2005

Below is a list of the names of the modeling files used in the 2005 future year base case modeling runs. The files follow the naming convention described above.

Type File Name

Point CCAQS_JULYFY_ELEV_V071003_R002_SAPRCV5_CAMX_MODELFILES.tar.gz

Area CCAQS_JULYFY2005_AREA_V071003_R01R02_SAPRCV5_CAMX_MODELFILES.tar.gz

MV CCAQS_JULYFYA_MV_V071003_R001_SAPRCV5_CAMX_MODELFILES.tar.gz

Bio CCAQS_JULY2000_BI_revmet_V091703_R002_SAPRCV5_CAMX_MODELFILES.tar.gz

Fires Not includedEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-40 D.6.7.3 July/August 2000 Future Year Base Case- 2010

Below is a list of the names of the modeling files used in the 2010 future year base case modeling runs. The files follow the naming convention described above.

Type File Name

Point CCAQS_JULYFY_ELEV_V071003_R002_SAPRCV5_CAMX_MODELFILES.tar.gz

Area CCAQS_JULYFY2010_AREA_V071003_R01R02_SAPRCV5_CAMX_MODELFILES.tar.gz

MV CCAQS_JULYFY2010_MV_V071003_R001_SAPRCV5_CAMX_MODELFILES.tar.gz

Bio CCAQS_JULY2000_BI_revmet_V091703_R002_SAPRCV5_CAMX_MODELFILES.tar.gz

Fires Not included



### D.7 Photochemical Modeling

D.7.1 Domain and Vertical Structure

The CCOS study domain and modeling vertical structure were described in subsection D.5.2. The reader is referred to that section for details. However, here we repeat two tables and one figure from that section for completeness: the description of the modeling domain (Table D-8); a map of the modeling domain (Figure D.6); and the vertical structure of the air quality modeling domain (Table D-9), which is dependent upon the meteorological model used.

Table D-8 Lambert Conical Projection coordinate system used to define the CCOS modeling domain

Reference Latitudes 30 N 60 N

Central Meridian 120.5 W Northing Offset 768.28 km Easting Offset 0.0 km

Grid Cell Number 189 x 189

Grid Cell Size 4 km Northing Origin -300.0 km Easting Origin -384.0 kmEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-41 Figure D.6 Air quality modeling domain for the CCOS July/August, 2000 episode.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-42 Table D-9 The vertical structure of the air quality modeling domain for the July/August, 2000 CCOS episode based on the MM5 and CALMET meteorological models.

MM5 CALMET Layer

Number Thickness (m) Height (m AGL) Thickness (m) Height (m AGL)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 24

26

56

66

74

133

161

182

205

232

265

356

488

666

926

1140 24

50

106

172

246

379

540

722

927

1159

1424

1780

2268

2934

3860

5000 20

40

40

100

100

100

200

200

200

500

500

500

500

500

500

1000 20

60

100

200

300

400

600

800

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

5000

D.7.2 Initial and Boundary Conditions

The relatively large size of the CCOS air quality modeling domain was intended to minimize the influence of boundary concentrations. Ideally, modeling domain boundaries should be located where the air is relatively clean, or they should be located sufficiently far away from modeling areas of interest to minimize their impact if the boundary inflow is not clean.

The western boundary and part of the southern boundary of the CCOS modeling domain are located over the Pacific Ocean. Over the Pacific Ocean the air is thought to be clean, therefore boundary concentrations were assigned based on clean air as defined by the U.S. EPA (1991). This clean air definition is comprised of 40 ppb ozone, 2 ppb oxides of nitrogen (NO
x ), and approximately 22 ppbC of reactive hydrocarbons (see Table D-10). However, simulation experiments have suggested that the

conversion of NO
x to nitrates is such that nitrogen oxide (NO) concentrations over the ocean should be very low with any appreciable residence time. Therefore, nitrogen

oxide concentrations were set to zero over the ocean.

The determination of over land boundary concentrations is less certain. Air quality monitoring sites in remote areas are few, and extrapolating existing measurements over long boundaries is fraught with uncertainties. In the 2003 State Implementation Plan update prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2003),EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-43 a concentration profile was defined for over land, remote areas. This concentration profile, referred to herein as "SCAQMD clean", is similar to the USEPA definition of clean air except that the concentration of reactive hydrocarbons is 60.7 ppbC. Thisconcentration was adopted for over land boundaries of the CCOS domain (see Table D10). Initial conditions were set equal to the eastern boundary conditions with the exception of VOC. Based on measured data the VOC was multiplied by a factor of two for the San Joaquin Valley only. VOC initial conditions in the SJV were set at 121.4 ppbC.

Defining concentration profiles for the boundary at the top of the modeling domain (note: 5,000 magl – see subsection D.5.2) is confounded by the few air quality measurements above the ground. The few aircraft measurements available recorded concentrations only at a few times, locations, and heights. During the CCOS field study, ozonesondes were launched daily on episode days at Granite Bay and at Parlier. These measurements suggested ozone concentrations of 70 ppb or greater at 5,000 magl that persisted throughout the July/August episode period. Based on these few measurements, the top boundary concentrations selected were based on the clean air profile defined by the U.S. EPA (1991), with the exception that ozone concentrations were set to 70 ppb.

Table D-10 Carbon Bond IV boundary concentration profiles for the July/August, 2000 CCOS episode. These same boundary condition totals were used with SAPRC99

Compound(s) USEPA (1991)

Clean SCAQMD (2003)

Clean Reactive hydrocarbons 21.9 ppbC 60.7 ppbC Carbon Monoxide 350 ppm 200 ppm Oxides of Nitrogen 2.0 ppb 2.0 ppb Ozone 40.0 ppb 40.0 ppb

D.7.3 Base Year Model Performance Evaluation

The period July 29–August 2, 2000 was simulated using the CAMx air quality model, alternatively with the Carbon Bond IV and SAPRC99f chemical mechanisms. The meteorological models MM5 and the CALMET/MM5 hybrid were also used to provide inputs to CAMx. Overall, model performance of CAMx using the CALMET/MM5 hybrid was superior to those resulting from MM5 alone; therefore, only the results simulated using the CALMET/MM5 hybrid are reported here.

The U.S. EPA (1991) provided guidelines for the evaluation of an ozone air quality model. In these guidelines, three statistical measures are used to compare simulated and observed 1-hour ozone concentrations above a threshold of 60 ppb; unpaired peak ratio (UPR), normalized bias (NB), and gross error (GE). The UPR compares daily peak simulated ozone concentration, unpaired in time and space, with the daily peak observed. Tesche et al. (1990) provide definitions for these and other statisticalEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-44 measures. To meet acceptance criteria, the UPR must be within the range of 0.80 to 1.20. The NB is the average percent difference between observed and simulated ozone concentrations paired in time and space, and the GE is the average absolute percent difference. To meet acceptance criteria, the NB must be within the range of +/- 15%

and the GE less than 35%.

The U.S. EPA (1991) performance guidelines allow simulated and observed ozone concentrations for the whole modeling domain to be pooled into one set of statistical measures. However, in a domain as large and geographically diverse as the CCOS modeling domain, pooling all concentrations into a single set of statistical measures would not allow an assessment of model performance across the domain. Therefore, for this analysis, the CCOS domain was subdivided into 9 subregions (Figure D.7) and statistical measures for model performance assessments were calculated for each one.

Statistical measures of ozone model performance for the July/August, 2000 episode are

summarized in Table D-11. Simulation results for both the Carbon Bond 4 and SAPRC99f chemical mechanisms are shown. In general, ozone concentrations simulated using the SAPRC99f chemical mechanism are higher than those simulated using Carbon Bond 4. On those days for which a subregion had peak ozone concentrations in excess of 125 ppb, the simulations met model performance guidelines. Several visual and statistical depictions of the base year simulation results are provided in an uncirculated appendix.

Figure D.7 Performance evaluation subregions for the CCOS air quality modeling domain.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-45 Table D-11 Base year ozone model performance for the July/August CCOS episode (July 29–August 2, 2000) using CAMx with CALMET/MM5 hybrid meteorology. Highlighted statistical measures indicate those meeting U.S. EPA (1991) model performance guidelines.

CAMx/CB4 CAMx/SAPRC99f Subregion Obs. Peak (ppb) Sim. Pk. (ppb) UPR NB (%) GE (%) Sim. Pk. (ppb) UPR NB (%) GE (%) July 29, 2000

Zone 3

Zone 6

Zone 7

Zone 8 82

121

129

128 107

129

130

123 1.31

1.07

1.01

0.96 +13

+09

-08

-12 24

19

18

20 102

147

144

149 1.24

1.21

1.12

1.16 +10

+13

-03

-02 24

22

17

25 July 30, 2000

Zone 3

Zone 6

Zone 7

Zone 8 126

110

118

115 117

137

128

119 0.93

1.25

1.09

1.04 +01

+05

+03

-12 22

16

17

18 124

149

138

132 0.98

1.35

1.17

1.15 +04

+04

+06

-07 22

17

18

20 August 1, 2000

Zone 3

Zone 6

Zone 7

Zone 8 109

134

118

116 111

137

124

114 1.01

1.02

1.05

0.98 -10

-04

-09

-15 25

17

20

19 121

145

132

120 1.11

1.08

1.12

1.04 -05

-02

-05

-10 28

19

21

19 August 2, 2000

Zone 3

Zone 6

Zone 7

Zone 8 100

131

131

151 084

127

127

129 0.84

0.97

0.97

0.85 -44

-16

-10

-13 44

21

22

21 90

137

137

140 0.90

1.05

1.04

0.92 -41

-09

-02

-07 41

20

22

20

• UPR = Unpaired Peak Ratio; NB = Normalized Bias; GE = Gross Error

• Subregion assignments: Zone 3 = San Francisco Bay Area Zone 6 = Sacramento/Delta area

Zone 7 = Fresno area Zone 8 = Bakersfield area

D.7.4 Base Case Sensitivity to Natural Sources

Biogenic emissions from plants are significant contributors to the hydrocarbon emission inventory, and are known to contribute to ozone concentrations measured within California. In addition to these emissions, wildfires are frequent occurrences in summer and can also generate hydrocarbons that can contribute to observed ozone concentrations. Using the CAMx base case simulation with Carbon Bond IV chemistry, the impact of these natural emissions on ozone concentrations during the July/August, 2000 episode was investigated.

Sensitivity simulations were conducted wherein emissions input into the air qualitymodel were modified. After the air quality model was run, differences from the basecase simulation results were determined to assess impacts. To assess the impact of natural emissions, three emissions scenarios were evaluated: 1) removing all wildfires;EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-46 2) increasing biogenic emissions by 25%; and 3) removing all biogenic emissions. Theresults of the air quality simulations using these scenarios were summarized in Table D12.

Removing wildfire emissions had little impact on peak simulated ozone concentrations, except in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Simulated ozone concentrations within the SF Bay Area and the Sacramento/Delta regions of the modeling domain were altered by less than 1 ppb for all sites (data not shown). These results suggest that the high ozone concentration in Kern County on August 2 was impacted by fires, since removing the wildfires reduced the simulated ozone peak by approximately 7%.

Increasing biogenic emissions by 25% had a modest impact on simulated ozone concentrations throughout the modeling domain. The largest impact was on July 31; peak ozone concentrations in the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento/Delta subregions increased by 4 ppb. At individual sites, the increases were greater (data not shown). The magnitude of these changes approximate the impact of large errors in the temperature fields (~ 3 oC) used to calculate biogenic emissions.

Removing all biogenic emissions had the greatest impact of all natural sources. Removing all biogenic emissions reduced peak simulated ozone concentrations throughout the modeling domain by as much as 22%; however, the impacts were not as great for all subregions, and on each day.

Table D-12 Differences in peak simulated ozone concentrations using CAMx/CB4 and simulated peak concentrations without wildfires, with a 25% increase in biogenic emissions, and without biogenic emissions for the July/August, 2000 CCOS episode.

No Fires +25% Biogenics No Biogenics Base

Case
ppb % change ppb % change ppb % change July 31 (Julian Day 213) : Zone 3 (SF Bay) Zone 6 (Sacramento/Delta) Zone 8 (Kern County) 126

131

129 0

0

0 0

0

0 4

4

2 3

3

2 -22

-21

- 8 -17

-16

- 6

August 1 (Julian Day 214) : Zone 3 (SF Bay) Zone 6 (Sacramento/Delta) Zone 8 (Kern County) 119

132

119 0

0

-2 0

0

-2 1

2

1 1

2

1 -24

-27

- 8 -20

-20

- 7 August 2 (Julian Day 215) : Zone 3 (SF Bay) Zone 6 (Sacramento/Delta) Zone 8 (Kern County) 93

133

135 0

0

-9 0

0

-7 2

4

1 2

3

1 -10

-29

-10 -11

-22

- 7EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-47 

### D.8 References

Air Sciences, Inc. (2002) 1996 Fire Emissions Inventory. Draft Final Report. Lakewood, CO. On-line link: http:/www.wrapair.org/forums/FEJF1/emissions/FEJF1996EIReport_021208.pdf

Baldocchi, D., Fuentes, J., Bowling, D., Turnipseed, A., and Monson, R. (1999) “Scaling isoprene fluxes from leaves to canopies: test cases over a boreal aspen and a mixed species temperate forest.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 38: 885-

898.

Barna, M., B. Lamb, S. O'Neill, and H. Westberg. (2000) “Modeling ozone formation and transport in the Cascadia region of the Pacific northwest.” Atmos. Environ.

39:349-366.

Benjamin, M., Sudol, M., Bloch, L. and A. Winer. (1996) “Low-emitting urban forests: a taxonomic methodology for assigning isoprene and monoterpene emission rates.” Atmospheric Environment. 30 (9): 1437-1452.

Benjamin, M., Sudol, M., Vorsatz, D. and A. Winer. (1997) “A spatially and temporally resolved biogenic hydrocarbon emissions inventory for the California south coast air basin.” Atmospheric Environment. 31 (18): 3087-3100.

California Department of Transportation. (2000) DTIM4 User’s Guide.

Davis, F. W., P. A. Stine, D. M. Stoms, M. I. Borchert and A. D. Hollander. (1995) “Gap analysis of the actual vegetation of California –1. The southwestern region”.

Madrono 42: 40-78.

Earth Tech. (2000) A User's Guide for the CALMET Meteorological Model (Version 5). Earth Tech. Concord, MA. 01742. January, 2000.

California Air Resources Board. EMFAC2002. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm.

Grell, G. A., J. Dudhia and D. R. Stauffer, (1995) A description of the fifth-generation Penn State/NCAR mesoscale model (MM5). NCAR Technical Note , NCAR/TN398+STR.

Guenther, A. B. R. K. Monson and R. Fall. (1991) “Isoprene and monoterpene emission rate variability: observations with eucalyptus and emission rate algorithm development.” Journal of Geophysical Research. 96: 10799-10808.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-48 Guenther, A. B., P. R. Zimmerman, P. C. Harley, R. K. Monson and R. Fall. (1993) “Isoprene and monoterpene emission rate variability – model evaluations and sensitivity analyses.” Journal of Geophysical Research. 98(D7): 12609-12617.

Guenther, A., Zimmerman, P., Wildermuth, M. (1994) “Natural volatile organic compound emission rate estimates for US woodland landscapes.” Atmospheric

Environment 94: 1197-1210.

Harley, P., V. Fridd-Stroud, J. Greenberg, A. Guenther and P. Vasconcellos. (1996) “Emission of 2-methyl-3-buten-2-ol by pines: A potentially large natural source of reactive carbon to the atmosphere.” Journal of Geophysical Research. 103: 25479-

25486.

Horie, Y., Sidawi, S. and R. Ellefsen. (1990) Inventory of leaf biomass and emissionfactors for vegetation in California’s south coast air basin. Final Technical Report IIIC. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Diamond Bar, CA.

Kain, J. S., and J. M. Fritsch. (1993) “Convective parameterization for mesoscale models: Kain-Fritsch scheme. The representation of cumulus convection in numerical models.” K. A. Emanuel and D. J. Raynond, Eds., Amer. Meteor. Soc., 246 pp.

Karlik, J. and A. McKay. (1999) Development of methodology and databases for estimating leaf masses in California airsheds. Final Report. Contract No. 97-719. State of California Air Resources Board. Sacramento, CA.

Karlik, J. (2002) Validation of databases for modeling biogenic volatile organic compound emissions in central California. Draft Final Report. Contract No. 00- 16CCOS. San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency and California Environmental Protection Agency – Air Resources Board.

Kumar, N. and A.G. Russell. (1996) “Comparing prognostic and diagnostic meteorological fields and their impacts on photochemical air quality modeling.”

Atmos. Environ. 30:1989-2010.

McPherson, E. G. (1998) “Structure and sustainability of Sacramento’s urban forest.” Journal of Arboriculture. 24 (4): 174-190.

McRae, G.J, W.R. Goodin, and J.H. Seinfeld. (1982) Mathematical Modeling of Air Pollution. EQL Report No. 18. Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB. Sacramento, CA 95814. April, 1982.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-49 Mlawer, E. J., S. J. Taubman, P. D. Brown, M. J. Iacono, and S. A. Clough. (1997) “Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave.” J. Geophys. Res., 102(D14), 16,663-16,682.

Nikolov, N. T. (1999) 1-km resolution database of vegetation leaf area index and canopy clumping factor for the western U.S.A. Final Report, U.S.D.A. Forest Service Agreement No. PSW-99-001-RJVA. N&T Services. Oak Ridge, TN.

Nowak, D. J. (1991) Urban forest development and structure: Analysis of Oakland, California. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Reinhardt, E., Keene, R. and Brown, J. (1997) First Order Fire Effects Model: FOFEM 4.0 User’s Guide. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-344.

Robe, F.R. and Scire, J.S. (1998) Combining mesoscale prognostic and diagnostic wind models: A practical approach for air quality applications in complex terrain. 10 Joint Conf. on Air Poll. Met. Amer. Met. Soc. Boston, MA.

Scire J.S., R.J. Yamartino, S.R. Hamma, G.R. Carmichal, and Y.S. Chang. (1989)

CALGRID: A Mesoscale Photochemical Grid Model. Volume I: Model Formulation Document. Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB. Sacramento, CA 95814. June, 1989.

Sidawi, S. and Y. Horie. (1992) Leaf biomass density for urban, agricultural and natural vegetation in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Final Report. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Study Agency.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. (2003) APPENDIX V. Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations. Final Report. SCAQMD, Diamond Bar, CA. 91765. August, 2003.

Technical and Business Systems. (2003) Characterization of the CCOS 2000 Measurement Period (DRAFT Final Report). Prepared for the San Joaquin Valleywide Study Agency and the California Air Resources Board.

Tesche, T.W., P. Georgopoulos, J.H. Seinfeld, P.M. Roth, F.W. Lurmann, and G. Cass. (1990) Improvement of Procedures for Evaluating Photochemical Models. Prepared

for the California Air Resources Board. A832-103.

Tesche, T.W. and D.E. McNally. (1997) The Use of the San Joaquin Valley Meteorological Model in Preparation of a Field Program in the South Coast Air Basin and Surrounding Regions of Southern California: Volume I: Final MM5 Evaluation for the 3-6 August 1990 SARMAP Episode. CARB Contract No. 94-973. Planning andEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-50 Technical Support Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA. June,

1997.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1991) Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model. Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards. EPA-450/4-91-013.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1999) Draft Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA-454/R-99-004.

Winer, A., Karlik, J. and J. Arey. (1998) Biogenic hydrocarbon inventories for California: generation of essential databases. Final Report. Contract No. 95-309. State of California Air Resources Board. Sacramento, CA.

Winer, A. and Karlik, J. (2001) Development and validation of databases for modeling biogenic hydrocarbon emissions in California’s airsheds. Final Report. Contract No. 97-320. California Environmental Protection Agency – Air Resources Board. Sacramento, CA.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-51 

### D.9 Gridded Inventory Coordination Group Minutes

D.9.1 February 26, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation
Amir Fanai, Glen Long, Toch Mangat, Phil Martien Bay Area AQMD Bruce Katayama, Aleta Kinnard, Hao Quinn, Greg Tholen Sacramento Metro AQMD Cyndi Loomis, Jim Wilkinson Alpine Geophysics Vernon Hughes, Ajith Kaduwela, Cheryl Taylor ARB

Welcome

Cheryl welcomed everyone to the call. Introductions were made.

General Discussion Purpose of the Coordination Group

This group was formed as an outgrowth of the February 19 modeling conference call, where several districts expressed a desire to review the gridded inventories to be used in modeling for the SIPs. The group agreed that the more people who review the inventories, the more likely they will spot problems quickly. More reviewers can also share the burden of reviewing such large amounts of information. The districts have specific knowledge about the inventories in their regions, so are more likely to discover problems.

Goals/Expectations of the Group

The goal of the group is to provide gridded inventories for review in an easily accessible and coordinated manner. There are several gridded inventories that will be available for review by the group, including episodes for July/August 2000, September 2000, and June 2000. The creation of gridded inventories for July 1999 and a 2002 episode are being considered. ARB, Alpine Geophysics, and Environ are creating pieces of the various gridded inventories. ARB will receive all the pieces and will be assembling them for each episode. The group agreed that inventories should be made available for review whenever they are available, regardless of priority for the SIPs. Cheryl will

distribute minutes.

Timeframe for Reviewing Inventories

The group agreed that an email would be broadcast when a new inventory had been posted for review. A period of two weeks for review would begin once the notification

had been sent.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-52 Feedback from Reviewers – What Will be the Process to Incorporate/Investigate any Comments or Requested Changes?

It was suggested that there be a structured form for comments; this will be discussed at future meetings. Requests to change emissions should be made through the normal channels, such as the Emission Inventory Branch at ARB. The entire group is to be notified if there are changes to the emissions or if other problems are identified.

Frequency of Meetings

The group did not specifically determine the frequency of the meetings, but they agreed to meet again in three weeks.

Discuss Specifics of How to Review Gridded Inventories

Vernon described the basic steps to creating model-ready gridded inventories. Base year criteria emissions are fed from CEIDARS (California Emission Inventory Development and Reporting System) into CEFS (California Emission Forecasting System). CEFS creates base year and future year inventories by air basin, county, and source category (SIC/SCC for point sources or EIC for all other sources) for either a weekday or a weekend day for a specified month. Day-specific data are then merged in. Next, EMS-95 is used to distribute the emissions both spatially and temporally (down to grid cell by hour). Then the emissions are speciated and reformatted to create model-specific gridded inventories.

The group agreed that the following reports would be useful:

Tabular reports from CEIDARS/CEFS (summary of emissions of criteria pollutants by county/air basin and by 3-digit EIC – base year and forecasted years) Tabular and graphical (tile plots) reports of the model-ready gridded inventories Intermediate SAS files (gridded hourly criteria inventory with categories in tact) Model-ready files Speciation profiles Spatial Surrogates Temporal Profiles

Cyndi said that she already has summary reports that she would be willing to run on the gridded inventories as they become available for review. Gridded inventories for the July/August 2000 episode are available now for review. Vernon emphasized that version control (e.g. version of EMFAC used in the gridded inventory) is very important and needs to be stated clearly for each gridded inventory.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-53 Discuss How to Access Gridded Inventories Cyndi volunteered Alpine Geophysics to be the repository of information by hosting an ftp site accessed through the Web. ARB may take over this duty in the next few weeks after ARB finalizes its global file directory syntax.

Cyndi and Vernon will discuss the details of exactly what will be posted. ARB will then distribute a one-page proposal to the group for comment. The proposal would detail what reports and version control information would be provided for review. Cyndi will set up a website and post data within a couple of weeks. The group will be notified when data are available and how to access the site. At the next call, the group will discuss the website and reports; changes will be incorporated as agreed.

Other Districts Who May Wish to be Involved? Phil suggested that Bob Nunes from Monterey Bay Unified APCD might be interested in participating in this group. Vernon will call him.

Jim suggested that representatives from the COGs might also be interested in reviewing the on-road mobile source emissions. Jim has a list of the COG representatives that he has spoken with in preparing the roadway network for the CCOS domain. He will send the list to Vernon who will give them to Ed Yotter for review. Ed will be asked to join this

group.

Other Issues

No other issues were discussed.

Plans for Next Meeting The next conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, March 19.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-54 D.9.2 March 19, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation Amir Fanai, Toch Mangat, Phil Martien Bay Area AQMD Bob Nunes Monterey Bay Unified

APCD Bruce Katayama, Charles Parker, Greg Tholen, Brigette Tollstrup Sacramento Metro AQMD

Donald Hunsaker, David Nunes, Evan Shipp, Michelle Stanley San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD

Vincent Liu Kern COG

Harold Brazil MTC

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Cyndi Loomis, Jim Wilkinson Alpine Geophysics Vernon Hughes, Cheryl Taylor, Ed Yotter ARB

Welcome and Feedback on February 26 Minutes

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. Introductions were made. There were no comments on the February 26 minutes.

Discuss How to Efficiently Transfer and Track Review of Gridded Inventories

Alpine Geophysics described how they propose to set up the ftp site (not a web page) to efficiently transfer and track the review of the gridded inventories. There will be three main parts: “read me” files, a data-tracking log, and the files/reports themselves. The “read me” files and data tracking log are described below; the files/reports are

discussed in Item 3.

The “read me” files will contain several pieces of information. One part will discuss the naming convention used to describe each gridded file for review. ARB has developed a naming convention that describes the file. The name will state the domain (CCAQS),episode day, source type (point, area, on-road motor vehicle, or biogenics), sourcespecific information (e.g. version of EMFAC), when the file was created and the version, chemical mechanism (e.g. SAPRC), speciation version, and model format (e.g. ascii). Another “read me” file will describe the data-tracking log, how to use it, and what to do if you find problems in the gridded inventories. The BAAQMD suggested that a “read me” file include a discussion of what each file contains (e.g. data dictionary) as well as other

information such as the units of the emissions. A “read me” file will also describe how Alpine Geophysics developed a model to add commercial VMT to the Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) (see Item 4 below). A “read me” file will describe the differences in VMT between the ITN and EMFAC 2002 (see Item 4 below)EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-55 Alpine Geophysics has developed a data-tracking log. The log shows the current inventory, date released, problems identified, who identified the problem and when, how the problem was fixed, and who fixed the problem and when. Per the group’s request, Alpine Geophysics will include a list of standard QA procedures that they have implemented in reviewing the inventories to avoid duplication of effort.

ARB will develop a one-page proposal that will detail what information will be posted on the ftp site, and distribute it to the group for comment. ARB reminded everyone that both time and resources are growing shorter, so the number of custom reports may be limited. The San Joaquin Valley district said that they might be able to provide assistance to other districts by providing plots and/or reports.

Discuss New Site for Accessing Gridded Inventories

The ftp site is not available yet for viewing, but should be ready next week. Below is a list of the reports that will be available on the ftp site. Information for the July/August 2000 episode will posted first. Information for other episodes will be posted when available. Episodes that are planned include September 2000, July 1999, and June

2000.

Alpine Geophysics is putting together a report that describes how the gridded on-road motor vehicle inventory was created. The report will describe how the Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) for the entire CCOS/CRPAQS domain was developed. It will also describe how the day-specific data, which were collected by Dr. Deb Niemeier of UC Davis, were incorporated. The report should be available in two weeks and will be distributed to the group a few days prior to the next call.

List of data/reports that will be available on the ftp site:

1) Tabular reports from CEFS, the inventory forecasting system (summary of emissions of criteria pollutants by county/air basin and by 3-digit EIC – base year and forecasted years) 2) Tabular and graphical (tile plots) reports of the model-ready gridded inventories by 3-digit EIC by county 3) Intermediate SAS files (gridded hourly criteria inventory by 3-digit EIC)4) Model-ready files (will include 4 sets - CAMx and SAQM models each using CBIV and SAPRC chemical mechanisms) 5) Speciation profiles 6) Spatial surrogates 7) Temporal profiles 8) Day-specific data for point sources 9) Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) (ARC format) 10) DTIM-ready filesEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-56 Other Issues – On-Road Motor Vehicle Gridded Inventory

Alpine Geophysics briefly described how the on-road gridded inventory was developed. First they developed an Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) that combines demand model networks from agencies such as MTC, SACOG, four COGs in the San Joaquin Valley, and Caltrans’ statewide network. The VMT provided by each of these agencies was adjusted in three ways. First, the VMT were adjusted to represent the year 2000. For instance, the statewide network was for year 1995 and was grown to reflect year 2000. Second, the VMT was adjusted to distinguish between weekday and weekend volumes. Third, Alpine Geophysics developed a model to add commercial VMT to the

ITN.

Alpine Geophysics compared the VMT for 2000 from the ITN with EMFAC 2002. There were some discrepancies, which Alpine Geophysics understands and will document in a

“read me” file.

Plans for Next Meeting The next conference call will focus on the on-road motor vehicle gridded inventory. The call is scheduled for Monday, April 7.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-57 D.9.3 April 7, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation Toch Mangat, Phil Martien Bay Area AQMD Charles Anderson, Matt Jones, Bruce Katayama, Greg Tholen, Brigette Tollstrup Sacramento Metro AQMD

Donald Hunsaker, David Nunes, Stephen Shaw, Evan Shipp, Michelle Stanley San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD

Harold Brazil MTC

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Cyndi Loomis, Jim Wilkinson Alpine Geophysics Vernon Hughes, Anne Lin, Cheryl Taylor, Ed

Yotter ARB

Welcome and Feedback on March 19 Minutes

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. Introductions were made. There were no comments on the March 19 minutes. The BAAQMD asked if the one-page summary that details the information that will be posted on the ftp site had been distributed (as referenced in the minutes). ARB responded that the summary had not been written yet.

Status of Ftp Site for Accessing Gridded Inventories

Alpine Geophysics described the ftp site (not a web page) that they set up to transfer and track the review of the gridded inventories. To access the information, ftp to agftp.com (host name). The user ID is agftp and the password is pass4ftp.

To review emissions files, change to directory “CCAQS_Emissions”. There are subdirectories for three episodes: June 2000, July 2000, and September 2000. Data areavailable under July 2000 for the July/August 2000 episode. Under the July 2000 subdirectory are five sub-directories: a) CEFS_files, b) Gridded_SAS_files, c) Modeling_Files, d) Plots and e) Summaries.

a) CEFS_files : Contains the actual files provided by the ARB’s Emission Inventory Branch as they come out of CEFS. b) Gridded_SAS_files : Contains the gridded SAS datasets in SAS trans format. This format allows SAS files to be transferred to versions of SAS running on different platforms (i.e. PC, Linux, Sun). Alpine Geophysics will include an example of SAS code that can be used to extract the transport files to your local systems. SAS will be required to access and use these files. The files are broken into source types: area, point, biogenics, on-road, and fires. There is a file for each source type and episode day. c) Modeling_Files : These are the model-ready files for input into SAQM and CAMx. Each model is run using both SAPRC and CBIV chemistry. These files are furtherEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-58 separated into source types (point, area, biogenics, on-road, and fires). These are ASCII (text) format files. d) Plots : These are gif plots (not animated) showing hourly and daily total emissions (kilograms per day) of NOx and ROG for point, area, and on-road sources for August 1, 2000. e) Summaries : There are two reports. One shows county totals for point, area, and on-road. The second report shows point and area source emissions by county by EIC with day-specific data merged in.

Several additions will be posted to the ftp site soon. ARB will develop a one-page summary that will detail what information will be posted on the ftp site. Alpine Geophysics will add a description of the file naming convention. Alpine will post to the ftp site a data-tracking log that shows the current inventory, date released, problems identified, who identified the problem and when, how the problem was fixed, and who fixed the problem and when. The September 2000 point and area source files are ready, so they will be posted to the ftp site. Emissions from soil NO will also be posted.

Gridded On-road Motor Vehicle Emissions

Alpine Geophysics distributed to the group a draft report (available on the ftp site) that describes how the gridded on-road motor vehicle inventory was created. The report describes how the Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) for the entire CCOS/CRPAQS domain was developed. The report describes the addition of a commercial travel model to the ITN. It also describes how the day-specific data were used to create hourly VMT distributions and make adjustments for weekdays and weekend days. Please provide any comments to Jim Wilkinson (Alpine Geophysics).

Other Issues

The group asked how much time is available to review the gridded inventories. ARB has already begun modeling with the emission inventories that have been developed, so any issues that are discovered will need to be addressed as soon as possible. Provide any comments or questions to Cheryl Taylor (cataylor@arb.ca.gov).

Plans for Next Meeting

The next conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, April 23.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-59 D.9.4 April 23, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation Toch Mangat, Phil Martien, Steve Soong Bay Area AQMD Bob Nunes Monterey Bay Unified APCD Charles Anderson, Matt Jones, Bruce Katayama, Aleta Kennard, Hao Quinn, Greg Tholen Sacramento Metro AQMD

David Nunes, Stephen Shaw, Michelle Stanley San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD

Harold Brazil MTC

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Cyndi Loomis Alpine Geophysics Daniel Chau, Vernon Hughes, Doug Ito, Bruce Jackson, Anne Lin, Tess Sicat, Cheryl Taylor, Eugene Yang, Ed Yotter ARB

Welcome and Feedback on April 7 Minutes

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. Introductions were made. There were no comments on the April 7 minutes.

Status of Ftp Site for Accessing Gridded Inventories

Alpine Geophysics described the status of the information on the ftp site. Alpine has placed several items on the ftp site since the last call. 1) Alpine has added the point and area source files for the September 2000 episode. 2) Alpine has placed an example of SAS code that can be used to extract the SAS transport files to your local system. This will enable you to review the gridded SAS files that are in SAS trans format. The file on the ftp site is called “example_import.sas”. 3) Alpine has placed a program to convert ASCII to binary that will allow the modeling files to be imported into PAVE, as requested by Sac Metro AQMD. The program on the ftp site is called “binary_convert.tar.gz”. [Note: To access the information, ftp to agftp.com (host name). The user ID is agftp and the password is pass4ftp. The emission information can be found under the directory “CCAQS_Emissions”. A detailed description of the contents of the CCAQS_Emissions directory can be found in the April 7 minutes.]

Several additions will be posted to the ftp site soon. 1) Alpine will place an overview document that describes what information is posted on the ftp site. 2) Revised on-road motor vehicle and biogenic emissions for the July/August episode will be posted soon. These emissions were recalculated using different meteorological data. 3) Alpine willadd a description of the file naming convention. 4) Alpine will post to the ftp site a datatracking log that shows the current inventory, date released, problems identified, who identified the problem and when, how the problem was fixed, and who fixed the problem and when. 5) Emissions from soil NO will also be posted. 6) Spatial surrogateEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-60 information (report and graphics) will be posted. 7) The results of a CCOS project to update specific district area source categories will be available. 8) Future year emissions will be posted when they become available.

BAAQMD stated that they would be revising emission and stack data for refineries. Sac Metro AQMD raised questions about inconsistencies in the summary reports. ARB also expressed concerns about discrepancies in county total emissions between the summary reports on the ftp site with reports run in-house by ARB. ARB will work with Alpine to correct and clarify the summary reports. Sac Metro AQMD also expressed concern that their day-specific emissions didn’t appear to be incorporated correctly. ARB will work with the district and Alpine to ensure the inclusion of the day-specific

data.

Comments on Alpine Geophysics’ Report on the Integrated Transportation

Network

The group provided comments on the draft report (available on the ftp site) that describes how the gridded on-road motor vehicle inventory was created using the Integrated Transportation Network (ITN). ARB noted that they are working with the COGs to specifically define the hours in the am/pm peaks for their region. ARB will work with Alpine to incorporate any corrections needed to the motor vehicle emission calculations. SJVUAPCD expressed concern about Caltrans’ statewide network being used for their four northern counties rather than local data. Earth Matters, who represents the valley COGs, will work with ARB and Alpine to look into acquiring local network data. SJVUAPCD also noted that the ITN represents reality fairly well in the urban areas, but can be off by more than a grid cell in more remote areas like the foothills. Also, Earth Matters sent questions about the commercial travel model that Alpine included; ARB and Alpine will discuss the questions on a separate call. Please provide any additional comments to Jim Wilkinson (Alpine Geophysics).

Other Issues

No other issues were discussed.

Plans for Next Meeting The next conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, May 7.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-61 D.9.5 May 7, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation Toch Mangat, Phil Martien, Amir Fanai Bay Area AQMD Bob Nunes Monterey Bay Unified APCD Matt Jones, Greg Tholen Sacramento Metro AQMD

Donald Hunsaker, David Nunes, Evan Shipp San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD

Harold Brazil MTC

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Cyndi Loomis, Jim Wilkinson Alpine Geophysics

Leonard Seitz Caltrans Paul Allen, Daniel Chau, Vernon Hughes, Doug Ito, Bruce Jackson, Anne Lin, Cheryl Taylor, Bruce Tuter, Ed Yotter ARB

Welcome and Feedback on April 23 Minutes

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. Introductions were made. There were no comments on the April 23 minutes.

Status of Ftp Site for Accessing Gridded Inventories

Alpine Geophysics described the status of the information on the ftp site. Alpine has placed several items on the ftp site since the last call:

a) Alpine has posted modeling files that reflect revised on-road motor vehicle and biogenic emissions using CALMET temperatures (higher temperatures) for the July/August 2000 episode. The on-road emissions increased about 10-20% and the biogenic emissions increased about 30% from the previous version. It was noted that the on-road emissions were adjusted so that the county totals match the emissions from

EMFAC2002 v2.2. These emissions were spatially allocated using the output from DTIM, which uses the ITN activity as input, to create hourly emission ratios for each grid cell in a county. The revised files contain “revmet” in the name.

b) Alpine has posted new summaries of emissions by county and by category (EIC3 level) for point and area sources. The new summaries reflect the correction to the EIC mapping that was causing some point and area source emissions to be dropped. The summaries also reflect a clearer accounting of the processing that occurred from the CEFS output files to the SAS gridded files (e.g. some ag burn emissions are dropped because no burning occurred on the episode day). Close attention should be paid to the files names in order to retrieve the latest version; the revised summaries have V050503 (Version dated May 5, 2003) added to the file name.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-62 c) Alpine has posted point and area source model-ready files (SAPRC format) for January 2001.

d) Alpine has placed the EMS-95 Technical Formulation Documentation on the ftp site under the directory "EMS-95 Technical Formulation Documentation". These are old WordPerfect files that should load into newer versions of WordPerfect and probably into

Word. Much of this same information is available on-line at ww.ladco.org/emis/guide/ems95.html.

e) The Emission Inventory Branch at ARB has developed a website with information regarding SIP Baseline Emission Inventory Projections. The site contains report generators for annual average, seasonal average planning, and modeling inventories. There are sections on control rule reports, documentation, and memoranda. This site should be helpful in checking the summary reports from CEFS that are posted on the ftp site. The address is http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ccos/index.php

f) Spatial data are now available on the ftp site. The reports and plots created by Sonoma Technology Inc. (STI) are available for review. A "read me" file describes the files. The directory is called "CCOSI_STI".

g) Future year surrogate information is also available from STI. It is in the directory "NewSurrogates_STI".

h) The results of the project to update specific district area source categories for small districts in the Mountain Counties, Sacramento Valley, and Mendocino can be found in the directory "CCOSII_STI". A "read me" file describes where to find the

information.

The BAAQMD noticed as they reviewed the plots that the southern portion of the domain had a different timing for when motor vehicle emissions began than the rest of the domain. ARB is having on-going discussions with the COGs about the definition of “peak hour”. There are multiple period definitions for different networks. ARB is working with Alpine to ensure that the actual hours as defined by am, pm, and off-peak periods are reflected correctly on the Integrated Transportation Network (ITN). The BAAQMD has also created animations of the NOx and TOG plots for on-road motor vehicles and volunteered to post them on the ftp site.

The group discussed the labeling information on the plots. The units are in kg/grid cell for each hour. The time shown is local time (PDT for July 2000). Alpine will check the labels to make sure that the units and a description of the plot are displayed.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-63 Comments on Alpine Geophysics’ Report on the Integrated Transportation

Network

Alpine Geophysics received two sets of comments on the draft ITN report. Alpine will draft responses to the comments.

Additionally, the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD and Earth Matters had expressed concern in previous meetings that the ITN uses the statewide model for the four northern counties in the San Joaquin Valley. The SJVUAPCD is continuing to study the ITN in the northern SJV to determine if the ITN is acceptable as a replacement for local data. The SJVUAPCD and Earth Matters expressed acceptance of the ITN for use in

the SIPs. Earth Matters expressed acceptance of the ITN for use in the SIPs. The SJVUAPCD is still discussing in-house the acceptability of the ITN. ARB and SJVUAPCD will discuss the subject further during the next weekly modeling call. Earth Matters agreed to work with ARB to provide updated data for all eight counties in the SJV. There is not sufficient time to incorporate these data into the ITN for use in the upcoming SIPs. Perhaps they can be used for future work, such as transport analysis.

Monterey Bay Unified APCD expressed surprise that local transportation data were not used for the Monterey area since they believe that data were available. AMBAG did not respond to the original request for data from Alpine. Monterey Bay district will look into what data are currently available.

Caltrans noted that they would have a new statewide model available soon that will represent calendar year 2000.

Other Issues

Earth Matters had a question about the TOG emissions for area sources in the San Joaquin Valley. They compared the August 1, 2000 inventory with an average summer day inventory and noticed a large difference (about 1100 tpd). ARB will look into the question.

Plans for Next Meeting

The next conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, May 21.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-64 D.9.6 May 21, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation Toch Mangat, Phil Martien, Amir Fanai Bay Area AQMD Bob Nunes Monterey Bay Unified APCD Charles Anderson, Matt Jones, Bruce Katayama, Aleta Kennard, Greg Tholen Sacramento Metro AQMD

David Nunes, Evan Shipp, Michelle Stanley San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD

Harold Brazil MTC

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Cyndi Loomis, Jim Wilkinson Alpine Geophysics

Leonard Seitz Caltrans Ravi Ramalingam, Cheryl Taylor, Ed Yotter ARB

Welcome and Feedback on May 7 Minutes

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. Introductions were made. There were two comments on the May 7 draft minutes. The SJVUAPCD did not agree with the

statement in Section 3 “The SJVUAPCD and Earth Matters expressed acceptance of

the ITN for use in the SIPs.” The SJVUAPCD is still discussing in-house the acceptability of the ITN. ARB and SJVUAPCD will discuss the subject further in the next weekly modeling call.

Caltrans questioned the following statement on the ITN in Section 2, part 1): “These emissions were spatially adjusted using VMT on the Integrated Transportation Network (ITN).” This statement incorrectly reflected what was said at the meeting. The

statement should read “These emissions were spatially allocated using the output from DTIM, which uses the ITN activity as input, to create hourly emission ratios for each grid cell in a county.” After discussing the spatial distribution of the emissions, Caltrans was

satisfied with the method. ARB will correct the minutes to reflect these comments.

Data on Ftp Site

Alpine Geophysics described the information posted to the ftp site since the last call. [To access the site, ftp to agftp.com (host name). The user ID is agftp and the password is pass4ftp.] Since there have been several revisions to some of the files, Alpine has created a Version_Control_Log (found under CCAQS_Emissions/July 2000/Modeling_Files) that describes the reason for each revision and the revision number. This log will be very helpful in understanding what is in each file.

a) Alpine posted revised point and area source files for the July/August 2000 episode that reflect corrections in the processing of the CEFS output files. There are revised summaries (emissions by county as well as emissions by county and EICEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-65 category). There are revised modeling files. All the summaries and modeling files for the revised point and area sources contain the date the version was revised, V050503.

b) There have been changes to the list of species in both the CB-IV and SAPRC chemistries. These changes relate to whether certain species are treated explicitly or are lumped together with other species. The species are methanol (MEOH), ethanol (ETOH), MTBE, and methyl butanol (MBUT). The BAAQMD reminded all that changes to the speciation will cause the modeling files to change, but not the base CEFS files and plots.

Alpine noted that there are several outdated versions of files on the ftp site that could cause confusion to reviewers. They asked if the files could be deleted. ARB requested that the files be moved to a different directory to lessen confusion, but retained for now. Alpine will look into creating a subdirectory for outdated versions. Space on the ftp site may become a concern.

SMAQMD expressed concern that the day-specific emissions may not be processed correctly for begin hour codes of “-1”, which indicate that the emissions are in kg/day rather than kg/hour. This may cause the emissions to be underestimated. ARB will investigate.

BAAQMD noted that some of the day-specific data recently submitted for the Bay Area contained emissions for only certain hours of the day, not the entire day. Following a discussion with Alpine on the methodology for processing the data, BAAQMD was satisfied that the data are being processed correctly.

Comments on Alpine Geophysics’ Report on the Integrated Transportation

Network

Alpine Geophysics has placed the raw data files that they used to create the ITN on their FTP site. Each network is contained in its own zip file. The zip files are located in the directory "ITN_2000/Raw Data Used To Develop ITN." The name of the zip files states their relation to the network. ARB noted that the SACOG file was missing; Alpine will post Sacramento to the ftp site.

Alpine also posted a zip file on the FTP site that contains all the documentation and supporting data sets for the gravity model used in the Integrated Transportation Network (ITN). The file is called “ucd_gravity.zip” and is located in the "ITN_2000/Commercial VMT Gravity Model" directory. The gravity model estimates commercial VMT based on trip counts for 2, 3, 4, and 5 axle vehicles. The model uses AADT data from Caltrans and apportions trip counts across the domain. Alpine noted that the commercial VMT using the gravity model was only applied to the portions of the ITN developed with the Caltrans statewide model; local transportation networks already include commercial

VMT.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-66 Alpine plans to provide a draft final version of the ITN report on May 23. Alpine will notify the group when the report is available.

Earth Matters asked when Alpine would be responding to their questions about the ITN. Alpine hopes to complete their response by the end of the week.

Earth Matters asked if ARB still wants the latest COG data since it may not be used in the ITN for SIP modeling. ARB would like the data since ARB is creating its own ITN for uses other than SIP modeling. The alternate ITN would be on a different grid system than CCOS, using a Teale Albers projection. Earth Matters said they would request the

data from the TPAs.

The BAAQMD mentioned that the time profiles in the on-road inventory of the modelready files show a noontime “dip” in emissions on the weekend. Alpine pulled up the data and said that the “dip” is caused by the day-specific data that were developed by

Dr. Niemeier of UC Davis. The data show a 1-2 hour decrease in emissions around noon and then a return to previous levels. Alpine will post the UC Davis information to the ftp site. Alpine will also post information that was generated to QA the ITN that may be helpful to other reviewers.

Other Issues

No other issues were raised.

Plans for Next Meeting

The next conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, June 4.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-67 D.9.7 June 4, 2003

Attendees Affiliation Phil Martien, Amir Fanai Bay Area AQMD Charles Anderson, Matt Jones, Bruce Katayama, Greg Tholen Sacramento Metro AQMD

David Nunes, Stephen Shaw, Michelle Stanley,

Jim Sweet San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD

Harold Brazil MTC

Leonard Seitz Caltrans

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Cyndi Loomis, Jim Wilkinson Alpine Geophysics Paul Allen, Vernon Hughes, Tess Sicat, Cheryl Taylor, Bruce Tuter, Ed Yotter ARB

Welcome and Feedback on May 21 Minutes

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. Introductions were made. The May 21 and revised May 7 minutes were approved as written.

Data on Ftp Site

Very little new information was posted to Alpine Geophysics ftp site since the last call. [To access the site, ftp to agftp.com (host name). The user ID is agftp and the password is pass4ftp.] When reviewing the various files on the ftp site, check the Version Control Log to determine the version you wish to review. The Version_Control_Log (found under CCAQS_Emissions/July 2000/Modeling_Files)

describes the reason for each revision and the revision number.

Alpine will be posting revised area and point source modeling files. A small amount of emissions were being left out because some SIC/SCC combinations were missing a speciation profile assignment. Alpine and ARB should have the problem corrected

soon.

In previous meetings, SMAQMD expressed concern that the day-specific emissions may not be processed correctly for begin hour codes of “-1”, which indicate that the emissions are in kg/day rather than kg/hour. This may cause the emissions to be underestimated. SMAQMD also expressed concern that emissions reported for multiple hours (rather than a single hour at a time) were being treated for only the first hour. Alpine and ARB investigated the concerns and discovered that SMAQMD was correct. Alpine modified the program to read multiple hours and reformatted the emissions reported with a “-1” to be hourly emissions. The day-specific emissions are now being processed correctly.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-68 Comments on Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) Report

Alpine hopes to complete the draft final ITN report by June13. The group will be notified

when it is available for review.

Alpine provided a response on June 3 to comments submitted by Earth Matters on the ITN report. Earth Matters said that they had a couple of questions (editorial comments) about the response. Earth Matters plans to talk to the San Joaquin Valley APCD (SJVUAPCD) and provide a response to Alpine and ARB the week of June 9. Alpine plans to include the response to Earth Matters’ comments in the ITN report.

The SJVUAPCD staff continued to express concern about the statewide network being used for the four northern counties of the SJV rather than local transportation networks in the ITN. SJVUAPCD staff has raised the concern to their management. [As a reminder, Stanislaus provided information that couldn’t be incorporated and the other three counties did not respond at the time when Alpine gathered the local data for use in the ITN.]

Earth Matters will continue to work with Ed Yotter to provide local networks to the ARB.

At the last meeting, the BAAQMD mentioned that the time profiles in the on-road inventory of the model-ready files show a noontime “dip” in emissions on the weekend. Alpine mentioned that the “dip” is caused by the day-specific data that were developed by UC Davis. The BAAQMD reminded Alpine to post information that was used to QA the ITN, which may be helpful to other reviewers. Alpine will post the information. The BAAQMD also posted animations showing diurnal profiles of Bay Area traffic counts on the ftp site under CCAQS_Emissions\July 2000\Animations.

Other Issues

No other issues were raised.

Plans for Next Meeting

The next conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, June 25.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-69 D.9.8 June 25, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation Charles Anderson, Matt Jones, Bruce Katayama, Greg Tholen, Brigette Tollstrup Sacramento Metro AQMD

David Nunes, Stephen Shaw, Michelle Stanley,

Jim Sweet San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD Bob Nunes Monterey Bay Unified APCD Wayne Luney Caltrans Headquarters Sally Rodeman Caltrans, District 10

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Cyndi Loomis, Jim Wilkinson Alpine Geophysics Chris Emery Environ Vernon Hughes, Tess Sicat, Cheryl Taylor, Ed

Yotter ARB

Welcome and Feedback on June 4 Minutes

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. There were two comments on the June 4 minutes. First, the minutes stated “Earth Matters will continue to work with Ed Yotter to provide local networks to the ARB.” Earth Matters noted that ARB has stated that they are not ready to collect networks at this time. Second, Earth Matters expressed concern about the statement in Section 3: “[As a reminder, Stanislaus provided information that couldn’t be incorporated and the other three counties did not respond at the time when Alpine gathered the local data for use in the ITN.] Earth Matters thought it might be better to say that local data were used for four of the eight counties in the SJV.

Data on Ftp Site

Alpine Geophysics reported that information for the September 2000 episode is available on the ftp site. [To access the site, ftp to agftp.com (host name). The user ID is agftp and the password is pass4ftp.] CEFS output files, summaries, plots, intermediate SAS files, and modeling files are available for review.

The temperature and relative humidity fields used to calculate the on-road motor vehicle and biogenic emissions have been posted to the ftp site.

Revised CEFS files (base year and future years) have been provided by ARB for the July/August 2000 episode. Alpine is processing these emissions to create modeling files for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2010. Alpine will post these files to the ftp site this week and will generate several reports, including emission summaries by county and EIC as well as summaries of speciated emissions for each episode day.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-70 ARB is developing the gridded on-road motor vehicle files for the future years needed for the July/August 2000 episode. ARB plans to provide these files next week to Alpine, who will speciate the emissions.

In previous meetings, SMAQMD expressed concern that some of the day-specific emissions were not being processed correctly. The problems have now been corrected. The day-specific data are being incorporated correctly as the inventories are being reprocessed with the latest emission data.

The June 4 minutes reported a small underreporting of emissions due to missing speciation profile assignments. This problem has now been corrected. Additionally, ARB has provided Alpine with speciation profiles for all the future years.

SJVUAPCD asked whether the modeling emission files reflect Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) or Pacific Standard Time (PST). ARB responded that emissions are usually handled in PDT because the temporal profiles of business activities follow local time (e.g. a business starts operating at 8 am, regardless of which time base it is). Air quality modelers need to be aware that they may need to convert emission data from PDT to

PST.

Comments on Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) Report

Alpine Geophysics is working on the draft final ITN report. The group will be notified

when it is available for review.

Previously, Alpine provided a response to comments submitted by Earth Matters on the ITN report. Earth Matters provided verbal comments to ARB. ARB will work with Alpine to incorporate the comments. Alpine plans to include the response to Earth Matters’ comments in the ITN report.

SJVUAPCD continued to express concern about the statewide network being used for the four northern counties of the SJV rather than local transportation networks in the

ITN. SJVUAPCD would like to see all the local SJV networks included in the ITN in time for modeling work to develop future year control strategies for the 1-hour ozone SIP. SJVUAPCD is considering options to provide an updated ITN for all or part of the SJV, perhaps by the middle of July. SJVUAPCD will discuss a course of action for improving the ITN with ARB when a decision has been made, hopefully by the end of the week. The entire group agreed that it is important to keep moving forward to update the ITN.

ARB noted that there is insufficient time to update the ITN and recreate the motor vehicle inventories in time for base year model performance, as it will be completed shortly. ARB reminded the group that the ITN is only used as a sophisticated spatial surrogate; emission estimates for each county come from EMFAC. ARB suggested that

the difference between the local networks and the statewide network could beEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-71 assessed. This could be done in GIS by overlaying the 4 kilometer modeling grid over a local network and summing the VMT by grid cell. The result could be compared to the sum of the VMT by grid cell from overlaying the modeling grid over the statewide network. Comparing the VMT by grid cell would quantify the difference between the local and statewide networks to see if the spatial distribution would be changed significantly.

Alpine Geophysics will be providing training on how the ITN was developed to ARB and other interested parties in Sacramento on July 1, 2, and 3. SJVUAPCD and Earth Matters requested information on the training.

There was some discussion about how each period (for example, am and pm peaks) was distributed on the ITN. Alpine agreed to post a table on their ftp site that lists each county and the hours that each period represents. This table was developed based on data that were provided to Alpine by the local transportation agencies.

As requested at the June 4 meeting, Alpine posted on their ftp site a comparison of weekday and weekend VMT for each county between the UC Davis data, the ITN data,and the DTIM data. The BAAQMD had previously noted that the time profiles in the onroad inventory showed a noontime “dip” in emissions on the weekend, which reflected the day-specific data that were developed by UC Davis.

Other Issues

No other issues were raised.

Plans for Next Meeting

The next conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, July 9.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-72 D.9.9 July 30, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation Phil Martien, Toch Mangat Bay Area AQMD Charles Anderson, Bruce Katayama, Greg

Tholen Sacramento Metro AQMD

David Nunes, Stephen Shaw, Michelle Stanley,

Jim Sweet San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD Leonard Seitz Caltrans Headquarters

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Cyndi Loomis Alpine Geophysics Vernon Hughes, Tess Sicat, Cheryl Taylor, Bruce

Tuter ARB

Welcome and Highlights of July 9 Meeting

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. ARB summarized the items discussed at the July 9 meeting. The following paragraph will serve as the minutes of the July 9 meeting.

July 9 Meeting Highlights

Participants represented the Bay Area, Sacramento and San Joaquin districts, Alpine Geophysics, and ARB. Alpine stated that they are producing future year modeling inventories for the CCOS base case modeling for the July/August 2000 and September 2000 episodes. Alpine staff are also producing base year and future year modeling inventories for the July 1999 episode for the Bay Area AQMD and the August 2002 episode for the Sac Metro AQMD. Alpine is progressing on the final ITN report. The Bay Area mentioned that they had reviewed the data regarding the period definition spreadsheet that Alpine had posted on their ftp site (see the June 15 minutes).

Update on Status of Gridded Inventory

Alpine Geophysics reported on the status of the gridded inventories. ARB provided revised point and area source CEFS files for all episodes to Alpine on July 10. Alpine has reprocessed the CEFS files to create revised modeling files for point and area sources. The files are for the base year and future years for the July/August 2000, September 2000, and August 2002 episodes. The file names will contain “V071003_R001”. The revised future year files were inadvertently placed under the CCAQS_Emissions/July_2000/Modeling_Files directory, rather than the CCAQS_Emissions/July_Aug_FY/Modeling_Files directory. Alpine will generate summary reports when time is available.

Regarding the status of on-road motor vehicle emissions, the modeling files for 2005 and 2006 for the July/August episode will be ready on August 4. ARB will be providingEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-73 files for 2010 to Alpine for processing in the next two to three weeks. ARB will also be providing files for all future years for the September 2000 episode to Alpine for processing in the next two to three weeks. Modeling files for the base year September 2000 episode are posted on the ftp site.

The point, area, and biogenic files for the July 1999 episode (base year) will be completed and posted the week of August 4. The motor vehicle files will be ready the following week.

The version control log has been updated to reflect the available files (found under CCAQS_Emissions/July_2000/Modeling_Files). The version control log also describes

the various versions of the CBIV and SAPRC chemical mechanisms. Please check the version control log for a description of each modeling file.

Update on Wildfire Emissions

ARB reported that at the last CCOS Technical Committee (TC) meeting, Gail Tonnesen of UCR mentioned that the day-specific wildfire emissions (in particular, the Manter fire in southeast Tulare County) had a large effect on model performance. The TC asked how the emissions were being treated in the model and if anyone had information on alternative methods that could be used, particularly in distributing the emissions vertically. UC Berkeley’s Center for the Assessment and Monitoring of Forest and Environmental Resources (CAMFER) laboratory calculated the emissions in consultation with ARB’s Emission Inventory Branch. [More information on CAMFER can be found at: http://camfer.cnr.berkeley.edu/fire/]. Vertical stratification of emissions was done using a method developed for the Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). ARB will distribute these methodologies to the group and post them on Alpine’s ftp site. The group was asked to provide any additional information they may have.

Other Issues

ARB will contact Alpine Geophysics to estimate a date for the availability of the final ITN report; ARB will notify the group.

Caltrans staff asked about the purpose of the ITN training that Alpine gave in early July.ARB explained that the contract with Alpine specified that Alpine would provide handson training to ARB. The purpose was to allow ARB to understand firsthand the method used to develop the ITN and to do a technology capture for future use by ARB.

Caltrans staff asked about any efforts to coordinate/organize future updates to a new ITN, such as incorporating a revised state travel model or more local COG data. No formal coordination has been established; however staff at ARB and Caltrans seemed willing to keep the lines of communication open.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-74 Bay Area staff mentioned that they had reviewed the hourly profiles developed by UC Davis and noticed that cars and trucks were lumped together. ARB reported that UCD did not have sufficient data to warrant the development of distinct hourly profiles that were statistically significant.

San Joaquin Valley staff asked if day-specific train data were included in the CCOS modeling. SJV staff recalled that train traffic was closed west of the mountains between the ocean and valleys during the July/August 2000 episode that may have increased the number of trains operating in the valley. ARB and SJV will investigate sources of

information.

San Joaquin Valley staff requested that ARB provide the day-specific data that were used in CCOS modeling, for documentation purposes. ARB will send the data.

Plans for Next Meeting

The next conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, August 13.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-75 D.9.10 August 13, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation Phil Martien Bay Area AQMD Charles Anderson, Matt Jones, Bruce Katayama, Greg Tholen Sacramento Metro AQMD

David Nunes, Stephen Shaw, Michelle Stanley,

James Sweet San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD

Harold Brazil MTC Leonard Seitz Caltrans Headquarters

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Cyndi Loomis, Jim Wilkinson Alpine Geophysics Chris Emery Environ Vernon Hughes, Tess Sicat, Cheryl Taylor, Ed

Yotter ARB

Welcome and Feedback on July 30 Meeting

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. ARB summarized the items discussed at the July 9 meeting. The July 30 minutes were approved as written, with one clarification. The version control log (described in Section 2) applies specifically to the July/August 2000 episode, although the naming convention of the files is consistent between episodes.

Update on Status of Gridded Inventory

Alpine Geophysics reported on the status of the gridded inventories:

July/August 2000 episode – Point and area source modeling files are completed for thebase year and future years (2005, 2006, and 2010). Biogenics files are completed. Onroad motor vehicle files are completed except 2010, which should be ready next week.

September 2000 episode – Point and area source modeling files are completed for thebase year and future years (2005, 2006, and 2010). Biogenics files are completed. Onroad motor vehicle files are available for the base year. Alpine said that the future year files for on-road motor vehicles are completed; they will double-check since they are not posted on the ftp site.

July 1999 episode – Point, area, and biogenic modeling files are completed for the base year. On-road motor vehicle files for the base year are currently being processed.

August 2002 episode – Point and area source modeling files are completed for the base year and future years (2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2018). Biogenics files areEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-76 completed. On-road motor vehicle files for the base year will be completed in the next week, and subsequently followed by each future year every 2 or 3 days.

Discussion of Wildfire Emissions

As mentioned on the July 30 call, ARB reported that Gail Tonnesen of UCR mentioned at the last CCOS Technical Committee (TC) meeting that the day-specific wildfire emissions (in particular, the Manter fire in southeast Tulare County) had a large effect on model performance. In particular, Gail expressed concern that the emissions from the Manter fire were not distributed nearly high enough (i.e. there were not enough emissions aloft). The TC asked how the emissions were being treated in the model and if anyone had information on alternative methods that could be used, particularly in distributing the emissions vertically. UC Berkeley’s CAMFER laboratory calculated the emissions in consultation with ARB’s Emission Inventory Branch. Vertical stratification of emissions was done using a method developed for the Fire Emissions Joint Forum of the WRAP. Alpine Geophysics provided a document that described the development of stack parameters and vertical distributions for modeling large wildfires in the CCOS domain. ARB distributed these methodologies to the group and posted them on Alpine’s ftp site.

The group discussed the methodology for distributing emissions vertically, based on the information mentioned above. The vertical distribution of emissions is determined by the size of the fire. Members of the group expressed concern that the method that Alpine used limited the size of the fire to the number of acres in a 4 kilometer grid cell, and therefore limited the vertical distribution. Alpine agreed to revisit the methodology using the entire size of the fire for the day.

The group also discussed wildfire emissions in future year inventories, which are not normally included. ARB will put together some initial thoughts on a protocol to handle wildfire emissions in future year modeling.

Biogenic Emissions

Alpine Geophysics received biogenic emissions from ARB for the January 2000 episode. Alpine requested the precise date, start times, and time coordinates for that episode. ARB will provide that information.

Bay Area staff asked about the VOC emissions on August 1 of the July/August 2000 episode since they appeared different than the other days of the episode. They stated that the emissions are fairly high at night and there was a dip in the emissions about 1 p.m. across the entire domain. Bay Area staff agreed to post animations of the biogenic emissions for August 1. Alpine mentioned that the temperature fields used to calculate the emissions are posted on the ftp site. Staff from the Bay Area, Alpine Geophysics, and ARB agreed to look at the temperature fields and the biogenic emissions. TheEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-77 group was reminded that isoprene and methylbutenol (MBO) emissions are sensitive to light and temperature, whereas monoterpene emissions are only sensitive to temperature.

ARB mentioned that SJV staff has expressed concern about the latest biogenic emissions since they are very different than the biogenic estimates made during

SARMAP. ARB will discuss the concern further with SJV staff.

Other Issues

After receiving the day-specific data requested from ARB, San Joaquin Valley staff commented that they had not provided day-specific data for CRPAQS. SJV staff will investigate what information they can provide.

Bay Area staff requested conversion programs between latitude/longitude, UTM coordinates, and Lambert Conformal coordinates. Alpine Geophysics and Environ agreed to work with the Bay Area to provide conversion programs.

Plans for Next Meeting

The next conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, September 3.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-78 D.9.11 September 3, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation Phil Martien, Toch Mangat, Amir Fanai Bay Area AQMD Charles Anderson, Matt Jones, Bruce Katayama, Greg Tholen Sacramento Metro AQMD

David Nunes, Stephen Shaw San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD Leonard Seitz Caltrans Headquarters

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Cyndi Loomis, Jim Wilkinson Alpine Geophysics Vernon Hughes, Tess Sicat, Cheryl Taylor, Bruce Tuter, Ed Yotter ARB

Welcome and Feedback on August 13 Meeting

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. The August 13 minutes were approved as written.

Update on Status of Gridded Inventory

ARB shared with the group a tracking sheet that shows the status of CCOS and CRPAQS modeling inventories. The group suggested changes and updates. ARB will send out this sheet along with the agenda for future conference calls.

Alpine Geophysics reported on the status of the gridded inventories:

July 1999 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year. Biogenics modeling files for the base year are also used as is for all future years (this applies to all episodes). Point and area modeling files for future years should be available next week. On-road motor vehicle files are available for 2005 and 2007. The group discussed which future years were needed for modeling; there was agreement on 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2010.

July/August 2000 episode – Point and area source modeling files are completed for thebase year and future years (2005, 2006, and 2010). Biogenics files are completed. Onroad motor vehicle files are available for all years.

September 2000 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year and future years (2005, 2006, and 2010).

August 2002 episode – Point and area source modeling files are completed for the base year and future years (2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2018). Biogenics files are completed. On-road motor vehicle files for 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2008 are completed; the remaining future years are planned for completion next week.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-79 Discussion on Wildfire Emissions

After discussion at the previous meeting, Alpine Geophysics revised the methodology for calculating the vertical distribution of fire emissions based on the entire size of the fire for the day rather than limiting the size of the fire to the number of acres in a 4 kilometer grid cell. The revised files are available on Alpine’s ftp site.

Various members of the group have gathered information on wildfires. Staff from the San Joaquin Valley and Bay Area agreed to send ARB information, who will distribute it to the group. Alpine recently presented information on wildfires that occurred during the July 1999 and July/August 2000 episodes; ARB will also distribute this to the group.

The group also discussed wildfire emissions in future year inventories. ARB will present information gathered about wildfire emissions at a future conference call of either this group or an all-district modeling call. ARB will also put together some initial thoughts on a protocol to handle wildfire emissions in future year modeling.

Biogenic Emissions

Bay Area staff asked about the VOC emissions on August 1 of the July/August 2000 episode since they appeared different than the other days of the episode. In particular, the emissions are fairly high at night and there was a dip in the emissions about 1 p.m. across the entire domain. Alpine Geophysics and ARB agreed to look at the biogenic emissions and the temperature fields used to develop the emissions.

ARB has two documents related to biogenic emissions that they will distribute to the group. The first is a one-page overview of biogenic VOC emissions using the BEIGIS model. The second is a detailed description of the development of a biogenic hydrocarbon emission inventory for CCOS.

Alpine estimated biogenic NO emissions. These emissions were added to the emissions estimated by ARB using BEIGIS for the July 1999, August 2002, and July/August 2000 episodes. Biogenic NO has not been added to the September 2000 episode. ARB will add a column for biogenic NO to the tracking sheet for SIP modeling

inventories.

Alpine used a soil NO algorithm found in BEIS-3 to estimate biogenic NO for modeling purposes. This estimate is about double a previous estimate from UC Berkeley, which is within the uncertainty of the estimation technique. ARB is looking into potential data sources or methods that could be used to validate the emission estimates, such as using California-specific data.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-80 Other Issues

Alpine Geophysics mentioned that they hoped to resume work on the final Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) report soon; a final product is possible in the next two

weeks.

Earth Matters asked if updates to VMT on local transportation networks would be used since the final modeling inventories will soon be completed. ARB replied that updates to the VMT could result in changes to EMFAC. For the development of on-road motor vehicle modeling inventories, the ITN is used as a surrogate to spatially distribute

EMFAC emissions. Revised emission estimates from EMFAC could be used in developing attainment targets over the next few months. Earth Matters will be sending a letter to ARB providing updates to VMT for the SJV COGs.

Staff from the Bay Area informed the group that Dr. Rob Harley (UCB) recently completed a draft report that applies a fuel-based emissions inventory method to estimate CO, NOx, and NMOC on-road motor vehicle emissions in the Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and the Bay Area. In the report, the fuel-based method is compared to EMFAC totals for the same areas. ARB will distribute the report to the

group.

It was noted that the emissions summaries produced by Alpine Geophysics have not been updated to reflect revisions to the modeling inventories, especially for the July/August 2000 episode. Alpine will rerun emission summaries, as time becomes

available.

Plans for Next Meeting

The next conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, September 17.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-81 D.9.12 September 17, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation Phil Martien, Toch Mangat, Amir Fanai Bay Area AQMD Bob Nunes Monterey Bay Unified APCD Charles Anderson, Bruce Katayama, Greg Tholen, Brigette Tollstrup Sacramento Metro AQMD

Donald Hunsaker, Stephen Shaw, Evan Shipp, Michelle Stanley San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD Leonard Seitz Caltrans Headquarters

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Cyndi Loomis, Jim Wilkinson Alpine Geophysics Vernon Hughes, Ravi Ramilingam, Klaus Scott, Tess Sicat, Cheryl Taylor, Bruce Tuter, Ed Yotter ARB

Welcome and Feedback on September 3 Meeting

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. Additional clarification was added to the second paragraph under “Other Issues” of the September 3 minutes. Earth Matters clarified that the updates to VMT were in response to an 8/15/03 letter from ARB requesting review. A letter had been sent to ARB providing comments on the VMT for the SJV COGs indicating that four VMT totals needed adjustment.

Update on Status of Gridded Inventory The group reviewed the latest tracking sheet prepared by ARB that shows the status of the CCOS modeling inventories. Alpine Geophysics mentioned that they have removed all but the most current versions of the modeling files on the ftp site; all the previous files will be sent to ARB on tape and are available if anyone needs them. No other files were

removed.

Alpine reported on the status of the gridded inventories:

July 1999 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year. Biogenics modeling files for the base year are also used for all future years (this applies to all episodes). Point and area modeling files are available. On-road motor vehicle files are available for the base year, 2005 and 2007. On-road motor vehicle modeling files for 2006 and 2010 will be available in the next couple of days.

July/August 2000 episode – Point source modeling files are completed for the base year (2000) and future years (2005, 2006, and 2010). The base year (2000) area source modeling files have been updated to include day-specific shipping emissions provided by the BAAQMD; the revised files will be posted soon. Area source modeling files for future years remain unchanged since mid-August. Biogenic modeling files have beenEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-82 revised to correct the error found in the isoprene emissions (see below, section 4. Biogenic Emissions). On-road motor vehicle files are available for all years. Revised summary reports for point and area sources (by county and EIC) that reflect the latest inventories will be posted shortly.

September 2000 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year (2000) and future years (2005, 2006, and 2010). Biogenic NO emissions have not been included in the biogenic modeling files for this episode.

August 2002 episode – Point, area, biogenic and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year (2002) and future years (2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2018).

July 1990 episode – Sacramento Metro AQMD mentioned that some modeling files are available for this episode. They requested that the tracking sheet be updated to reflect this information and report the vintage of the data.

Discussion on Wildfire Emissions

The group discussed the treatment of wildfire emissions in future year inventories. Options discussed by the group included:

Leave the wildfires out of future year modeling (done in past modeling work) Include the base year wildfires in the future year modeling (same as the base year) Include an average value of emissions based on some number of past years (e.g. 20 years, 40 years); possibly use map fire return intervals to determine the most likely place for fires to occur Use a similar method for wildfires to what is being considered by the WRAP for the treatment of prescribed fires (Environ is reportedly looking into this) Swap out day-specific wildfire emissions for different episodes to determine the effect of fires (e.g. swap fires in August 2000 with fires in August 2002) Treat in initial conditions/boundary conditions

Participants on the call were encouraged to send to ARB their conceptual solutions or approaches on how to handle wildfire emissions in future year modeling. ARB will summarize the information gathered and provide it to the group for discussion at a

future conference call.

Biogenic Emissions

Bay Area staff had previously asked about the VOC emissions on August 1 of the July/August 2000 episode since the hourly distribution appeared different than the other days of the episode. In particular, the emissions are fairly high at night and there was aEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-83 dip in the emissions about 1 p.m. across the entire domain. Upon review by Alpine Geophysics and ARB, it was discovered that an error had occurred in the processing of the isoprene emissions for August 1. The problem only affected isoprene and only that day was affected. Alpine has corrected the problem and posted revised modeling files on the ftp site. ARB has rerun the air quality model with the revised file and noticed about a 1 ppb difference on August 1.

As mentioned previously, Alpine Geophysics has estimated biogenic NO emissions. These emissions were added to the biogenic emissions estimated by ARB using BEIGIS for the July 1999, August 2002, and July/August 2000 episodes. Biogenic NO emissions have not been added to the September 2000 episode. The tracking sheet for SIP modeling inventories has been updated to reflect whether biogenic NO has been added or not to the modeling inventories.

Alpine used a soil NO algorithm found in BEIS-3 to estimate biogenic NO for modeling purposes. This estimate is about double a previous estimate from UC Berkeley, which is still within the uncertainty of the estimation technique. ARB is looking into potential

data sources or methods that could be used to validate the emission estimates such as using California-specific data. This latest biogenic NO estimate is about 2-3% of the total NOx emissions in the domain. ARB is also modeling with and without biogenic NO to determine its impact on ozone concentrations. Once the sensitivity to biogenic NO emissions has been determined, ARB will consider whether to modify the new biogenic NO estimates or leave them as estimated by Alpine Geophysics.

Other Issues

Alpine Geophysics mentioned that the final Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) report has not been completed.

Previously, ARB distributed a draft report by Dr. Rob Harley (UCB) that applies a fuelbased emissions inventory method to estimate CO, NOx, and NMOC on-road motor vehicle emissions in the Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and the Bay Area. The fuel-based method is compared to EMFAC totals for the same areas. ARB will compile any comments that members of the group would like to provide.

Dr. Harley’s report suggests that NOx emissions from diesel engines could be underestimated in the San Joaquin Valley. Staff from the SJVUAPCD added that emissions from seasonal heavy-duty diesel trucks might not be fully captured in the current on-road motor vehicle inventory. Many of these trucks only operate two months of the year and only travel on local or collector roads. However, little information is

available on which to base emission estimates.

ARB staff mentioned that they are looking at a recent heavy-duty truck survey completed by Caltrans. ARB staff is comparing VMT estimates from EMFAC with thoseEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-84 from the survey. Preliminary findings are that the statewide VMT in EMFAC are in fairly good agreement with the survey, but that the distribution of VMT by region is different. ARB staff is continuing to investigate. The representative from Earth Matters mentioned that the SJV COGs are working on a truck model that will include commodity flow. The COGs hope to have a working version of the model in the next few months; the status of the model will be given at the next conference call. The topic of heavy-duty truck emissions will be added to the agenda.

BAAQMD staff has been comparing temperature fields used in the models with surface temperature observations for the July/August 2000 episode. BAAQMD staff observed that the temperatures developed through objective analysis by ARB look low compared to observations at some locations in the Bay Area (i.e. there seem to be “cold holes” upwind of Livermore). BAAQMD staff agreed to send the information to ARB for review.

Plans for Next Meeting

The next conference call is scheduled for Tuesday, September 30.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-85 D.9.13 September 30, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation Charles Anderson, Bruce Katayama, Brigette Tollstrup Sacramento Metro AQMD

David Nunes, Stephen Shaw, Michelle Stanley San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD

Frank Law Caltrans Sally Rodeman Caltrans District 10

Jason Paukovits Fresno COG

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Cyndi Loomis, Jim Wilkinson Alpine Geophysics Chris Emery Environ Mark Carlock, Vernon Hughes, Klaus Scott, Tess Sicat, Cheryl Taylor, Ed Yotter ARB

Welcome and Feedback on September 17 Meeting

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. Introductions were made. The September 17 minutes were approved as written.

Status of Wildfire and Biogenic Emissions

ARB gave a status report on wildfire and biogenic emissions. On previous calls, the group discussed the treatment of wildfire emissions in future year inventories. Several options have been discussed. Participants were encouraged to send to ARB their conceptual solutions or approaches to ARB. ARB has received two comments to date; comments are still requested. ARB will summarize the information gathered and provide it to the group for discussion at a future conference call.

As mentioned previously, the biogenic modeling file for August 1, 2000 has been corrected and posted on Alpine’s ftp site. An error occurred during processing of the isoprene emissions that caused the hourly isoprene emissions to be distributed incorrectly over that day. ARB has rerun the air quality model with the revised file and noticed about a 1 ppb change in ozone concentration on August 1.

As mentioned previously, Alpine Geophysics has estimated biogenic NO emissions. These emissions were added to the biogenic emissions estimated by ARB using BEIGIS for the July 1999, August 2002, and July/August 2000 episodes; they were not added to the September 2000 episode.

The biogenic NO emissions estimated by Alpine were about double a previous estimate. ARB modeled with and without biogenic NO to determine its impact on ozone concentrations. ARB reported that they saw negligible impact on ozone concentrations.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-86 ARB will not pursue refinements to the biogenic NO estimates for the SIP modeling for the 1-hour ozone standard. The group agreed to add biogenic NO emissions to the September 2000 episode for consistency with the other episodes.

Discussion of Heavy-duty Truck Emissions

Earth Matters mentioned that an update on the truck model being developed by the San Joaquin Valley COGs was distributed to the group along with a draft report that is available for review. The truck model is jointly managed by Caltrans and the Fresno COG. A final report is scheduled for release in October. A steering committee has been organized to determine how the truck model will be used. Comments on the draft report can be provided to the Fresno COG. ARB asked if the truck model had been compared to EMFAC; Earth Matters will find out if a comparison is planned. ARB also asked to be included for receiving more details on the truck model.

Previously, ARB distributed a draft report conducted under CCOS by Dr. Rob Harley (UCB) that applies a fuel-based emissions inventory method to estimate CO, NOx, and NMOC on-road motor vehicle emissions in the Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and the Bay Area. Earth Matters provided comments, which will be included in ARB’scomments on the report. At this point, the project stands as an independent, CCOSbased study of on-road motor vehicle emissions and will not directly result in changes to

EMFAC.

ARB staff mentioned that they are looking at a recent Caltrans survey of 8200 heavyduty trucks. SJVUAPCD staff asked if the survey captured seasonal trucks since they do not normally travel on freeways. ARB responded that they are probably not captured in the survey because they were conducted at truck stops. ARB pointed out that the heavy-duty emissions from EMFAC are based on DMV registration. As long as they are registered, the emissions from seasonal trucks are included in EMFAC. SJVUAPCD staff said that the seasonal trucks are registered with DMV. Although the emissions are included in EMFAC, the seasonal variation of the emissions is not well represented. The activity of these trucks is spread over the entire year. The on-road motor vehicle emissions used in modeling for the SIPS may be underestimated. ARB staff has been directed by its upper management to investigate the seasonality of on-road motor vehicle emissions. ARB staff is to determine whether there is a problem for the SIPs and, if so, what is its magnitude. If a problem is determined, ARB will make adjustments. ARB staff has been directed to review San Joaquin Valley first; changes to other areas will be considered after SJV. SJVUAPCD staff commented that modeling results are needed by the first of November. Sac Metro staff expressed similar concerns to San Joaquin about the seasonality of emissions; modeling results are needed by January 1 for Sacramento.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-87 Update on Status of Gridded Inventory

Alpine reported on the status of the gridded inventories. The version control log (for the July/August 2000 episode) is being updated. Revised emission summaries and speciated summaries will be posted soon.

July 1999 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year. Biogenics modeling files for the base year are also used for all future years (this applies to all episodes). Point, area, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are available for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2010. Point source files have been revised and posted for the base year and all future years. It was discovered that some large facilities were missing UTM coordinates; the default is for the facility to be placed at the center of the county. These large facilities were assigned coordinates and the files reprocessed. The updated files have version V092703 in the file name.

July/August 2000 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year (2000) and future years (2005, 2006, and 2010). As described for the July 1999 episode above, base year and future year point source files have been revised and posted. The day-specific file for wildfires in the base year is being revised to vertically distribute the emissions of the smaller wildfires. Previously, only the two large fires (Manter and Plaskett) had vertical distributions.

September 2000 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year (2000) and future years (2005, 2006, and 2010). Biogenic NO emissions have not previously been included in the biogenic modeling files for this episode; Alpine Geophysics will add biogenic NO. As described for the July 1999 episode above, base year and future year point source files have been revised and posted. The day-specific file for wildfires in the base year is being revised to vertically distribute the emissions of the smaller wildfires.

August 2002 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year (2002) and future years (2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2018). As described for the July 1999 episode above, base year and future year point source files have been revised and posted. The day-specific file for wildfires in the base year is being revised to vertically distribute the emissions of the smaller wildfires. Previously, only the McNally fire had vertical distribution. August 1990 episode – Sacramento Metro AQMD mentioned that some modeling files are available for this episode. They requested that the tracking sheet be updated to reflect this information and report the vintage of the data.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-88 Status of Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) Report

Alpine Geophysics reported that they are continuing to work on the final ITN report. ARB reported that the CCOS Technical Committee would like to see the report prior to modeling results. ARB asked Alpine to complete the final report in the next two weeks.

Other Issues

On previous calls, BAAQMD staff mentioned that they have been comparing temperature fields used in the models with surface temperature observations for the July/August 2000 episode. BAAQMD staff observed that the temperatures developed through objective analysis by ARB look low compared to observations at some locations in the Bay Area (i.e. there seem to be “cold holes” upwind of Livermore). BAAQMD staff is comparing RAMS, MM5, and ARB’s objective analysis against observations. At the request of the BAAQMD, Alpine Geophysics has created new biogenic emissions (using BEIGIS) and new on-road motor vehicle emissions using RAMS temperatures. Biogenic emissions generally increased about 5% overall in the Bay Area, although there was a small drop in isoprene in the first three days of the episode due to cloudiness. The rest of the domain showed about a 10% increase in isoprene emissions. For the new on-road motor vehicle emissions, there was a general increase in emissions with three exceptions: 1) In the Sacramento area, the overall TOG emissions were about the same. 2) Also in the Sacramento area, the TOG emissions increased in the first three days and decreased in the last three days. 3) In the Bay Area, the NOx emissions stayed about the same overall, but TOG increased about 5%. Alpine agreed to send ARB the RAMS data. BAAQMD staff is generating graphics that

can be shared.

Plans for Next Meeting

The next conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, October 15.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-89 D.9.14 October 15, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation Phil Martien, Amir Fanai Bay Area AQMD Bruce Katayama, Greg Tholen, Brigette Tollstrup Sacramento Metro AQMD
Donald Hunsaker, Tom Jordan, David Nunes, Stephen Shaw, Michelle Stanley San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD Dick Fahey Caltrans District 4 Sally Rodeman Caltrans District 10 Frank Law, Wayne Luney, Leonard Seitz Caltrans Headquarters

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Jim Wilkinson Alpine Geophysics Klaus Scott, Tess Sicat, Cheryl Taylor ARB

Welcome and Feedback on September 30 Meeting

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. Introductions were made. The September 30 minutes were approved as written.

Freezing Inventory for SIP Planning

ARB mentioned that the future year attainment-level inventories for the July/August 2000 episode need to be frozen. The base case model performance and future base

case are frozen. This item will be discussed further at the October 20 all-district modeling call.

Discussion of Heavy-duty Truck Emissions

At previous meetings, the truck model being developed for the San Joaquin Valley COGs was discussed. ARB asked if the truck model had been compared to EMFAC. The representative from Earth Matters said that she believes that a second document exists that discusses emissions; she will send the document to ARB for distribution

when it becomes available.

Previously, ARB staff mentioned that they are looking at a recent Caltrans survey of 8200 heavy-duty trucks. Caltrans staff provided additional information about the survey. ARB staff is investigating the use of the Caltrans survey information to possibly redistribute heavy-duty truck activity. Currently in EMFAC, emissions from heavy-duty trucks are based on DMV registration.

During earlier calls, members of the group have expressed concern that seasonal truck activity is not captured well in EMFAC. Although the emissions from seasonal trucks are included in EMFAC since they are registered with DMV, the seasonal variation of the emissions is not well represented. ARB staff is investigating the seasonality of on-EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-90 road motor vehicle emissions. Sacramento Metro AQMD staff reported at an earlier call that SACOG had studied the seasonal activity of trucks in the Sacramento area. ARB has requested information from SACOG and is waiting for a response. In addition to the seasonal, temporal variation, the spatial variation would also need to be addressed.

Update on Status of Gridded Inventory

ARB reported that few changes have been made since the last call. Following is the status of the inventories for each episode.

July 1999 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year. Biogenics modeling files for the base year are also used for all future years (this applies to all episodes). Point, area, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are available for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2010. An error has been found in the weekend on-road motor vehicle emissions. Revised modeling files will be posted soon. The weekday on-road motor vehicle emissions were unaffected.

July/August 2000 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year (2000) and future base case years (2005, 2006, and 2010).

September 2000 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year (2000) and future base case years (2005, 2006, and 2010). Biogenic NO emissions have not previously been included in the biogenic modeling files for this episode; Alpine Geophysics will add biogenic NO.

August 2002 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year (2002) and future base case years (2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2018). An error has been found in the weekend on-road motor vehicle emissions. Revised modeling files for the weekend only have been posted. The weekday on-road motor vehicle emissions remain unchanged.

August 1990 episode – Sacramento Metro AQMD mentioned that some modeling files are available for this episode. They requested that the tracking sheet be updated to reflect this information and report the vintage of the data.

Status of Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) Report

Alpine Geophysics reported that they plan to post the latest revision to the ITN report by October 17. ARB will send a note to the group when the report is available for review.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-91 Other Issues

BAAQMD staff has been comparing temperature fields used in the models with surface temperature observations for the July/August 2000 episode. BAAQMD staff observed that the temperatures developed through objective analysis by ARB look low compared to observations at some locations. BAAQMD staff has prepared a revised temperature field that will be ready today. BAAQMD staff has directed Alpine to create revised biogenic and on-road motor vehicle emissions estimates to determine the change from previous emission estimates. BAAQMD will notify ARB when the revised temperature field is available on Alpine’s ftp site. ARB will review the information.

BAAQMD staff said that they have been comparing the emissions summary reports from the ftp site with summer planning emission estimates for the Bay Area for the July/August 2000 episode. They expressed concern about the CO and TOG emissions for the individual days compared to the emissions estimated by ARB available on the web. BAAQMD staff agreed to send ARB and Alpine Geophysics the comparison information for investigation.

The group asked that the status of wildfires be added to the agenda for the next call.

Plans for Next Meeting

The next conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, October 29.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-92 D.9.15 October 29, 2003 Minutes

Attendees Affiliation Amir Fanai, Toch Mangat, Phil Martien Bay Area AQMD Charles Anderson, Bruce Katayama, Brigette Tollstrup Sacramento Metro AQMD

Donald Hunsaker, David Nunes, Evan Shipp, Michelle Stanley San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD

Harold Brazil MTC Wayne Luney, Leonard Seitz Caltrans Headquarters

Cari Anderson Earth Matters Cyndi Loomis Alpine Geophysics Vernon Hughes, Doug Ito, Anne Lin, Ravi Ramalingam, Tess Sicat, Cheryl Taylor, Bruce Tuter, Ed Yotter ARB

Welcome and Feedback on October 15 Meeting

ARB welcomed everyone to the call. Introductions were made. San Joaquin staff asked about the accuracy of the write-up related to “Discussion of Heavy-duty Truck Emissions.” After discussion and clarification, the minutes were accepted as written.

Freezing Inventory for SIP Planning

ARB described the overall process for SIP modeling. There are three phases. The first phase is base-case modeling. Meteorology and emissions are developed to simulate as closely as possible the conditions during each day of the episode being modeled. Model performance must meet EPA’s criteria for model performance. ARB has achieved adequate model performance for the July/August 2000 episode. Once adequate base-case model performance is achieved, the model is run using future year emissions that reflect growth in emission categories as well as the effect of adopted control measures. This second phase is base-case future year modeling. Carrying capacity diagrams are developed to aid planners in developing reduction strategies to reach the air quality standard. ARB has completed carrying capacity diagrams for the July/August 2000 CCOS episode and made this information available to the air districts. The third phase is attainment strategy modeling. The model is run using inventories that reflect proposed control measures needed to attain the standard.

ARB is now preparing for attainment modeling (third phase) for the July/August 2000 CCOS episode. At the end of August and early September 2003, ARB sent letters to the districts and COGs requesting any changes to emissions or vehicle activity that would be included in attainment strategy modeling runs. ARB did receive some changes that will be updated. ARB was asked if the first and second phases will be rerun due to changes in the inventory. ARB said no, since adequate modelEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-93 performance has been reached. ARB now considers the inventories for the base-case modeling and base-case future year modeling frozen.

Based upon BAAQMD/ENVIRON modeling, BAAQMD staff have expressed some concerns about the base year and future year inventories at previous meetings of this group and at Bay Area Modeling Advisory Committee meetings. BAAQMD staff wants to resolve their inventory concerns before they move on to attainment strategy runs. However, BAAQMD staff acknowledged that time is short for SJVUAPCD staff to meet

SIP deadlines.

ARB asked each district when they would need the results of draft and final attainment modeling runs. Sacramento Metro staff said that they would need draft runs in late January 2004. They will be holding a workshop to discuss proposed control strategies in March and would need final attainment modeling runs completed in May. San Joaquin Valley staff said that they plan to have a workshop in mid-December and would like to have the results of draft attainment runs to share at the workshop. Bay Area staff replied that the schedule for the Bay Area is uncertain; they will get back to ARB.

ARB is developing a spreadsheet for receiving control strategy information from the districts. ARB asked who from each district would be the best contact for requesting this information. Brigette Tollstrup will be the contact for Sacramento, Stephen Shaw will be the contract for San Joaquin, and Jean Roggenkamp will be the contact for Bay

Area.

Mobile Source Issues

ARB presented information to the group related to EMFAC and conformity. EMFAC is the official EPA-approved mobile source emission factor model in California. EMFAC is used to estimate on-road mobile source emissions for use in SIP development and transportation conformity determinations. ARB finished a comprehensive update of EMFAC last year (EMFAC2002). While EMFAC will be updated in the future, ARB does not have a schedule for an update at this time. Travel activity data from travel model output provided by local transportation planning agencies were included as part of the EMFAC update, and continue for conformity purposes per federal conformity regulation requirements. As a result of the EMFAC model update, many SIPs in California also had to be updated. Any additional model changes to EMFAC would require model approval by EPA for use in the SIPs and conformity, and could effectively require SIP updates.

As discussed at previous meetings, ARB is studying a Caltrans survey of heavy-duty trucks, and will work closely with the districts and COGs prior to an EMFAC model update that would incorporate any changes. The Caltrans survey indicates a different geographic distribution of heavy-duty truck travel than what is currently in EMFAC2002.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-94 Members of the group continue to express concern that seasonal truck activity is not captured well in EMFAC, causing summertime emissions to be underestimated. ARB staff is investigating the seasonality of on-road motor vehicle emissions, but work is not yet completed. Updated activity normally comes from local travel demand models. ARB staffs believe that the incorporation of seasonal trends would constitute an EMFAC model change. It was suggested that districts who are concerned about this issue should elevate their concerns to their planning managers to initiate policy discussions with ARB’s management.

Status of Wildfires

Since the occurrence and extent of wildfires is unpredictable, ARB will exclude wildfire emissions from future year modeling runs. Wildfires have been excluded from the future year base-case runs used to develop carrying capacities. This group has discussed various options on how to treat wildfires in future year modeling runs (both base-case and attainment). Although ARB staff believes that wildfires are likely to occur in future years, no one knows when or where they will occur. The Smoke Management Plan is intended to reduce the likelihood of wildfires by allowing prescribed burning.

San Joaquin Valley staff expressed the opinion that this subject needs more discussion and that this issue is still not decided. They would like to consider putting some average wildfire emissions in the future years. They also asked if sensitivity runs could be made with and without fires. ARB staff suggested that districts’ staffs who are concerned about this issue should raise the issue for discussion with upper management at their districts and ARB.

Temperature Fields for July/August 2000 Episode

As mentioned previously, BAAQMD staff observed that the temperatures developed through objective analysis by ARB looked low compared to observations at some locations for the July/August 2000 episode. As a result, BAAQMD staff prepared an alternative temperature field and directed Alpine Geophysics to create revised biogenic and on-road motor vehicle emissions estimates. BAAQMD staff reported that there are differences in the biogenic and on-road motor vehicle modeling inventories, but the impact was not as great as they expected to find. BAAQMD’s temperature field is now available on Alpine’s ftp site. ARB will review the information. If the ARB agreed to use the BAAQMD’s temperature field, it would used for attainment runs. Base-case modeling will not be revisited. ARB will give a status report to the group at the next call on the results of its review of the BAAQMD’s temperature field and its possible use in

attainment runs.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-95 Update on Status of Gridded Inventory

ARB reported that one change had been made since the last call. Following is the status of the inventories for each episode.

July 1999 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year. Biogenics modeling files for the base year are also used for all future years (this applies to all episodes). Point, area, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are available for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2010. Previously, an error was found in the weekend on-road motor vehicle emissions. Revised modeling files have been posted. The weekday on-road motor vehicle emissions were unaffected.

July/August 2000 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year (2000) and future base-case years (2005, 2006, and 2010).

September 2000 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year (2000) and future base-case years (2005, 2006, and 2010). Biogenic NO emissions have not previously been included in the biogenic modeling files for this episode; Alpine Geophysics will add biogenic NO.

August 2002 episode – Point, area, biogenic, and on-road motor vehicle modeling files are completed for the base year (2002) and future base-case years (2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2018).

August 1990 episode – Sacramento Metro AQMD mentioned that some modeling files are available for this episode. They requested that the tracking sheet be updated to reflect this information and report the vintage of the data.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-96 Status of Integrated Transportation Network (ITN) Report

Alpine Geophysics reported that they plan to post the latest revision to the ITN report by November 7. ARB will send a note to the group when the report is available for review.

Other Issues

During the last call, BAAQMD staff said that they had been comparing the emissions summary reports from the ftp site with summer planning emission estimates for the Bay Area for the July/August 2000 episode. They expressed concern about the CO and TOG emissions for the individual days compared to the emissions estimated by ARB and available on the web. BAAQMD staff sent ARB and Alpine Geophysics the comparison information for investigation. ARB staff responded that they had looked at the emissions comparisons. ARB staff would send the BAAQMD staff the information they had gathered along with an explanation that is hoped to alleviate the BAAQMD’s

concerns.

BAAQMD staff expressed concern about the volumes of heavy-duty trucks on weekdays versus weekend days. ARB said (this statement was later discovered to be incorrect; please see Important Note below) that the only differences between weekday and weekend emissions are due to day-specific temperatures and relative humidity along with the spatial and temporal variations developed by Dr. Deb Niemeier. Otherwise the emissions from EMFAC are the same for weekdays and weekends. The BAAQMD has received information from MTC showing reduced volumes of trucks on the weekends. Several members of the group expressed concern about the volumes of cars and trucks not being adjusted on weekend days. [IMPORTANT NOTE: Since this meeting, ARB staff discovered that they were incorrect about the statements made in the previous paragraph concerning weekday and weekend on-road motor vehicle estimates used in modeling. The following paragraph describes how the motor vehicle emissions from EMFAC are adjusted for a weekend day in the modeling inventories. ARB staff paraphrased this information from a note by Jim Wilkinson, Alpine Geophysics, who developed the ITN and developed the on-road motor vehicle modeling files for many of the episodes.

The on-road motor vehicle emissions are calculated using EMFAC, based on the VMT in EMFAC. However, the weekend VMT to weekday VMT ratio from the ITN is used to scale the EMFAC emissions to a "weekend" estimate. The ITN is comprised of the travel networks that were provided to Alpine Geophysics by CCOS domain transportation agencies. Again to reiterate, EMFAC estimates average weekday emissions based on VMT that resides in EMFAC. To be more specific, the weekend day on-road mobile source CO, TOG, and NOx emissions are less than the weekday emissions by roughly 12% (i.e., the weekend days are equal to about 88% of the weekday on-road mobile source emissions). The exception is for heavy-duty diesel vehicle NOx emissions. Heavy-duty diesel NOx emissions are lower by about 46% onEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-97 the weekend days. ARB developed the scaling factors (i.e., 0.88 for TOG, NOx, and CO with the exception for HDDV NOx being 0.54) based on the ratio of weekend VMT to weekday VMT. ]

Plans for Next Meeting

The next conference call is scheduled for Thursday, November 13.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-98 

### D.10 Development of a biogenic hydrocarbon emission inventory for the Central California Ozone Study domain.

D.10.1 Introduction

Author: Klaus I. Scott, California Air Resources Board

The Biogenic Emission Inventory GIS (BEIGIS) is a spatially and temporally resolved biogenic hydrocarbon emissions inventory model developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that uses California land use/land cover, leaf mass, and emission rate databases within a Geographic Information System (GIS). BEIGIS simulates hourly emissions of isoprene, monoterpenes, and 2-methyl-3-buten-2-ol (MBO, methylbutenol) at a 1 km 2 resolution. Development of BEIGIS has been motivated by a need to account for the state’s pronounced plant species diversity and landscape heterogeneity. There are approximately 6000 native plant species in California (25% of the flora of the continental U.S.) distributed over terrain ranging from basins below sea-level to mountain ranges over 3000 m in elevation (Hickman 1993). Plant canopies range from scattered and open canopy structures typical of scrublands and savannas, to more closed canopies typical of coniferous forests. Terrain gradients and proximity to marine influence also give rise to more than a dozen climate zones in the state (CEC 1992). These considerations have prompted the CARB to develop BVOC emission inventory models specific to California.

D.10.2 BEIGIS Inputs

D.10.2.1 Land use/land cover maps

The initial set of inputs to BEIGIS are GIS-based maps of land use and land cover types. A composite land use and land cover GIS map for the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) domain was compiled from several sources in order to provide sufficient spatial resolution and accuracy to reflect the heterogeneity of vegetation species in the study area.

A biodiversity database and mapping effort undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey – Biological Resources Division, called the Gap Analysis Project (GAP), was selected to represent natural areas in the California portion of the CCOS domain (Scott et al. 1993; Davis et al. 1995; Chung and Winer 1999). The California GAP database was generated from summer 1990 Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite images, 1990 high altitude color infrared imagery, vegetation maps based on historical field surveys, and other miscellaneous vegetation maps and ground surveys. California’s GAP coverage is comprised of approximately 21,000 polygons, aggregated into 272 natural community types. The GAP minimum mapping unit is 100 hectares (1 km 2 ). Each GAP polygon is comprised of up to three vegetation assemblages (a primary, secondary, and for some polygons, a tertiary assemblage), with each assemblage occupying a fraction of theEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-99 polygon area. In addition, each assemblage is comprised of up to three co-dominant species, each species contributing ≥ 20% of the assemblage’s relative cover. Species canopy cover within individual polygons was estimated as FC × CW, where the parameter FC is the fractional area (ranging between 0 and 1) of the polygon occupied by an assemblage, and CW is a weighting factor for co-dominant species, such that CW = 0.33, 0.50, or 1.0 for assemblages comprised of 3, 2, or 1 species, respectively. For example, a hypothetical 100 km 2 polygon is comprised of primary and secondary assemblages occupying 65% and 35% of the polygon area, respectively. If the primary assemblage is comprised of two species A and B, the co-species weighting factor for each is 0.5 and the canopy cover for each species is (0.65 × 0.5 × 100 km 2 ). If the secondary assemblage is comprised of species B, C and D, the canopy cover for each species is (0.35 × 0.33 × 100 km 2 ). The total canopy cover for species B within the polygon is then [(0.65 × 0.5) + (0.35 × 0.33)] × 100 km 2 or 44 km 2 . The estimated canopy cover of a given species in a polygon therefore reflects the weighted contributions from all assemblages in that polygon.

Agricultural areas represented by the GAP data set lack crop species information. Therefore, a land use/land cover GIS map showing crop coverages for the CCOS domain was obtained from scientists of the NASA Ames Research Center. The map was compiled from GIS data sets provided by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/). Land use/land cover maps were developed by the DWR from periodic ground surveys throughout the state. Counties are surveyed and updated on a rotating basis approximately every seven years. In the DWR crop GIS data set, polygons correspond to individual cultivated fields for which are listed the field area, crop type and the fraction of the field cultivated. Urban areas represented by the GAP data set contain information about urban land use types such as residential and commercial, but lack information about urban vegetation. Urban vegetation databases for three CCOS urban areas (Fresno, Oakland, and Sacramento) were therefore utilized to develop BVOC emission rates for urban areas throughout the CCOS domain.

D.10.2.2 Emission factors, leaf mass and landscape-scale emission rates

For natural areas, GAP plant species were assigned isoprene and monoterpene emission factors ( μ g g -1 [dry leaf weight] hr -1 ) from Benjamin et al. (1996) and specific leaf weight factors (SLW, g [dry leaf weight] m -2 leaf area) from a database compiled by Nowak and co-workers (2000) (Table 1). Until relatively recently, emission factor data

collected in California have been based on branch enclosure rather than leaf cuvette measurement methods. Leaf cuvette-based isoprene emission factors have been found to be 1.75 to 5 times greater than branch enclosure derived emission factors (Guentheret al. 1994 and 1996a; Harley et al. 1998; Geron et al. 2001), ascribed in part to selfshading by leaves within enclosed branches. Since the majority of published emission factor measurements in California were developed using branch enclosure methods, the BEIGIS model used branch enclosure derived emission factors for isoprene andEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-100 monoterpenes. Branch enclosure derived emission factors for methylbutenol were unavailable, therefore leaf-cuvette derived methylbutenol emission factors from Harley et al. (1998) were used for the MBO emitting conifer species. Within-canopy vertical variation in leaf mass, temperature and solar radiation were not explicitly accounted for in this modeling. Landscape-scale natural area emission rates at reference conditions (30 ° C and 1000 umoles m -2 s -1 photosynthetically active radiation or PAR) for isoprene, monoterpenes and MBO (mg m -2 land hr -1 ) were derived by mapping GAP species fractional canopy cover (FC), co-dominant species weighting factors (CW), specific leaf weight factors (SLW), and emission factors (EF), to 1km 2 grids and multiplying by a remotely-sensed 1 km 2 resolution leaf area index (LAI, m 2 leaf m -2 land) GIS layer from Nikolov (1999).

Landscape-scale crop emission rates at reference conditions were derived by first assigning to the crop GIS layer crop BVOC emission factors and crop specific leaf weight (SLW) factors. The DWR land use/land cover map represents 75 agricultural classes or crop types (Table 1). A database was developed listing BVOC emission factors for isoprene and monoterpenes ( μ g g − 1 [dry leaf mass] hr

− 1 ) at standard conditions of temperature and light (30 ° C and 1000 μ mol PAR m

− 2 s − 1 , where PAR is

solar irradiance in the 400-700 η m range) and specific leaf weight factors (SLW, g [dry leaf mass] m

− 2 leaf area) for each crop type (Table 2). Very few crops are isoprene emitters, while some emit monoterpenes. MBO emissions have been observed in a few conifer species. BVOC emission and SLW factors were assigned to crops based upon values reported in the scientific literature. BVOC emission factors were assigned based upon values reported for measured species, or based upon taxonomic relationship to measured species (Benjamin et al. 1996). SLWs were assigned based upon values for measured species, related species, or class. A crop calendar was also consulted to determine which crop types are in cultivation during the summer ozone season. Crop SLW and emission factors were gridded to 1 km 2 resolution and multiplied by the remotely-sensed 1 km 2 resolution leaf area index GIS layer from Nikolov (1999). Urban vegetation survey data for Fresno, Oakland, and Sacramento were utilized to develop landscape-scale isoprene and monoterpene emission rates (mg m -2 land hr -1 ) at reference conditions for urban land uses (Table 3). Urban land use emission rates represent aggregations of plant species for urban land use types in Fresno, Oakland and Sacramento (Sidawi and Horie 1992; Nowak 1991; McPherson 1998) and emission factors as developed by Benjamin et al. (1996).

In addition to isoprene, monoterpenes, and MBO, other organic compounds are emitted by vegetation. Guenther et al. (1994) estimate that the other VOCs (OVOCs) comprise 8% to 73% of total BVOCs. BEIGIS however does not explicitly account for OVOCs at this time, because little data exist from which to construct OVOC emission factors or emission algorithms for California vegetation. An adjustment factor of 30% is applied to the total isoprene, monoterpene and MBO inventory to account for the OVOC fraction, to which is applied a chemical speciation profile from Lamanna et al. (1999) (pers. comm., Paul Allen, CARB, 2001). The OVOC chemical speciation profile is based upon above-canopy ambient air BVOC measurements at Blodgett Experimental Forest, aEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-101 1315 m elevation Ponderosa Pine plantation in the central Sierra Nevada of California. The assumed OVOC profile therefore may have limited applicability to natural areas of the CCOS domain, which, in addition to conifer forests, are comprised of savannas, chaparral and scrublands. Landscape-scale 1 km 2 resolution emission rate layers for natural, urban, and agricultural areas were then aggregated to construct single layers of gridded isoprene, monoterpene, and methylbutenol emission rates at reference conditions for the CCOS

domain.

D.10.2.3 Application of environmental correction algorithms

In the BEIGIS model, the effects of spatial variation in ambient air temperature and light intensity on BVOC emissions are taken into account. Isoprene, monoterpene, and MBO emission rate grid layers were environmentally adjusted using emission algorithms (Guenther et al. 1993; Harley et al. 1998) driven by hourly gridded air temperature and solar radiation fields. The isoprene emission algorithm is given as

where I s is isoprene emission at reference temperature and light conditions and where

C L and C T are correction factors for ambient temperature and light

and where T is ambient temperature (K) and L is ambient sunlight in the PAR range. 2 2 1

1 L L c C L

L α α

+ =



## ( )

( )

T T R T T c T T R T

T c

C

S M T S S T

T

− + −

=

2 1

exp 1 exp

K T K T mol J c mol J c mol K J R c

M

s T T L

314 303 000

, 230 000

, 95 314

. 8 066

. 1 0027

. 0

1

2 1

1 1 1 1

= =

= = =

= =

− − − − αEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-102 The monoterpene emission algorithm is given as



## ( ) ( )

s s T T M M

− ⋅ = β exp

where M s is monoterpene emission at reference temperature and where

K T K

s 303 09

. 0 1

= = − β

Methylbutenol emissions are both temperature and light-dependent,

T L S C C MBO MBO

⋅ ⋅ =

where MBO
s is MBO emission at reference conditions of temperature and light and

where C L and C T are correction factors for ambient temperature and sunlight

2 2 1

1 L L c C L

L α α

+ =

44

. 1 0011

. 0

1 = =

L c α



# ( )

( ) ( ) 

# [ ]

K T R T T mol kJ c mol kJ c E c c c

E C

opt opt T T opt C

T T C

T opt

T T T

3

. 312 / / 1 / 1 209 67 52

. 1 exp 1 exp

1

2 1

1 1 2 2

2 1

= − = =

=

= − − =

− −

χ χ χ

Hourly temperature and solar radiation fields gridded at 4 × 4 km resolution for the CCOS domain are generated using the MM5 model (NCAR 2001). PAR is calculated as

0.42 × SRAD × (4.6 μ mol photons m -2 s -1 [W m -2 ] -1 ), where SRAD is full sun (direct + diffuse) radiation (W m -2 ) in the visible spectrum.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-103 D.10.3 Field data and model comparison

Canopy-level emissions of monoterpenes and methylbutenol were simulated for a 2 km x 2km area surrounding a measurement site at Blodgett Forest Research Station. Located near Georgetown, California, the Blodgett Forest site (38 ° 53’42.9”N,

120 ° 37’57.9”W) is a long-term micrometeorological flux measurement site located on a Ponderosa Pine plantation and operated by the University of California at Berkeley. It is the only site where canopy-level BVOC fluxes have been measured in California (Baker et al. 1999; Dreyfus et al. 2002; Schade and Goldstein, 2001, 2003; Kurpius and Goldstein, 2003; Lamanna and Goldstein 1999; Bauer et al. 2000; Schade et al. 1999; Goldstein et al. 2000; Schade et al. 2000; Goldstein and Schade 2000). MBO emissions were simulated for two cases. In the first case, emissions were simulated using default BEIGIS land cover inputs. In the second case, emissions were simulated using Blodgett Forest site-specific land cover inputs. Meteorological data from the Blodgett site for the period June 2 – September 8, 1999 were used as input for both simulations. Modeled emissions for both cases were compared to measured MBO fluxes for the same period. Monoterpene emissions were simulated using default BEIGIS land cover inputs and compared to measured fluxes of alph-pinene, beta-pinene, and 3-carene for the same period.

The Blodgett site is near the nexus of four 1 km 2 BEIGIS model grid cells labelled A through D), and the boundary of two GAP land cover polygons (GAP id 6658 and 6728) (Figure D.8). In BEIGIS, GAP land cover information are gridded at 1 km 2 resolution, therefore grid cells A and C inherit land cover attributes from GAP polygon 6658, while grid cells B and D inherit attributes from polygon 6728. BEIGIS land cover input data for model grid cells A through D are shown in Tables 4 and 5. While the default gridded BEIGIS model inputs and output are at 1 km 2 resolution, Blodgett land cover and flux measurement data represent an upwind “footprint” of only a few hundred meters. Although measurements and model simulations ostensibly represent different spatial scales, comparisons indicate how variable results can be, based on differences in reasonable estimates of the inputs.

Figure D.9 compares averaged modeled MBO fluxes for BEIGIS model grid cells A through D, with the average measured fluxes at the Blodgett site for the period June 2 – September 8, 1999. The general shape of the diurnal pattern agrees well with the measurements; however, the modeled MBO fluxes for grid cells A and C underpredict emissions by a factor of 2, while grid cell B overpredicts by a factor of 2. Modeled MBO fluxes for grid cell D are slightly overpredicted. Since there are multiple factors contributing to each term in the model (including factors which may not be known), it is not possible to accurately determine errors associated with each. The greatest uncertainty exists in the determination of leaf mass density (LMD), because of the number of factors which can effect it. The emission factor also has uncertainty due to its’ possible seasonal variability. Variability in leaf mass densities and MBO emission factors measured at Blodgett indicate that canopy-scale reference emission rates (i.e.

normalized to 30 ° C and 1000 μ moles m -2 s -1 PAR) may have ranged from 1.06 to 6.24EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-104 mg C m -2 hr -1 , with a midvalue of approximately 2.98 mg C m -2 hr -1 (Baker et al. 1999). The effect of these uncertainties are shown in Figure D.10, where MBO emissions were simulated using Blodgett leaf mass density and emission factor ranges reported in Baker et al. (1999). The figure illustrates that measured leaf mass density and emission factor uncertainties can yield modeled MBO fluxes which are over- or under-predicted by a factor 2. Midvalue inputs yield modeled MBO fluxes which were overpredicted by approximately 25-30%.

Monoterpene fluxes for BEIGIS grid cells A through D were modeled using default BEIGIS land cover inputs and Blodgett meteorological data. Figure D.11 compares averaged modeled monoterpene fluxes (converted from units mg monoterpene m -2 hr -1
to mg C m -2 hr -1 ) for BEIGIS grid cells A through D, with average measured fluxes of three monoterpene species: alpha- and beta-pinene, and 3-carene, for the period June2 – September 8, 1999. Monoterpene fluxes were not modeled using Blodgett sitespecific inputs, as variability in the monoterpene-emitting leaf mass density and emission factors at this site were not available. For simplicity, the three measured monoterpene species are also combined into a single category for comparison with BEIGIS-modeled monoterpene fluxes (which are not speciated). BEIGIS-modeled monoterpene fluxes for grid cells A and C during midday are slightly greater thanmeasured alpha-pinene and 3-carene fluxes, and slightly lower than measured betapinene fluxes. BEIGIS-modeled monoterpene fluxes for grid cell B are a factor 2 to 4 greater than the combined alpha- and beta-pinene + 3-carene category, and individual monoterpene species, respectively. BEIGIS-modeled monoterpene fluxes for grid cell D are a factor 2 greater than the individual measured monoterpene species, and in approximate agreement with the combined alpha- and beta-pinene + 3-carene category. Variability in monoterpene fluxes are of the same order as have been shown for MBO fluxes, and presumably due in part to uncertainties in leaf mass densities and monoterpene emission factors.

D.10.4 Model Uncertainties

Inputs to BEIGIS, such as emission rates, leaf mass factors, land use/land cover maps, and satellite-derived LAI values have been assessed by a number of researchers (Winer et al. 1998; Chung and Winer 1999; Karlik and McKay 1999; Karlik 2001; Winer and Karlik 2001).

Isoprene and monoterpene emission factors utilized by BEIGIS for plant species in California’s urban, agricultural, and natural landscapes are derived from in-situ branch enclosure measurements and taxonomic assignments (Benjamin et al. 1996). Although measured emission rates are used where available, assignment of measured emission factors to unmeasured species based upon taxonomic relationship introduces uncertainties. Karlik and Winer (2001) measured isoprene emission factors of plant species to test taxonomically assigned emission factors of Benjamin et al. (1996). They reported measured branch-level isoprene emission factors for 13 of 19 species were

within ± 50% of taxonomically predicted emission factors. Genus-level assignmentsEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-105 were in generally good agreement with measured isoprene rates, with the exception of
Quercus , where emissions varied widely about the predicted mean of 24.8 μ g g -1 hr -1

, from below detection limit for Q. suber to 54 μ g g -1 hr -1 for Q. kelloggii . The uncertainty associated with the monoterpene and OVOC emissions estimates have not been quantified. OVOCs are an added fraction to the BEIGIS BVOC inventory to which is applied a chemical speciation profile which may not be representative of natural areas

in the CCOS domain.

As noted previously, systematic differences have been reported in the literature for leaf cuvette versus branch enclosure derived emission factors. Geron et al. (2001) assessed taxonomic rate assignments of Benjamin et al. (1996) by measuring leaf cuvette isoprene emission factors for a number of eastern U.S. and native California oak species. For Quercus chrysolepis

, Q. engelmannii

, Q. kelloggii

, Q. falcata and Populus trichocarpa , measured leaf cuvette emissions were approximately a factor of 2 to 5 times greater than the taxonomically predicted branch-level emission factors, attributed in part to differences in enclosure type. Guenther et al. (1996a) also observed that isoprene emissions measured via leaf cuvette ranged between 1.5 to 2 times greater than branch-level measurements, due to differences in leaf orientation, self-shading and other factors.

Plant species composition and abundance predicted by the GAP database have been evaluated for several regions of the state. Field data from 8 sites in the Southern California Ozone Study (SCOS) domain and 6 sites in central California indicate that the GAP database correctly predicted 50% to 70% of the plant species at the sites surveyed (Winer et al. 1998; Chung and Winer 1999; Winer and Karlik 2001). In San Diego County, isoprene and monoterpene emission potentials for 8 polygons estimated according to GAP predicted plant species composition and areal coverage were compared to emission potentials estimated from field sampling (Chung and Winer 1999). For four of the polygons, emission potentials based on GAP predictions were more than 50% different from emission potentials calculated from field data. When summed over all 8 polygons, the total isoprene emission potential based on field data was 7% greater than the total based upon the GAP prediction. The total monoterpene emission potential for the 8 polygons based on field data was 2% lower than the total based upon the GAP prediction.

Modeled BVOC emissions are also sensitive to uncertainties associated with leaf mass density (g [dry leaf weight] m -2 land). For natural areas, leaf mass density is computed from remotely sensed leaf area index, fractional canopy cover, co-species weighting factors and plant specific leaf weight factors. Winer and Karlik (2001) found that ground-surveyed leaf area indices measured in California oak savannas (LAI ~ 1.3)

agree d with satellite-derived 1 km 2 resolution LAI values (between 1 and 2) for those same sites. In the Winer and Karlik (2001) study, a stand of 14 Blue Oak trees ( Quercus douglasii ) surrounded by open grassland was measured for crown height, crown radii, and diameter at breast height (DBH). All 14 trees were then harvested, and their stem and leaf areas and (fresh and dried) weights recorded. Mean per-tree leaf mass density (LMD) was 730 g m -2 , while site leaf mass density, defined as the total leafEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-106 mass of the 14 trees divided by the total study area, was 310 g m -2

. This site LMD value is in the midrange of LMDs (182 – 643 g m -2 ) reported by Sidawi and Horie (1992) for oak woodlands in the southern San Joaquin Valley. When the oak leaf mass of the site study area was considered together with surrounding grassland, the LMD decreased by a factor of two. In the BEIGIS model, calculated LMDs for 1 km 2 grid cells in CCOS natural areas are often less than 200 g m -2 . Natural area LMDs utilized by Benjamin et al. (1997) for the Southern California Air Quality Management Plan (SCAQMP) domain ranged from 90 (grassland) to 244 (woodland) to 555 g m -2 (forest). Although further data analyses are needed, these preliminary results support the use of the satellite-derived LAI database as an input to the BEIGIS model.

Potential leaf mass estimation biases from multiplying plant species SLWs by fractional canopy cover areas and co-species weighting factors together with LAI values for 1 km 2
grid cells are unknown. Computing species leaf mass densities in this manner may over or under-predict a species’ contribution to total emissions. The technique may be less problematic for computing leaf masses and emissions of crops, many of which are cultivated in monocultures greater than 1 km 2

.

D.10.5 Conclusion

Compared to fluxes measured at the Blodgett Forest site, MBO emissions modeled for four adjacent BEIGIS 1 km 2 grid cells using default BEIGIS inputs were under-predicted in two adjoining 1 km 2 grid cells and over-predicted emissions in one adjoining 1 km 2
grid cell. Modeled MBO emissions in the remaining grid cell were in relatively good agreement with measured MBO fluxes. MBO fluxes modeled using variable Blodgett site-specific inputs for leaf mass density and MBO emission factors showed similar magnitudes of over- and under-prediction, and relatively good agreement when using midvalue inputs. Monoterpene fluxes modeled using default BEIGIS inputs showed a similar pattern of over- and under-prediction, when compared to measured fluxes of specific monoterpene compounds.

Studies have shown that uncertainties in canopy biomass distributions and “flux footprint” determination can confound BVOC emission model validation using micrometeorological flux measurements (Lamb et al. 1996; Guenther et al. 1996; Baldocchi et al. 1999; Huber et al. 1999). Model performance is usually achieved only after detailed parameterization of the BVOC-emitting leaf mass density within the upwind flux “footprint” of the measurement site. At the Blodgett Forest site, Shade et al. (2000) were able to achieve good agreement between modeled and measured MBO fluxes by representing the MBO-emitting Ponderosa Pine leaf mass according to (three) needle leaf age classes, by assigning different emission factors to each age class, by varying the emission factors and leaf mass over the growing season, and by adopting a

sunlit vs. shade leaf PAR scheme. Comparisons between BEIGIS modeled and measured BVOC fluxes are preliminary. Further analyses of BEIGIS performance with Blodgett data are needed. Regional andEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-107 canopy-scale flux measurements to test model estimates of BVOC emissions for other regions and land cover types of the state are also needed.

D.10.6 References

Baker, B., Guenther, A., Greenberg, J., Goldstein, A., and Fall, R. Canopy fluxes of 2- methyl-3-buten-2-ol over a ponderosa pine forest by relaxed eddy accumulation: field data and model comparison. J. Geophys. Res. 104, D21: 26107-26115.

Bauer, M.R., N.E. Hultman, J.A. Panek, and A.H. Goldstein. (2000) “Ozone deposition to a ponderosa pine plantation in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (CA): a comparison of two different climatic years.” J. Geophys. Res., 105, D17: 22123-22136.

Benjamin, M. T., Sudol, M., Bloch, L. and Winer, A. M. (1996) Low-emitting urban forests: a taxonomic methodology for assigning isoprene and monoterpene emission rates. Atmospheric Environment 30, 1437-1452.

Benjamin, M. T., Sudol, M., Vorsatz, D. and Winer, A. M. (1997) A spatially and temporally resolved biogenic hydrocarbon emissions inventory for the California South Coast Air Basin. Atmospheric Environment 31, 3087-3100.

California Energy Commission (1992) Climate Zone Weather Data Analysis and Revision Project. Final Report, Contract No. 400-88-010. Sacramento, California.

Chung, Y. J. and Winer, A. M. (1999) Field assessment of the California GAP analysis program database for San Diego County. Madroño 46, 187-198.

Davis, F. W., Stine, P. A., Stoms, D. M., Borchert, M. I. and Hollander, A. D. (1995) GAP analysis of the actual vegetation of California 1. The southwestern region. Madroño 42, 40-78.

Dreyfus, G., Schade, G., and Goldstein, A. (2002) Observational constraints on the contribution of isoprene oxidation to ozone production on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada, California. J. Geophys. Res. 107, D19: 4365, 10.1029/2001JD001490, 2002.

Geron, C. D., Harley, P. and Guenther, A. B. (2001) Isoprene emission capacity for U.S. tree species. Atmospheric Environment 35, 3341-3352.

Goldstein, A.H., N.E. Hultman, J.M. Fracheboud, M.R. Bauer, J.A. Panek, M. Xu, Y. Qi, A.B. Guenther, and W. Baugh. (2000) Effects of climate variability on the carbon dioxide, water, and sensible heat fluxes above a ponderosa pine plantation in the Sierra Nevada (CA). Agricultural and Forest Meteorology (101) 2-3: 113-129.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-108 Goldstein, A.H., and G.W. Schade. (2000) Quantifying biogenic and anthropogenic contributions to acetone mixing ratios in a rural environment. Atmospheric Environment, 34, 29-30: 4997-5006.

Guenther, A. B., Zimmerman, P. R., Harley, P. C., Monson, R. K. and Fall, R. (1993) Isoprene and monoterpene emission rate variability: model evaluations and sensitivity analyses. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 12609-12617.

Guenther, A., Zimmerman, P., and Wildermuth, M. (1994) Natural volatile organic compound emission rate estimates for U.S. woodland landscapes. Atmospheric Environment 94, 1197-1210.

Guenther, A., Zimmerman, P., Klinger, L., Greenberg, J., Ennis, C., Davis, K., Pollock, W., Westberg, H., Allwine, G. and Geron, C. (1996a) Estimates of regional natural volatile organic compound fluxes from enclosure and ambient measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 1345-1359.

Harley, P., Fridd-Stroud, V., Greenberg, J., Guenther, A. and Vasconcellos, P. (1998) Emission of 2-methyl-3-buten-2-ol by pines: A potentially large natural source of reactive carbon in the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 25,479-25,486.

Hickman, J. C. (ed.) (1993) The Jepson manual of higher plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Huber, L., Laville, P., and Fuentes, J. (1999) Uncertainties in isoprene emissions from a mixed deciduous forest estimated using a canopy microclimate model. Journal of Applied Meteorology 38: 899-912.

Karlik, J. F. and McKay, A. H. (1999) Development of methodology and databases for estimating leaf masses in California airsheds. Final Report, Air Resources Board Contract No. 97-719, University of California Cooperative Extension, Bakersfield, CA.

Karlik, J. F. (2001) Validation of databases for modeling biogenic volatile organic compound emissions in Central California. Final Report, San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency Agreement No. 00-16CCOS, University of California Cooperative Extension, Bakersfield, CA.

Karlik, J. F. and Winer, A. M. (2001) Measured isoprene emission rates of plants in California landscapes: comparison to estimates from taxonomic relationships. Atmospheric Environment 35, 1123-1131. Kurpius, M.R., and A.H. Goldstein, Gas-phase chemistry dominates O3 loss to a forest, implying a source of aerosols and hydroxyl radicals to the atmosphere. (2003) Geophysical Research Letters, V. 30, 1371, doi:10.1029/2002GL016785, 2003.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-109 Lamanna, M. S. and Goldstein, A. H. (1999) In situ measurements of C 2 -C 10 volatile organic compounds above a Sierra Nevada ponderosa pine plantation. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 21247-21262.

Lamb, B., Pierce, T., Baldocchi, D., Allwine, E., Dilts, S., Westberg, H., Geron, C., Guenther, A., Klinger, L., Harley, P., and Zimmerman, P. (1996) Evaluation of forest canopy models for estimating isoprene emissions. Journal of Geophysical Research, V. 101, No. D17, pp 22787-22797.

McPherson, E.G. (1998) Structure and sustainability of Sacramento’s urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture. 24 (4): 174 – 190.

NCAR (2001) PSU/NCAR Mesoscale Modeling System Tutorial Class Notes and User’s Guide: MM5 Modeling System Version 3. Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research. Boulder, CO.

Nikolov, N. T. (1999) 1-km resolution database of vegetation leaf area index and canopy clumping factor for the western U.S.A. Final Report, USDA Forest Service Agreement No. PSW-99-001-RJVA. N & T Services, Oak Ridge, TN.

Nowak, D.J.N. (1991) Urban forest development and structure: Analysis of Oakland, California. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Nowak, D. J. N., et al. (2000) Specific leaf weight factor database. Publication in preparation. USDA Forest Service – Northeastern Research Station. Syracuse, NY.

Scott, J. M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R., Butterfield, B., Groves, C., Anderson, H., Caicco, S., D. Erchia, F., Edwards Jr., T. C., Ulliman, J. and Wright, R. G. (1993) GAP analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs. 57, 1-41.

Schade, G.W., A.H. Goldstein, and M.S. Lamanna. (1999) Are monoterpene emissions influenced by humidity? Geophysical Research Letters. 26, 14: 2187-2190.

Schade, G.W., A.H. Goldstein, D.W. Gray, and M.T. Lerdau. (2000) Canopy and leaf level 2-methyl-3-butene-2-ol fluxes from a ponderosa pine plantation. Atmospheric Environment 34, 21: 3535-3544.

Schade, G.W. and A.H. Goldstein (2001) Fluxes of oxygenated volatile organic compounds from a ponderosa pine plantation. J.Geophys. Res., 106, D3: 3111-3123.

Schade, G.W., and A.H. Goldstein, Increase of monoterpene emissions from a pine plantation as a result of mechanical disturbances, Geophysical Research Letters, V. 30, 1380, doi:10.1029/2002GL016138, 2003EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-110 Sidawi, S., and Horie, Y. (1992) Leaf biomass density for urban, agricultural and natural vegetation in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Final Report, San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency Contract No. 88-41. Valley Research Corporation, Van Nuys,

CA.

Winer, A. M., Karlik, J., Arey, J., Chung, Y. J. and Reissell, A. (1998) Biogenic hydrocarbon inventories for California: Generation of essential databases. Final Report, Air Resources Board Contract No. 95-309, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

Winer, A. M. and Karlik, J. F. (2001) Development and validation of databases for modeling biogenic hydrocarbon emissions in California’s airsheds. Final Report, Air Resources Board Contract No. 97-320, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-111 D.10.8 Figures

Figure D.8

Blodgett Forest research site (triangle symbol). Site is near edge of two BEIGIS

model GAP polygons and the nexus of four 1 x 1 km BEIGIS model grid cells (labeled A through D).EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-112 Figure D.9 Measured vs. modeled MBO fluxes.

-0.5

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

hourMBO (mg C/m2/hr) measured

BEIGIS grid A

BEIGIS grid B

BEIGIS grid C

BEIGIS grid D

Figure D.10 MBO fluxes modeled with default BEIGIS vs. on-site Blodgett inputs, compared to

measured fluxes.

-0.5

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4 4.5

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

hourMBO (mg C/m2/hr) measured

BEIGIS grid A

BEIGIS grid B

BEIGIS grid C

BEIGIS grid D

Blodgett low

Blodgett reference

Blodgett highEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-113 Figure D.11 Monoterpene fluxes modeled with default BEIGIS inputs, vs. measured monoterpene fluxes.

-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

hourflux (mg C/m2/hr) measured a-pinene

measured b-pinene

measured 3-carene

BEIGIS grid A

BEIGIS grid B

BEIGIS grid C

BEIGIS grid D

a&b-pinene+3-careneEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-114 Table 1. BVOC emission and specific leaf weight (SLW) factors assigned to GAP vegetation species.

GAP specific leaf wt in-leaf season emission factor species Common name Scientific name Vegetation g dry leaf/m2 leaf ug/g dry leaf wt/hr @ ref condition s
code Class SLW ISO MONO MBO 42034 Coulter pine Pinus coulteri 1 91 0 4 71 42044 Foothill pine Pinus sabiniana 1 91 0 1 67 41006 Oregon oak Quercus garryana 3 110 59 1 0 32433 Oregon oak (shrub form) Quercus garryana var. breweri 3 110 59 1 0 41001 Black oak Quercus kelloggii 3 103 54 1 0 41015 Willow Salix spp. 3 62 51 0 0 41009 Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides 3 89 50 0 0 41012 Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii 3 85 36 0 0 41004 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 2 141 35 0 0 41010 Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa 3 85 33 0 0 41030 Eucalyptus Eucalyptus spp. 2 130 28 5 0 42059 Shore pine Pinus contorta var. contorta 1 149 0 4 25 42014 Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta var. murrayana 1 149 0 4 25 42015 Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa 1 91 0 4 25 41003 Canyon live oak Quercus chrysolepis 2 169 26 1 0 32065 Canyon live oak (Shrub form) Quercus chrysolepis 2 169 26 1 0 32428 Huckleberry oak Quercus vaccinifolia 5,2 110 26 1 0 41002 Blue oak Quercus douglasii 3 122 26 0 0 41027 Engelmann oak Quercus engelmannii 3 152 25 1 0

41055 Quercus alvordiana 2 110 25 1 0

32073 Desert scrub oak Quercus cornelius-mullerii 2 110 25 1 0

32061 Leather oak Quercus durata 5,2 110 25 1 0 32220 Tuckers Oak Quercus john-tuckeri 3 110 25 1 0

32455 Saddlers oak Quercus sadleriana 5,2 110 25 1 0 11400 Transportation and Utilities 7 32096 California broom Lotus scoparius 5,3-2 127 22 2 0

32229 Psorothamnus arborescens 5,2-3 127 22 2 0 32215 Psorothamnus emoryi 5,2-3 127 22 2 0 32230 Psorothamnus polydenius 5,2-3 127 22 2 0 41022 Smoke tree Psorothamnus spinosa 5,2-3 127 22 2 0 41013 Valley oak Quercus lobata 3 101 21 0 0

11100 Residential 7

11600 Mixed Urban 7

11700 Other Urban 7

41005 Interior live oak Quercus wislizenii 2 158 13 1 0

11200 Commercial and services 7 41060 Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia 3 50 12 2 0 32068 Interior live oak (Shrub form) Quercus wislizenii 2 158 13 1 0 32143 Desert lavender Hyptis emoryi 5,2 127 0 13 0 42043 Brewer spruce Picea breweriana 1 191 10 2 0 32000 Unidentified chaparral shrubs 6 100 8 4 0 32104 Low sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula 5,2-3 312 0 12 0 32302 California sagebrush Artemisia californica 5,2-3 312 0 12 0 32108 Silver sagebrush Artemisia cana 5,2-3 312 0 12 0 32109 Tarragon Artemisia dracunculus 5,2-3 312 0 12 0 32110 Black sagebrush Artemisia nova 5,2-3 312 0 12 0 32111 Rothrock sagebrush Artemisia rothrockii 5,2-3 312 0 12 0 32112 Bud sagebrush Artemisia spinescens 5,2-3 312 0 12 0 32103 Great basin sagebrush Artemisia tridentata 5,2-3 312 0 12 0 32151 Regeneration shrubs Artemisia tridentata, Chrysothamnus spp., etc. 5,2-3 312 0 12 0 32005 Coyote brush Baccharis pilularis 5,2 192 0 12 0 32102 Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus 5,2 168 0 12 0 32118 Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus parryi 5,2 168 0 12 0 32119 Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 5,2 168 0 12 0

32033 Mule fat Baccharis salicifolia 5,2 127 0 12 0 41029 Sycamore Platanus racemosa 3 52 11 0 0 41020 Fan palm Washingtonia filifera 4 152 10 0 0 42012 Jeffrey pine Pinus jeffreyi 1 91 0 4 5 42003 Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 1 106 0 9 0 42027 Giant sequoia Sequoiadendron giganteum 1 106 0 9 0 11500 Industrial and Commercial Complexes 7 32305 White sage Salvia apiana 5,2-3 250 0 8 0 32507 Desert sage Salvia dorrii 5,2-3 250 0 8 0 32306 Purple sage Salvia leucophylla 5,2-3 250 0 8 0 32307 Black sage Salvia mellifera 5,2-3 250 0 8 0 32318 Pitcher sage Salvia spathecea 5,2-3 250 0 8 0 42009 Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis 1 191 4 1 0 42017 Mountain hemlock Tsuga mertensiana 1 60 1 3 0 42005 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 55 1 3 0 42058 Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 1 54 1 3 0EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-115 GAP specific leaf wt in-leaf season emission factor species Common name Scientific name Vegetation g dry leaf/m2 leaf ug/g dry leaf wt/hr @ ref conditions

code Class SLW ISO MONO MBO 42915 Mid-elevation plantations 8 100 0 4 0 42951 Upper-elevation plantations 6 100 0 4 0 42026 Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis 1 91 0 4 0 42013 Knobcone pine Pinus attenuata 1 91 0 4 0 42011 Foxtail pine Pinus balfouriana 1 91 0 4 0 42029 Limber pine Pinus flexilis 1 91 0 4 0 42053 Sugar pine Pinus lambertiana 1 91 0 4 0 42028 Bristlecone pine Pinus longaeva 1 91 0 4 0 42030 Single leaf pinyon Pinus monophylla 1 91 0 4 0 42031 Western white pine Pinus monticola 1 91 0 4 0 42010 Bishop pine Pinus muricata 1 91 0 4 0 42040 Torrey pine Pinus torreyana 1 91 0 4 0

42057 Washoe Pine Pinus washoensis 1 91 0 4 0

11300 Industrial 7 42052 Subalpine fir Abies lasiocarpa 1 165 0 3 0

42045 Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 1 106 0 3 0 22104 Dryland grain crops 8 22200 Orchards, Vineyards, Nurseries 8 22201 Evergreen orchard 8

22202 Deciduous orchard 8 22400 Other Agricultural Land 8 22101 Irrigated row and field crops 8 22100 Cropland and Pasture 8 22203 Vineyard 8

42033 Bristlecone fir Abies bracteata 1 98 0 3 0

42022 White fir Abies concolor 1 98 0 3 0 42051 Red fir Abies magnifica 1 98 0 3 0 41033 Box elder Acer negundo 3 92 0 3 0 42006 Grand fir Abies grandis 1 72 0 3 0 41053 Mountain maple Acer glabrum 3 59 0 3 0 41050 Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 3 59 0 3 0 42046 Noble fir Abies procera 1 58 0 3 0 41032 California walnut Juglans californica var. californica 3 57 0 3 0 41043 California black walnut Juglans californica var. hindsii 3 57 0 3 0 32450 Vine maple Acer circinatum 3 32 0 3 0 41016 Catclaw Acacia greggii 5,2 240 0 2 0 41019 Mesquite Prosopis glandulosa 3 215 0 2 0 41051 Screwbean Prosopis pubescens 3 215 0 2 0 41017 Desert ironwood Olneya tesota 3 145 0 2 0 32059 Chaparral Pea Pickeringia montana 5,2 127 0 2 0

32018 Mountain whitethorn Ceanothus cordulatus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32034 Hoaryleaf ceanothus Ceanothus crassifolius 5,2-3 127 0 2 0

32003 Buckbrush Ceanothus cuneatus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32421 Monterey ceanothus Ceanothus cuneatus var. rigidus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32416 Cropleaf ceanothus Ceanothus dentatus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32035 Desert ceanothus Ceanothus greggii 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32087 Ceanothus impressus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0

32072 Ceanothus incanus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32017 Deerbrush Ceanothus integerrimus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32417 Muskbrush Ceanothus jepsonii 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32036 Chaparral whitethorn Ceanothus leucodermis 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32037 Bigpod ceanothus Ceanothus megacarpus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32038 Hairy ceanothus Ceanothus oliganthus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32042 Jimbrush Ceanothus oliganthus var. sorediatus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32039 Palmer ceanothus Ceanothus palmeri 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32040 Wartleaf ceanothus Ceanothus papillosus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32420 Littleleaf ceanothus Ceanothus parvifolius 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32041 Squaw carpet Ceanothus prostratus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32043 Greenbark ceanothus Ceanothus spinosus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32095 Ceanothus Ceanothus spp. 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32422 Bluebrush, Wild lilac Ceanothus thyrsiflorus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32071 Woolyleaf ceanothus Ceanothus tomentosus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0

32002 Tobacco brush Ceanothus velutinus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32044 Wartystem ceanothus Ceanothus verrucosus 5,2-3 127 0 2 0 32016 Lupinus albicaulus 5,herb. 127 0 2 0 32013 Lupinus albifrons 5,herb. 127 0 2 0 32022 Yellow bush lupine Lupinus arboreus 5,herb. 127 0 2 0 32012 Bush lupine Lupinus chamissonis 5,herb. 127 0 2 0 32321 Grape soda lupine Lupinus excubitus 5,herb. 127 0 2 0 32323 Lupinus spp. 5,herb. 127 0 2 0 32216 Caesalpina virgata 5,3-2 91 0 2 0EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-116 GAP specific leaf wt in-leaf season emission factor species Common name Scientific name Vegetation g dry leaf/m2 leaf ug/g dry leaf wt/hr @ ref conditions

code Class SLW ISO MONO MBO 42039 Sargent cypress Cupressus sargentii 1 127 0 1 0 41044 Tanoak Lithocarpus densiflorus 2 127 0 1 0 42035 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 1 91 0 1 0 42019 California juniper Juniperus californica 1 86 0 1 0 42055 Western juniper Juniperus occidentalis 1 86 0 1 0 42063 Sierra juniper Juniperus occidentalis australis 1 86 0 1 0 42054 Utah juniper Juniperus osteosperma 1 86 0 1 0 42062 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 1 56 0 1 0 42007 Bigcone spruce Pseudotsuga macrocarpa 1 55 0 1 0 32322 Eriophyllum staechadifolium 5,2 herb 127 0 0 0 41056 California wax myrtle Myrica californica 5,2 345 0 0 0 32074 Sugarbush Rhus ovata 5,2 323 0 0 0 32117 Allscale saltbush Atriplex polycarpa 5,3 256 0 0 0 32454 Beargrass Xerophyllum tanex 6, grass 244 0 0 0 32452 Boxleaf silktassel Garrya buxifolia 5,2 223 0 0 0 32435 Silktassel Garrya elliptica 5,2 223 0 0 0 32050 Pale silktassel Garrya flavescens 5,2 223 0 0 0 32051 Fremont silktassel Garrya fremontii 5,2 223 0 0 0 32052 Veatch silktassel Garrya veatchii 5,2 223 0 0 0 32207 Shadscale Atriplex confertifolia 5,2-3 188 0 0 0 32114 Desert holly Atriplex hymenolytra 5,2-3 188 0 0 0 32115 Lenscale Atriplex lentiformis 5,2-3 188 0 0 0 32116 Saltbush Atriplex parryi 5,2-3 188 0 0 0 32144 Triangle leaf Atriplex phyllostegia 5,2-3 188 0 0 0 32105 Saltbush Atriplex spp. 5,2-3 188 0 0 0 32062 Lemonade berry Rhus integrifolia 5,2-3 183 0 0 0

32501 Skunkbrush Rhus trilobata 5,2-3 183 0 0 0
32094 Scrub oak Quercus berberidifolia, etc. 2 149 31 0 0

32444 Western azalea Rhododendron occidentalis 5,3 147 0 0 0 41011 California bay Umbellularia californica 2 145 0 0 0

41018 Joshua tree Yucca brevifolia 5,2 145 0 0 0 32136 Mohave yucca Yucca schidigera 5,2 145 0 0 0 32064 Our lords candle Yucca whipplei 5,2 145 0 0 0 32328 Hawthorn Craetaegus douglasii 3 133 0 0 0

32049 Fremontia or Flannel bush Fremontodendron californicum 5,3 127 0 0 0

32009 Monkshood Aconitum columbianum 5, 3 herb 127 0 0 0

31048 Arizona three-awn Aristida hamulosa 5, grass 127 0 0 0 31033 Balsam root Balsamorhiza sagittata 5, grass 127 0 0 0 32415 Barbarry Berberis nervosa 5,3 127 0 0 0 31029 Japanese brome (exotic) Bromus japonicus 5, grass 127 0 0 0 31026 Cheatgrass (exotic) Bromus tectorum 5, grass 127 0 0 0 32221 Crucifixion Thorn Castela emoryi 5 127 0 0 0 31052 Star thistle Centaurea spp. 5, 3 herb 127 0 0 0
32504 Fern bush, desert sweet Chamaebatiaria millefolium 5,2-3 127 0 0 0 32045 Virgins bower Clematis ligusticifolia 5, 3 herb 127 0 0 0 32083 Giant coreopsis Coreopsis gigantea 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32425 Scotchbroom Cytisus scoparius 5, 3 127 0 0 0 31031 One-spike oatgrass Danthonia unispicata 5, grass 127 0 0 0 31054 Pitcher plant bogs Darlingtonia bogs 5, 3 herb 127 0 0 0 31015 California poppy Eschscholtzia californica 5, 3 herb 127 0 0 0

32138 Forestiera neomexicana 5, 2-3 herb 127 0 0 0 31032 Wood strawberry Fragaria vesca 5, 3 herb 127 0 0 0 32091 Peak rush-rose Helianthemum scoparium 5, 3 herb 127 0 0 0 31023 Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum 5, grass 127 0 0 0 32149 Bladderpod Isomeris arborea 5,3-2 127 0 0 0 31044 Desert dandelion Malacothrix glabrata 5, 3 herb 127 0 0 0 32145 Menodora spinescens 5, 2-3 herb 127 0 0 0 31024 Nitrophila occidentalis 5,herb 127 0 0 0 32228 Nolina parryi 5,herb 127 0 0 0 31027 Reed canary grass (exotic) Phalaris arundinacea 5, grass 127 0 0 0 31035 Sandbergs bluegrass Poa secunda 5, grass 127 0 0 0 31051 Water smartweed Polygonum amphibium 5, 3 herb 127 0 0 0 32432 Polygonum davisiae 5, 3 herb 127 0 0 0

32509 Ribes aureum 5,3 127 0 0 0 32431 Squaw or wax currant Ribes cereum 5,3 127 0 0 0 32442 Sierra gooseberry Ribes roezlii 5,3 127 0 0 0 32511 Ribes spp. 5,3 127 0 0 0

32010 Currant Ribes velutinum 5,3 127 0 0 0 32441 Sticky currant Ribes viscossimum 5,3 127 0 0 0 32503 Wood rose Rosa gymnocarpa 5,3 127 0 0 0 31021 Bulrush Scirpus robustus 5,herb 127 0 0 0EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-117 GAP specific leaf wt in-leaf season emission factor species Common name Scientific name Vegetation g dry leaf/m2 leaf ug/g dry leaf wt/hr @ ref conditions

code Class SLW ISO MONO MBO

32001 Chamise Adenostoma fasciculatum 5,2 127 0 0 0 32026 Redshanks Adenostoma sparsifolium 5,2 127 0 0 0 32213 Agave deserti 5,herb 127 0 0 0 22600 Great Basin dry farmed grain/rural Agropyron desertorum, Elyrigia epens, etc. 5 127 0 0 0

41059 Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima 3 127 0 0 0

32209 Iodine bush Allenrolfea occidentalis 5,3-2 127 0 0 0 32210 Burro-weed (a ragweed) Ambrosia dumosa 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31055 European beachgrass Ammophila arenaria 5, grass 127 0 0 0

41007 Madrone Arbutus menziesii 2 127 0 0 0 32402 Manzanita Arctostaphylos auriculata 5,2 127 0 0 0 32403 Hoary manzanita Arctostaphylos canescens 5,2 127 0 0 0 32456 Hairy manzanita Arctostaphylos columbiana 5,2 127 0 0 0 32027 Eastwood manzanita Arctostaphylos glandulosa 5,2 127 0 0 0 32028 Bigberry manzanita Arctostaphylos glauca 5,2 127 0 0 0 32404 Common manzanita Arctostaphylos manzanita 5,2 127 0 0 0 32406 Indian manzanita Arctostaphylos mewukka 5,2 127 0 0 0 32447 Morro manzanita Arctostaphylos morroensis 5,2 127 0 0 0 32089 Ione manzanita Arctostaphylos myrtifolia 5,2 127 0 0 0 32407 Pinemat manzanita Arctostaphylos nevadensis 5,2 127 0 0 0 32408 Eldorado manzanita Arctostaphylos nissenana 5,2 127 0 0 0 32409 Littleberry manzanita Arctostaphylos nummularia 5,2 127 0 0 0 32029 Serpentine manzanita Arctostaphylos obispoensis 5,2 127 0 0 0 32030 Parry manzanita Arctostaphylos parryana 5,2 127 0 0 0 32004 Greenleaf manzanita Arctostaphylos patula 5,2 127 0 0 0 32446 Pecho manzanita Arctostaphylos pechoensis 5,2 127 0 0 0 32410 La panza manzanita Arctostaphylos pilosula 5,2 127 0 0 0 32075 Pink-bracted manzanita Arctostaphylos pringlei 5,2 127 0 0 0 32069 Mexican manzanita Arctostaphylos pungens 5,2 127 0 0 0 32031 Purisima manzanita Arctostaphylos purissima 5,2 127 0 0 0 32055 Refugio manzanita Arctostaphylos refugioensis 5,2 127 0 0 0 32412 Shagbark manzanita Arctostaphylos rudis 5,2 127 0 0 0 32451 Manzanita spp. Arctostaphylos spp. 5,2 127 0 0 0 32032 Woollyleaf manzanita Arctostaphylos tomentosa 5,2 127 0 0 0 32405 Mariposa manzanita Arctostaphylos viscida var. mariposa 5,2 127 0 0 0 32414 Whiteleaf manzanita Arctostaphylos viscida var. viscida 5,2 127 0 0 0 32008 Santa Cruz manzanita Arctostaphylus andersonii 5,2 127 0 0 0

31011 Giant Reed Arundo donax 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31001 Non-native annual grassland Avena spp., Bromus spp., etc. 5, grass 39 0 0.02 0 31010 Wild Mustard Brassica ssp. 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31017 Great Basin bunchgrass vegetation Bromus tectorum, Festuca idahoensis, etc. 5, grass 39 0 0.02 0 31016 Great Basin annual grasses Bromus tectorum, Taeniantherum caput-medusae, 5, grass 39 0 0.02 0

31043 Carex nebrascensis 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31059 Great Basin wet meadow spp. Carex spp., Juncus spp.,etc. 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31007 Freshwater Sedge - Rush marsh Carex spp., Juncus, spp., 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32020 Mountain misery Chamaebatia foliolosa 5,2 127 0 0 0 32208 Blackbush Coleogyne ramosissima 5 127 0 0 0 31020 Pampas grass Cortaderia jubata 5, grass 127 0 0 0 32046 Bush poppy Dendromecon rigida 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31012 Saltgrass Distichlis spicata 5, grass 127 0 0 0

32303 California encelia Encelia californica 5,2-3 127 0 0 0

32120 Brittlebush Encelia farinosa 5,2-3 127 0 0 0 32140 California ephedra Ephedra californica 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32121 Mormon tea Ephedra nevadensis 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32122 Green ephedra Ephedra viridis 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31056 Erharta calycina 5 127 0 0 0

32434 Goldenfleece Ericameria arborescens 5,2-3 127 0 0 0

32502 Goldenbush Ericameria bloomeri 5,2-3 127 0 0 0 32311 Heather goldenbush Ericameria ericoides 5,2-3 127 0 0 0 32127 Narrowleaf goldenbush Ericameria linearifolius 5,2-3 127 0 0 0 32224 Coopers goldenbrush Ericamerica cooperi 5,2-3 127 0 0 0 32139 Ericamerica Ericamerica spp. 5,2-3 127 0 0 0 32047 Yerba santa Eriodictyon californicum 5,2 127 0 0 0 32090 Lompoc yerba santa Eriodictyon capitatum 5,2 127 0 0 0 32048 Thick leafed yerba santa Eriodictyon crassifolium 5,2 127 0 0 0 32025 Eriodictyon tomentosum 5,2 127 0 0 0 32084 Eriodictyon trichocalyx 5,2 127 0 0 0 32309 Ashyleaf buckwheat Eriogonum cinerium 5,herb 127 0 0 0 32438 Flat-topped buckwheat Eriogonum deflexum 5,herb 127 0 0 0 32301 California buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum 5,herb 127 0 0 0 32325 Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum 5,herb 127 0 0 0 32324 Eriogonum fasciculatum var. polifolium 5,herb 127 0 0 0EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-118 GAP specific leaf wt in-leaf season emission factor species Common name Scientific name Vegetation g dry leaf/m2 leaf ug/g dry leaf wt/hr @ ref conditions

code Class SLW ISO MONO MBO 32076 Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia 5,2 127 0 0 0 32128 White burrobush Hymenoclea salsola 5 127 0 0 0

32326 Isocoma menziesii var. vernioides 5,2-3 127 0 0 0

31022 Rush Juncus balticus 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31005 Wet meadow Sedge - Rush Juncus spp., Eleocharis spp.,etc. 5, herb 127 0 0 0

32099 Keckiella cordifolia 5 127 0 0 0

32223 Winterfat Krascheninnikovia lanata 5,2-3 127 0 0 0

32201 Creosote Larrea tridentata 5,2 127 0 0 0 32131 Scalebroom Lepidospartum squamatum 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32098 Prickly flox Leptodactylon californicum 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32056 Granite gilia Leptodactylon pungens 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31018 Great Basin Alkali sink grasses Leymus cinereus, Distichlis spicata, etc. 5,herb 127 0 0 0

32063 Laurel sumac Malosma laurina 5,2 127 0 0 0 31057 Sphagnum bog species Menyanthes trifoliata, Sphagnum squarrosum, etc. 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31014 Ice plant Mesembryanthemum spp. 5, herb 127 0 0 0

32086 Mimulus aurantiacus 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32445 Alpine cushion plants Misc alpine shrubs 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31047 Purple needlegrass Nassella pulchra 5, grass 127 0 0 0 41045 Tree tobacco Nicotiana glauca 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32218 Buckhorn cholla Opuntia acanthocarpa 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32204 Jumping cholla Opuntia biglovii 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32217 Golden cholla Opuntia echinocarpa 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32079 Prickly pear Opuntia littoralis 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32212 Pencil cactus Opuntia ramosissima 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32226 Mixed succulents Opuntia spp., Ferocactus spp., Echinocereus sp 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31013 Galleta Pleuraphis rigida 5, grass 127 0 0 0

32202 Arrowweed Pluchea sericea 5,3 herb 127 0 0 0 22500 Great Basin pasture/grainfield Poa pratensis, Agropyron desertorum, etc. 5, grass 127 0 0 0 31046 Braken Pteridium aquilinum 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32101 Antelope bush Purshia tridentata 5,2-3 127 0 0 0 31003 Estuarine emergent wetland Salicornia virginica, Suaeda californica, etc. 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31038 Russian thistle or tumbleweed Salsola tragus 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32015 Blue elderberry Sambucus mexicana 5,3 127 0 0 0 32449 Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa 5,3 127 0 0 0 32448 Elderberry spp. Sambucus spp. 5,3 127 0 0 0 31045 Apricot mallow Sphaeralcea ambigua 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31042 Alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides 5, grass 127 0 0 0 31002 Native perennial grassland Stipa spp., Elymus spp., etc. 5, grass 39 0 0.02 0 31028 Medusaehead (exotic) Taeniantherum caput-medusae 6 127 0 0 0 41023 Tamarisk Tamarix spp. 3,2,5 127 0 0 0

32021 Poison oak Toxicodendron diversilobum 5,3 127 0 0 0 31008 Freshwater Sedge-Cat-tail marsh Typha spp., Carex spp., etc. 5, herb 127 0 0 0 31025 Mules ears Wyethia mollis 5, herb 127 0 0 0 32070 Xylococcus bicolor 5,2-3 127 0 0 0 32011 Mountain mahogany Cercocarpus betuloides 5,2 123 0 0 0 32106 Mountain mahogany Cercocarpus ledifolius 5,2 123 0 0 0 32113 Four-wing saltbush Atriplex canescens 5,2-3 119 0 0 0 22300 Confined Feeding Operations 8 22102 Irrigated hayfield 8

22105 Rice fields 8

22106 Pasture 8 93 0 0 0 31049 Ruderal spp. 6 93 0 0 0 31060 Northern hardpan vernal pool spp. 6 93 0 0 0 31061 Northern claypan vernal pool spp. 6 93 0 0 0 32007 Rhododendron Rhododendron macrophyllum 5,2 93 0 0 0

32135 Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus 5,2 93 0 0 0 22700 Reclaimed Lakebed/Waterfowl mgmt/ag Scirpus spp., Typha spp., and cultivated grain 5, herb 93 0 0 0 42049 Parry pinyon Pinus quadrifolia 1 91 0 0 0

32023 Salal Gaultheria shallon 5,3 herb 90 0 0 0 41026 Buckeye Aesculus californica 3 88 0 0 0

41014 White alder Alnus rhombifolia 3 86 0 0 0 32401 Seviceberry Amelanchier utahensis 3,5 81 0 0 0 32060 Western choke cherry Prunus virginiana 3 78 0 0 0

32423 Western redbud Cercis occidentalis 5,3 77 0 0 0 41037 Desert willow Chilopsis linearis 3 77 0 0 0

41054 Water Birch Betula occidentalis 3 76 0 0 0 32078 Flowering ash Fraxinus dipetala 3 72 0 0 0 41040 Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 3 72 0 0 0 32510 Desert peach Prunus andersonii 3 72 0 0 0 41049 Bitter cherry Prunus emarginata 3 72 0 0 0 32082 Bitter cherry (Shrub form) Prunus emarginata 3 72 0 0 0EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-119 GAP specific leaf wt in-leaf season emission factor species Common name Scientific name Vegetation g dry leaf/m2 leaf ug/g dry leaf wt/hr @ ref conditions

code Class SLW ISO MONO MBO 41057 Pacific dogwood Cornus nuttallii 3,5 57 0 0 0 32429 Snowberry Symphoricarpos rotundifolius 5,3 56 0 0 0 32058 Southern honeysuckle Lonicera subspicata 5,3 56 0 0 0 32077 Coffeeberry Rhamnus californica 5,3-2 56 0 0 0 32316 Redberry buckthorn Rhamnus crocea 5,3-2 56 0 0 0 32327 Cascara Rhamnus purshiana 5,3-2 56 0 0 0 32081 Snowberry Symphoricarpos mollis 5,3 56 0 0 0 32053 Ocean spray or Cream bush Holodiscus discolor 5,3 48 0 0 0 32054 Cream bush Holodiscus microphyllus 5,3 48 0 0 0 32430 Huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum 5,3 39 0 0 0 32457 Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 5,3 37 0 0 0 32014 California blackberry Rubus ursinus 5,3 37 0 0 0 31058 Northern basalt vernal pool spp. 6 0 0 0 0 31062 Misc. vernal pool spp. 6 0 00 0

78000 Mud Flats 6 0 00 0

99200 Glaciers 6 0 00 0 55400 Bays and estuaries 6 0 00 0 77100 Dry Salt Flats 6 0 00 0

77200 Beaches 6 0 00 0 77300 Sandy areas other than beaches 6 0 0 0 0

55300 Reservoirs 6 0 00 0

55210 Intermittent lake 6 0 00 0 77401 Bare exposed lava 6 0 00 0 77500 Quarries, and gravel pits 6 0 00 0

99100 Perennial snowfields 6 0 00 0

55310 Intermittent reservoir 6 0 00 0 77400 Bare exposed rock 6 0 00 0

77600 Transitional bare areas 6 0 00 0

77700 Mixed barren land 6 0 00 0

77701 Badlands 6 0 00 0

55200 Lakes 6 0 00 0

55100 Streams and canals 6 0 00 0

Vegetation class

1=conifer 2=broadleaf evergreen

3=broadleaf deciduous 4=palm 5=shrub; "5, 2" = shrub, broadleaf evergreen 5=shrub; "5, 2-3" = shrub, broadleaf evergreen to broadleaf deciduous if cold or water stressed 5=shrub; "5, 3-2" = shrub, basically deciduous but can be evergreen if conditions favorable "5, herb"=herbaceous (rather than woody) shrub "5, grass" = grass

6=unknown

7=urban land use 8=ag land useEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-120 Table 2. Crop BVOC (isoprene, monoterpenes) emission factors (ug Carbon g -1 [dry leaf weight] hr -1 ) at standard conditions (30 C, 1000 umole PAR m -2 s -1 )

Emission factor assignment types: 1 (measured species); 2 (genus average); 3 (family average); 4 (crop class average); 5 (no em ission factor assigned)

SLW: Specific Leaf Weight (g [dry leaf weight] m -2 leaf area)

BVOC

Crop assignment BVOC SLW

Code Class Subclass Species Family Isoprene Monoterpenes type reference SLW reference

G 1 Grain & Hay Crops barley Elyhordeum sp. Poaceae 0.010 0.010 1 h 37.00 ee

G 2 wheat Triticum sp. Poaceae 0.000 0.000 1 k 33.70 rr

G 3 oats Avena sp. Poaceae 0.010 0.020 1 h 39.00 hh

G 6 misc. & mixed grain and hay Poaceae 0.007 0.010 3 r 36.57 hh

R Rice rice Oryza sp. Poaceae 0.000 0.000 1 k 37.00 ff

F 1 Field Crops cotton Gossypium hirsutum Malvaceae 0.000 0.700 1 k 69.44 nn

F 2 safflower Carthamus tinctorius Asteraceae 0.000 0.030 1 k 33.30 ee

F 3 flax Linum usitatissimum Linaceae 5 33.30 ee

F 4 hops Humulus lupulus Cannabaceae 0.000 0.000 1 i 77.00 oo

F 5 sugar beets Beta vulgaris Chenopodiaceae 0.000 0.000 1 e 75.00 cc

F 6 corn (field & sweet) Zea mays Poaceae 0.000 0.030 2 n 67.00 dd

F 7 grain sorghum Sorghum bicolor Poaceae 0.000 0.030 1 k 67.00 dd

F 8 sudan Sorghum bicolor Poaceae 0.000 0.030 2 n 67.00 dd

F 9 castor beans Ricinus communis Euphorbiaceae 0.000 0.000 1 i 67.00 dd

F10 beans (dry) Phaseolus vulgaris Fabaceae 0.000 0.000 2 p 28.25 bb, ss

F11 misc. field 0.000 0.077 4 56.14 Field Crop average

F12 sun flowers Helianthus sp. Asteraceae 0.000 0.030 3 m 33.30 ff

P 1 Pasture alfalfa mix Medicago sativa Fabaceae 0.000 0.200 1 k 34.30 ss

P 2 clover Trifolium repens Fabaceae 0.000 0.000 1 d 22.20 bb

P 3 mixed pasture Poaceae 0.000 0.020 1 l 39.00 gg

P 4 native pasture Poaceae 0.000 0.020 1 l 39.00 gg

P 5 induced high water table native pasture Poaceae 0.000 0.020 1 l 39.00 gg

P 6 misc. grasses Poaceae 0.000 0.020 1 l 39.00 gg

P 7 turf farms Fescue sp Poaceae 0.000 0.000 1 e 39.00 gg

T 1 Truck, Nursery artichokes Cynara scolymus Asteraceae 0.000 0.030 3 m 33.30 ee

T 2 & Berry Crops asparagus Asparagus officinalis Liliaceae 0.000 0.000 1 i 123.30 ii

T 3 green beans Phaseolus vulgaris Fabaceae 0.000 0.000 1 k 28.25 bb, ss

T 4 colecrops Brassica sp. Cruciferae 0.000 0.000 1 e 144.30 ii

T 6 carrots Daucus carota Umbelliferae 0.000 0.900 1 k 70.00 ii

T 7 celery Apium graviolens Umbelliferae 0.000 0.900 3 q 70.00 kk

T 8 lettuce Latuca sativa Asteraceae 0.000 0.000 1 j 49.30 ll

T 9 melons, squash, cucumbers Cucurbitaceae 5 85.47 nn

T10 onion, garlic Allium sp. Amaryllidaceae, Liliaceae 0.000 0.000 1 j 123.30 ii

T11 peas Pisum sativum Fabaceae 0.000 0.000 3 p 28.25 bb, ss

T12 potatoes Solanum tuberosum Solanaceae 0.000 0.010 1 g 35.00 aa

T13 sweet potatoes Ipomoea batatas Convolvulaceae 5 35.00 aa

T14 spinach Spinacia oleracea Chenopodiaceae 0.000 0.000 3 o 144.30 ii

T15 tomatoes Lycopersicon esculentum Solanaceae 0.000 20.000 1 k 80.22 nn

T16 flower, nursery, Christmas tree farm 5

T17 mixed 0.004 1.447 4 83.08 Truck crop average

T18 misc. truck 0.004 1.447 4 83.08 Truck crop average

T19 bushberries Rubus ursinus Rosaceae 0.080 0.000 1 c 37.31 nn

T20 strawberries Fragaria sp. Rosaceae 0.000 0.000 1 e 82.99 pp

T21 peppers Capsicum sp. Solanaceae 0.000 10.000 3 80.20 qq

T22 broccoli Brassica oleracia Cruciferae 0.000 0.000 1 e 144.30 jj

T23 cabbage Brassica oleracia Cruciferae 0.000 0.000 1 e 144.30 ii

T24 cauliflower Brassica oleracia Cruciferae 0.000 0.000 1 e 144.30 jj

T25 brusselsprouts Brassica oleracia Cruciferae 0.000 0.000 1 e 144.30 jj

D 1 Deciduous Fruits apples Malus sp. Rosaceae 0.000 0.100 3 a 86.21 nn

D 2 and Nuts apricots Prunus armeniaca Rosaceae 0.000 0.100 1 a 71.94 nn

D 3 cherries Prunus avium Rosaceae 0.000 0.100 1 a 71.94 nn

D 5 peach, nectarine Prunus persica Rosaceae 0.000 0.100 1 a 71.94 nn

D 6 pears Pyrus sp. Rosaceae 0.000 0.000 2 a 71.94 nn

D 7 plums Prunus domestica Rosaceae 0.000 0.030 1 k 71.94 nn

D 8 prunes Prunus domestica Rosaceae 0.000 0.030 1 k 71.94 nn

D 9 figs Ficus carica Moraceae 27.000 0.200 2 a 81.92 nn

D10 misc. decid. fruit 2.455 0.992 3 81.23 Tree crop average

D12 almonds Prunus dulcis Rosaceae 0.000 0.050 1 k 99.50 nn

D13 walnuts Juglans regia Juglandaceae 0.000 1.800 1 k 40.20 nn

D14 pistacios Pistacia vera Anacardiaceae 0.000 8.400 1 k 154.06 nnEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D - Modeling and

Attainment Demonstrations

D-121 C 1 Citrus grapefruit Citrus paradisi Rutaceae 0.000 1.500 2 a 140.74 nn

C 2 and Subtropical lemons Citrus limonia Rutaceae 0.000 1.500 2 a 140.74 nn

C 3 oranges Citrus sinensis Rutaceae 0.000 0.900 2 a 140.74 nn

C 4 dates Phoenix dactylifera Arecaceae 15.800 0.000 1 a 290.00 mm

C 5 avocados Persea americana Lauraceae 0.000 0.000 1 a 73.39 nn

C 6 olives Olea europea Oleaceae 0.000 0.300 1 a 78.34 nn

C 7 misc. subtropical 8.089 1.489 4 143.95 Subtropical average

C 8 kiwis Actinidia deliciosa Actinidiaceae 5 77.00 oo

C 9 jojoba Simmondsia chinensis Buxacea 0.000 0.000 1 i 225.00 tt

C10 eucalyptus Eucalyptus sp. Myrtaceae 57.000 9.200 2 b 129.60 nn

V 1 Vineyards table grape Vitis vinifera Vitaceae 0.000 0.000 1 k 66.18 nn

V 2 wine grape Vitis vinifera Vitaceae 0.002 0.002 1 f 66.18 nn

V 3 raisin grape Vitis vinifera Vitaceae 0.000 0.000 1 k 66.18 nn

I Idle idle Poaceae 0.000 0.020 3 l 39.00 gg

I 2 idle Poaceae 0.000 0.020 3 k 39.00 gg

BVOC emission factor reference Specific Leaf Weight (SLW) factor reference

a Benjamin et al. 1996 aa Cao and Tibbitts 1997

b Benjamin et al. 1996 (E. globus) bb Clark et al. 1997

c Drewitt et al. 1998 cc Cole 1974

d Flyckt et al. 1980 dd Danalatos et al. 1994

e Hewett and Street 1992 ee de la Rosa et al. 2000, sunflower surrogate

f Koenig et al. 1995 ff de la Rosa et al. 2000

g Lamb et al. 1993 gg Garnier et al. 1997

h Lamb et al. 1993 and Pierce et al. 1998 hh Garnier et al. 1997, grass surrogate

i Rassmussen 1978 ii Jovanovic et al. 1999

j Winer et al. 1989 jj Jovanovic et al. 1999, cabbage surrogate

k Winer et al. 1992 kk Jovanovic et al. 1999, carrot surrogate

l Winer et al. 1992 ("grasslands, annual") ll Jovanovic et al. 1999, lettuce surrogate

m Winer et al 1992 (safflower) mm Miller and Winer 1984

n Winer et al 1992 (sorghum) nn Nowak 1998

o Winer et al. 1989 (beet); Hewitt and Street 1992 oo Nowak 1998, structural class

p Winer et al. 1992 (bean) pp Nowak 1998, Rosaceae average

q Winer et al. 1992 (carrot) qq Nowak 1998, tomato surrogate

r Winer et al. 1992 (wheat) rr Rebetzke and Richards 1999

ss Robinson et al. 1992.

tt Wardlaw et al. 1983

Table 3. GAP regional urban land use reference BVOC emission rates.

GAP Urban land use reference BVOC emission rates urban land use Description Isoprene (mg/m2/hr) Monoterpene (mg/m2/hr)

code Oakland Sacramento Fresno Oakland Sacramento Fresno

11100 residential 1.91 1.28 0.31 0.27 0.76 0.16

11200 commercial + services 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.29 0.01

11300 industrial 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.29 0.01 11400 transportation + utilities 1.34 0.01 0.05 0.22 0.00 0.01 11500 industrial and commercial complexes 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.29 0.01

11600 mixed urban 2.00 1.04 0.11 0.28 0.67 0.05

11700 other urban 2.00 1.04 0.11 0.28 0.67 0.05EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix D Modeling and Attainment

Demonstrations

D-122 Table 4. Canopy-scale reference BVOC emission rates for BEIGIS grid cells A and C, derived from emission factor, specific leaf weight, GAP land cover and satellite LAI inputs

GAP polygon ID 6658

Primary assemblage

Emission Factor 2 Primary Assemblage Co-species Satellite LAI 3 Leafmass Density 4 Emission Rate 5 : cell A Emission Rate 5 : cell C

Species SLW 1 MON MBO ISO Fractional Cover Weighting cell A cell C cell A cell C MON MBO ISO MON MBO ISO Pinus ponderosa 91 4 25 0 0.45 0.333 1.4 1.4 19 19 0.08 0.48 0 0.08 0.48 0

Abies concolor 98 3 0 0 0.45 0.333 1.4 1.4 21 21 0.06 0 0 0.06 0 0 Quercus kelloggii 103 1 0 54 0.45 0.333 1.4 1.4 22 22 0.02 0 1.17 0.02 0 1.17

Secondary assemblage Emission Factor Secondary Assemblage Co-species Satellite LAI Leafmass Density Emission Rate: cell A Emission Rat e: cell C Species SLW MON MBO ISO Fractional Cover Weighting cell A cell C cell A cell C MON MBO ISO MON MBO ISO

Pinus lambertiana 91 4 0 0 0.25 0.333 1.4 1.4 11 11 0.04 0 0 0.04 0 0 Pinus ponderosa 91 4 25 0 0.25 0.333 1.4 1.4 11 11 0.04 0.27 0 0.04 0.27 0 Pseudotsuga menziesii. 55 3 0 1 0.25 0.333 1.4 1.4 6 6 0.02 0 0.01 0.02 0 0.01

Tertiary assemblage Emission Factor Secondary Assemblage Co-species Satellite LAI Leafmass Density Emission Rate: cell A Emission Rate : cell C Species SLW MON MBO ISO Fractional Cover Weighting cell A cell C cell A cell C MON MBO ISO MON MBO ISO Ceanothus integerrimus 127 2 0 0 0.35 0.5 1.4 1.4 31 31 0.06 0 0 0.06 0 0 Arctostaphylos viscida 127 0 0 0 0.35 0.5 1.4 1.4 31 31 0 0 0 0 0 0

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

1 Specific Leaf Weight, g dry leaf weight/m 2 leaf Total LMD Total Emission Rate: cell A Total Emission Rate: cell C

2 MON: ug monoterpene/g dry leaf weight/hr, MBO: ug Carbon/g dry leaf weight/hr, ISO: ug isoprene/g dry leaf weight / cell A cell C MON MBO ISO MON MBO ISO

at reference conditions 30 C and 1000 micromoles/m 2 /s PAR 151 151 0.33 0.74 1.17 0.33 0.74 1.17

3 Leaf Area Index, m 2 leaf area/m 2 land area

4 LMD, g dry leaf weight/m 2 land area

5 MON: mg monoterpene/m 2 land/hr, MBO: mg Carbon/m 2 land/hr, ISO: mg isoprene/m 2 land/hr, at reference conditions.

Table 5. Canopy-scale reference BVOC emission rates for BEIGIS grid cells B and D, derived from emission factor, specific leaf weight, GAP land cover and satellite LAI inputs

GAP polygon ID 6658

Primary assemblage

Emission Factor 2 Primary Assemblage Co-species Satellite LAI 3 Leafmass Density 4 Emission Rate 5 : cell B Emission Rate 5 : cell D
Species SLW 1 MON MBO ISO Fractional Cover Weighting cell B cell D cell B cell D MON MBO ISO MON MBO ISO Pinus ponderosa 91 4 25 0 0.55 0.333 6.6 3.8 110 63 0.44 2.75 0 0.25 1.58 0

Abies concolor 98 3 0 0 0.55 0.333 6.6 3.8 118 68 0.36 0 0 0.20 0 0 Quercus kelloggii 103 1 0 54 0.55 0.333 6.6 3.8 125 72 0.12 0 6.72 0.07 0 3.87

Secondary assemblage Emission Factor Secondary Assemblage Co-species Satellite LAI Leafmass Density Emission Rate: cell B Emission Rat e: cell D Species SLW MON MBO ISO Fractional Cover Weighting cell B cell D cell B cell D MON MBO ISO MON MBO ISO Pinus ponderosa 91 4 25 0 0.35 0.333 6.6 3.8 70 40 0.28 1.75 0 0.16 1.01 0

Abies concolor 98 3 0 0 0.35 0.333 6.6 3.8 75 43 0.23 0 0 0.13 0.00 0 Arctostaphylus patula 127 0 0 0 0.35 0.333 6.6 3.8 98 56 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tertiary assemblage Emission Factor Secondary Assemblage Co-species Satellite LAI Leafmass Density Emission Rate: cell B Emission Rate : cell D Species SLW MON MBO ISO Fractional Cover Weighting cell B cell D cell B cell D MON MBO ISO MON MBO ISO Arctostaphylus patula 127 0 0 0 0.15 0.5 6.6 3.8 63 36 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ceanothus cordulatus 127 2 0 0 0.15 0.5 6.6 3.8 63 36 0.13 0 0 0.07 0 0

NA NA NA NA NA

1 Specific Leaf Weight, g dry leaf weight/m 2 leaf Total LMD Total Emission Rate: cell B Total Emission Rate: cell D

2 MON: ug monoterpene/g dry leaf weight/hr, MBO: ug Carbon/g dry leaf weight/hr, ISO: ug isoprene/g dry leaf weight / cell B cell D MON MBO ISO MON MBO ISO

at reference conditions 30 C and 1000 micromoles/m 2 /s PAR 722 416 1.55 4.50 6.72 0.89 2.59 3.87

3 Leaf Area Index, m 2 leaf area/m 2 land area

4 LMD, g dry leaf weight/m 2 land area

5 MON: mg monoterpene/m 2 land/hr, MBO: mg Carbon/m 2 land/hr, ISO: mg isoprene/m 2 land/hr, at reference conditions.

## Cap on Stationary Source Growth By Pollutant APPENDIX E

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix E - Cap on Stationary Source Growth by Pollutant

E-1 

### Cap on Stationary Source Growth by Pollutant

NOX

2000 2003 2006 2010

Total Stationary Source NOX Emissions (Grown) 156.58 164.20 170.00 172.34

NOX Growth from 2000 7.6 13.4 15.8
NOX Growth per period 7.6 5.8 2.3

ROG

2000 2003 2006 2010

Total Stationary Source ROG Emissions (Grown) 95.25 98.37 102.53 104.98

ROG Growth from 2000 3.1 7.3 9.7
ROG Growth per period 3.1 4.2 2.5

# ❖

## APPENDIX F Suggested Control Measures

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix F- Suggested Control Measures

F-1 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SUGGESTIONS FOR EMISSION CONTROL MEASURES
TO BE CONSIDERED FOR IMPROVING OZONE AIR QUALITY

Control Measure Suggestion Source Ozone

Precursor District Authority? District Response

Stringent requirements

such as low emissions thresholds would help us improve air quality as it

has done in the South

Coast Air Basin. The District should seek every possible means to reduceair emissions; selfclassifying as extreme would help us implement more stringent measures, which would in turn help

meet the federal 8-hr

ozone standard. July 2003 Workshop VOC and

NOx Yes The current plan is directed towards demonstrating attainment of the

federal 1-hour ozone standard. California thresholds applicable to the District are already as stringent as federal extreme thresholds except for the offset ratio, which would go from 1.3 to 1 to 1.5 to 1. A change in threshold is also affected by the final rule implementing the 8-hour ozone

standard.

How are emissions from landscaping equipment

addressed? July 2003 Workshop VOC and

NOx Limited Staff responded that most of the reductions result from equipment change-out. The ARB has significantly reduced emissions fromlawn equipment engines. Using allelectric equipment is an option, but it may not be feasible for commercial landscaping operations. The District is planning to look at emissions from

leaf blowers.

Does the ozone plan

consider emission

sources such as trucks

that are allowed to enter

the United States from Mexico? Does the plan also account for any

federal relaxation of

emissions standards? January 2004 Workshop VOC and

NOx No Any emission estimates that change during plan development will be incorporated to the extent possible (at some point in time the inventory is locked and no further changes are considered—see Chapter 3). These changes can include new sources

such as international trucks or changes in federal or state laws that

increase or decrease estimated

emissions from affected sources.

Seventeen percent of volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions come from animal manure; could you address control

measures such as anaerobic digestion to

reduce these emissions? July 2003 Workshop VOC Yes The District is looking at anaerobic digestion as one of the control measures for confined animal feeding operations. Results from studies underway will allow the District to better estimate emissions and to develop

viable control measures. This Extreme

OADP discusses control measures for this source category in Chapter 4.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix F- Suggested Control Measures

F-2 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SUGGESTIONS FOR EMISSION CONTROL MEASURES
TO BE CONSIDERED FOR IMPROVING OZONE AIR QUALITY

Control Measure Suggestion Source Ozone

Precursor District Authority? District Response

The Ozone Plan should

include an emissions rule for new micropower (electric generators used

as an alternative to or supplement of the state power grid and located near or at the end point of electricity use), or distributed generation

units located in the San Joaquin Valley. January 2004 Workshop VOC and

NOx Yes A rule addressing this request has

been included in the Extreme OADP. See Table 4-1 in Chapter 4.

Expanding transit services between the Bay Area, Sacramento and the Valley is a long term and laudable goal. In the short tem, coordination of the existing rideshare programs in the Bay Area, Sacramento, and the San Joaquin regions can reduce air pollution and congestion. Letter to

District VOC and

NOx No Suggestion noted and will be forwarded to agencies with authority to implement.

Voluntary removal of long-haul trucks from Highway 99 and Interstate 5 through the SJVAB by constructing and operating travel

centers on these corridors that give time of day discounts for stopping at the travel

centers Letter to

District VOC and

NOx Yes Through its incentive programs, the District is working on truck stop

electrification to reduce emissions from idling trucks. However, these projects use existing locations of

travel centers and do not address the part of the suggestion that calls for more strategically located travel centers to reduce truck traffic during

commute hours.

Rather than moving truckloads of goods in the

usual manner on highways, the District

should look at the

emission reduction benefits of using smaller day-cab tractors to load

and unload trailers at

customer facilities in preparation for transportation across

states. Letter to

District NOx and

VOC No Suggestion noted and will be forwarded to agencies with authority to implement.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix F- Suggested Control Measures

F-3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SUGGESTIONS FOR EMISSION CONTROL MEASURES
TO BE CONSIDERED FOR IMPROVING OZONE AIR QUALITY

Control Measure Suggestion Source Ozone

Precursor District Authority? District Response

The District should create

a rule that controls

emissions from drivethrus. July 2003 Workshop;

Verbal

comment to

District Staff NOx and

VOC No Emissions from drive-throughs could be controlled by land use decisions on drive-through restaurants (e.g., banning them in certain areas), restricting operating times of the drive-through component, or reducing emissions from vehicles using drive-through features. The first two types of controls listed are primarily under the purview of local government land use decisions, and the third is under the authority of the

California Air Resources Board. Suggestion noted and will be forwarded to appropriate agencies.

SB700 requires us to modify our burn rules by July 2005. The District

needs to include this in the rules being studied for the ozone plan. January 2004 Workshop VOC and

NOx Yes Open burning rules are included in

this Extreme OADP (Chapter 4).

If the state would give a

fuel tax cut on a fuel incentive to companies and truck owners coming and going to Los Angeles traveling on Highway 395

it would eliminate a lot of pollution in the central valley due to trucks. Letter to

District VOC and

NOx No This general concept is included in Chapter 4 as an idea to study in the

future to determine if a viable control measure could be developed.

All sources contributing to air pollution should pay to clean up the air, not just industry or agriculture. Perhaps a fee could be charged to

new residents who move

to the area or who drive long distances, the

collected funds used for air quality improvement

programs. December

2003 Workshop on

Extreme

Nonattainment VOC and

NOx Yes This concept is being addressed in the Indirect Source Rules (ISR) now being developed by the District.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix F- Suggested Control Measures

F-4 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SUGGESTIONS FOR EMISSION CONTROL MEASURES
TO BE CONSIDERED FOR IMPROVING OZONE AIR QUALITY

Control Measure Suggestion Source Ozone

Precursor District Authority? District Response

Buses are driving around

half full and the

schedules are inadequate; we need to

work on a commuter friendly transportation system to where it is the

first choice over cars for commuting. December

2003 Workshop on

Extreme

Nonattainment VOC and

NOx Limited Operation Clean Air has started work addressing non-regulatory air quality improvements such as these. The Regional Transportation Planning Agencies evaluate and implementmeasures to improve transit ridership. In addition, the District is getting involved in ISR & fleet rules to help reduce other mobile source

emissions.

Regarding the issue of

increased truck traffic in the SJVAB, the District should investigate other avenues for moving goods, such as small barges on our system of irrigation canals. This would represent a low- or no-emission process for moving goods. December

2003 Workshop on

Extreme

Nonattainment VOC and

NOx No Suggestion noted.

The District should consider using natural

sources as buffer zones to capture some of these

ozone emissions after they have been released.

The uses of buffer zones have already been examined by cities and industry. The District should look at planting extremely fast growing trees with deep root systems of hardwood that will improve air quality. August 2004 Workshop on

Extreme

Ozone

Attainment

Demonstration

Plan No No The District will add a future study measure regarding the role of urban landscape management in improving air quality.

The District should

include Alternative

Emission Reduction Programs as a viable and proactive approach to future air quality planning. Written comments,

submitted August 25,

2004 Yes Yes The District will investigate alternative approaches and will add

some text to the section.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix F- Suggested Control Measures

F-5 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SUGGESTIONS FOR EMISSION CONTROL MEASURES
TO BE CONSIDERED FOR IMPROVING OZONE AIR QUALITY

Control Measure Suggestion Source Ozone

Precursor District Authority? District Response

The District should consider creating urban tree planting guidelines to

facilitate the urban landscape’s role in improving air quality. August 2004 Workshop on

Extreme

Ozone

Attainment

Demonstration

Plan VOC Limited, but suggestion is for guidelines The District will add text to the plan regarding a measure for future study in the area of research, education and outreach regarding the role of urban landscapes and agricultural land use on ozone air quality.

# ❖

## APPENDIX G Clean Air Act Requirements

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix G - Clean Air Act Requirements

G-1 

### G.1 Federal Clean Air Act – Plan Requirements

The reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAB) to extreme requires the submittal of an Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (OADP). Under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) extreme area plans are required to meet all the requirements for severe area plans plus the requirements for extreme areas, including but not limited to: (1) A 10 ton per year major source definition; (2) Additional reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules for sources subject to the new lower major source cutoff; (3) A new source review offset requirement of at least 1.5 to 1; (4) A rate of progress demonstration of emission reductions of ozone precursors of at least 3 percent per year from 2005 until the attainment date; (5) Clean fuels for boilers as required for at CAA section 182(e)(3); and contingency measures. In addition, the plan must address the general nonattainment plan requirements in CAA section 172(c). The Extreme OADP for the SJVAB must also contain adopted regulations and may also contain enforceable commitments to the extent consistent EPA guidance, sufficient to make the required rate of progress and to attain the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than November 15, 2010.

For the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (OADP) these requirements are listed and very briefly described in Tables G-1 and G-2, as well as where the elements can be found in the plan.



### G.2 California Clean Air Act Requirements

The California Clean Air Act was signed into law in 1988 and, for the first time, clearly spelled out in statute California's air quality goals, planning mechanisms, regulatory strategies, and standards of progress. The California Clean Air Act provides the State with a comprehensive framework for air quality planning regulation.

Section 40910 of the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) requires air pollution control districts in the state to achieve and maintain state ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide at the earliest practicable date. Section 40911 of the CH&SC requires all districts designated as nonattainment for the state standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen dioxide to prepare and submit a plan for attaining and maintaining the standards to the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Section 40924 (b) of the CH&SC requires districts to prepare a report every three years summarizing progress in meeting the schedules for developing, adopting, and implementing the air pollution control measures contained in each district’s plan for attaining the California air quality standards. Section 40925(a) of the CH&SC requires districts to review and revise theirEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

SJVUAPCD Appendix G - Clean Air Act Requirements

G-2 original 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) to correct for deficiencies in meeting the interim measures of progress incorporated into the plan pursuant Section 40914 [emission reductions], and to incorporate new data or projections into the Plan. This requirement, termed a Triennial AQAP Revision, is on the same reporting schedule as the Triennial Progress Report, and is usually combined with the progress report.

Chapter 8 of the Extreme OADP represents the third Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision for the District; as such, it covers the period 2000-2002, and its original due date was December 31, 2003. However, for Districts preparing State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals in 2004, ARB revised the due date to be the time of the 2004 SIP submittal. Table G-3 briefly describes the various elements required in State Plans and their location in the Extreme OADP.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix G - Clean Air Act RequirementsG-3Table G-1: General Nonattainment Plan RequirementsRequired Plan Element Description Location in planReasonably Available ControlTechnologies (RACT)[Section 172(c)(1)The plan should provide for the implementation of all reasonablyavailable control measures as expeditiously as possible,including reduction in emissions from existing sources throughthe adoption of reasonably available control technology.Chapter 4, Section 4.2.5Reasonable Further Progress[Section 172(c)(2)]The plan requires reasonable further progress in emissionreduction.Chapter 4 – specific controlmeasure emission reductionsChapter 7- overall reduction inpollutants of concernInventory[Section 172(c)(3)]The plan should include a comprehensive, accurate, currentinventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevantpollutant or pollutants in such area, including periodic revisionsas the Administrator may determine necessary to assure that therequirements of this part are met.Chapter 3Identification and Quantification[Section 172(c)(4)]The plan should identify and quantify the emissions, if any, ofany such pollutant or pollutants, which will be allowed, inaccordance with section 173(a)(1)(B), from the construction andoperation of major new or modified stationary sources in eachsuch area. The plan shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of theEPA that the emissions quantified for this purpose will beconsistent with the achievement of reasonable further progressand will not interfere with attainment of the applicable nationalambient air quality standard by the applicable attainment date.Chapter 3, Section 3.4.3Permits for new and modified stationarysources[Section 172(c)(5)]Such plan provisions shall require permits for the constructionand operation of new or modified major stationary sourcesanywhere in the nonattainment area, in accordance with section173.Chapter 3, Section 3.4EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix G - Clean Air Act RequirementsG-4Table G-1: General Nonattainment Plan Requirements-cont.Required Plan Element Description Location in planOther Measures[Section 172(c)(6)]Such plan provisions shall include enforceable emissionlimitations, and such other control measures, means ortechniques (including economic incentives such as fees,marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well asschedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessaryor appropriate to provide for attainment by the applicable date.Chapter 4, Section 4.3 and 4.4Compliance with Section 110(a)(2)[Section 172(c)(7)]Compliance with section 110(a)(2).- Such plan provisions shallalso meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2).Chapter 4Chapter 2, Section 2.4Chapter 3, Section 3.4Equivalent Techniques[Section 172(c)(8)]Upon application by any State, the EPA may allow the use ofequivalent modeling, emission inventory, and planningprocedures, unless the EPA determines that the proposedtechniques are, in the aggregate, less effective than themethods specified by the EPA.Chapter 5, Section 5.3Contingency Measures[Section 172(c)(9)]The plan should include specific measures to be undertaken ifthe area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attainthe national primary ambient air quality standard by theapplicable attainment. Such measures shall be included in theplan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any suchcase without further action by the State or the EPAChapter 4, Section 4.7EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix G - Clean Air Act RequirementsG-5Table G-2: Extreme Area Plan Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment AreasRequired Plan Element Description Location in planInventory [Section 182(a)(1)]Submit a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actualemissions from all sourcesChapter 3, Section 3.2Periodic Inventory[Section 182(a)(3)(A)]Submission of a revised inventory no later than the end of athree-year period after submission of the inventory.Chapter 3, Section 3.4Chapter 7, Section 7.3General Offset requirements[Section 182(e)(1)]The ratio of total emission reductions of volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) to total increased emissions of such airpollutant shall be at least 1.5 to 1, except that if the State planrequires all existing major sources in a nonattainment area touse best available control technology for the control of VOCs,the ratio shall be at least 1.2 to 1.Chapter 1, Section 1.4Chapter 3, Section 3.4.3.3Plan provisions for Reasonable FurtherProgress(Requires: determination of baselineemissions, new source review provisions,and credibility of reductions)[Section 182(b)(1)]The plan should provide for specific annual reductions inemissions of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogenas necessary to attain the national primary ambient air qualitystandard for ozone by the attainment date applicable under thisAct.Chapter 7Section 7.4 and 7.5Reasonably available control technology[Section 182(b)(2)]Implementation of control technologies for VOC sources coveredby control technique guidelines (CTG) documents and all othermajor stationary sources of VOCs that are located in the areaChapter 4EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix G - Clean Air Act RequirementsG-6Table G-2: Extreme Area Plan Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas- cont.Required Plan Element Description Location in planEnhanced Monitoring[Section 182(c)(1)]Follow Federal guidelines for monitoring of concentrations ofozoneChapter 2, Section 2.4Attainment demonstration[Section 182(c)(2)(A)]A demonstration that the plan will provide for attainment of thenational ambient air quality standard by the applicableattainment date. The demonstration must be based onphotochemical grid modeling.Chapter 5, Section 5.6Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)demonstration[Section 182(c)(2)(B)]A demonstration that the plan will result in VOC emissionsreductions from the baseline emissions of at least three percent.Chapter 7Enhanced vehicle inspection andmaintenance program[Section 182(c)(3)]The State shall provide for an enhanced program to reducehydrocarbon emissions and NOx emissions from in-use motorvehicles registered in each urbanized areaChapter 4, Section 4.3Chapter 4, Section 4.6Contingency Provisions[Section 182(c)(9)]The plan shall provide for the implementation of specificmeasures to be undertaken if the area fails to meet anyapplicable milestone. Such measures shall take effect withoutfurther action by the State or the EPA upon a failure to meet theapplicable milestone.Chapter 4, Section 4.7Vehicle Miles Traveled[Section 182(d)(1)]Transportation control strategies/Transportation ControlmeasuresChapter 4, Section 4.5EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix G - Clean Air Act RequirementsG-7Table G-2: Extreme Area Plan Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas- cont.Required Plan Element Description Location in planModifications at a Major Source[Section 182(e)(2)]Any change (as described in Section 111(a)(4) of the CAA) at amajor stationary source which results in any increase inemissions from any discrete operation, unit, or other pollutantemitting activity at the source shall be considered a modificationfor purposes of Section 172(c)(5) and Section 173(a) of theCAA, except that for purposes of complying with the offsetrequirement pursuant to Section 173(a)(1), any such increaseshall not be considered a modification if the owner or operator ofthe source elects to offset the increase by a greater reduction inemissions of the air pollutant concerned from other discreteoperations, units, or activities within the source at an internaloffset ratio of at least 1.3 to 1. The offset requirements of thispart shall not be applicable in Extreme Areas to a modification ofan existing source if such modification consists of installation ofequipment required to comply with the applicableimplementation plan, permit, or this act.Chapter 1, Section 1.4Use of clean fuels or advanced controltechnology[Section 182(e)(3)]Each new, modified, and existing electric utility and industrialand commercial boiler which emits more than 25 tons per yearof oxides of nitrogen, shall(a) burn as its primary fuel natural gas, methanol, or ethanol(or a comparably low polluting fuel), or(b) use advanced control technology or other comparablyeffective control methods) for reduction of emissions ofoxides of nitrogenChapter 4, Section 4.2.6Traffic Control Measures[Section 182(e)(4)]For extreme areas, each plan may contain provisionsestablishing traffic control measures applicable during heavytraffic hours to reduce the use of high polluting vehicles orheavy-duty vehicles, notwithstanding any other provision of law.Chapter 4, Section 4.5 addressesreasonably available controlmeasures for transportation, someof which may apply; this element isnot required for all extreme plans.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix G - Clean Air Act RequirementsG-8Table G-2: Extreme Area Plan Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas- cont.Required Plan Element Description Location in planNew Technologies (Undefined FutureControl Measures) [Section 182(e)(5)]An Extreme Area Plan may include provisions anticipating thedevelopment of new control techniques or improvement ofexisting control technologies. These contingency measuresmust be defined no later than three years before proposedimplementation of the plan provisions.Chapter 4, Section 4.8Chapter 5, Section 5.6(This element is optional.)Milestones[Section 182(g)]Provide a report every three years after the designation todetermine whether the nonattainment area has achieved areduction in emissions during the preceding interval equivalentto the total emission reductions required to be achieved by theattainment date given in the plan.Chapter 7, Section 7.6Failure to Attain Fee -Enforcement underSection 185If area fails to attain the standard by November 15, 2010, majorstationary source of VOCs in the area shall pay a fee to the stateof $5000/ton of VOC emissions per calendar year in excess of80% of a baseline defined as the actual or allowable emissions.Chapter 1, Section 1.4EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix G - Clean Air Act RequirementsG-9Table G-3: California Clean Air Act Planning RequirementsRequired CaliforniaPlan ElementDescription Location in planIndirect and area source controlsAn indirect and area source control program[H&SC 40918(a)(4)]Chapter 8Section 8.5Best available retrofit control technologyBest available retrofit control technology (BARCT) for existingsources of specified sizes[H&SC 40918(a)(2)]Chapter 8, Section 8.4Table 8-2New Source ReviewA program to mitigate all emissions from new and modifiedpermitted sources[H&SC 40918(a)(1)]Chapter 3Section 3.4Section 3.4.3Transportation control measuresTransportation control measures as needed to meet Californiaplan requirements[H&SC 40918(a)(3)]Chapter 8Section 8.5Clean fleet vehicle programsSignificant use of low-emission vehicles by fleet operators[H&SC 40918(a)(4)]Chapter 8Section 8.5Rate of ProgressReducing pollutants contributing to nonattainment by fivepercent per year for all feasible control measures and anexpeditious adoption schedule.[H&SC 40914]Not applicable to SJVABPublic education programsPublic education programs[H&SC 40918(a)(6)]Chapter 6Per-capita exposureReducing per-capita population exposure to severenonattainment pollutants according to a prescribed schedule[H&SC 40920(c)]Chapter 8Section 8.3Figure 8-10EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLANSJVUAPCD Appendix G - Clean Air Act RequirementsG-10Table G-3: California Clean Air Act Planning Requirements-cont.Required CaliforniaPlan ElementDescription Location in planAny other feasible controlsAny of the feasible controls that can be implemented or forwhich implementation can begin, within 10 years of adoptiondate of the most recent air quality plan[H&SC 40920.5 (c)]Chapter 8Section 8.5Control measure rankingRanking control measures by cost-effectiveness andimplementation priority[H&SC 40922]Chapter 8Section 8.6

## APPENDIX H Comments and Responses

# ❖EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-1 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

MADE OR SUBMITTED DURING PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE

DRAFT EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN FOR
THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN

September 7, 2004

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) released

the Draft Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (OADP) for public review on July 30, 2004. In conjunction with releasing the plan, the District announced a series of three workshops to be held on the Draft Extreme OADP on August 12 and 13, 2004. The District mailed about 1200 notices to the ozone plan mailing list announcing plan availability and workshop dates, and also used the notice as a legal advertisement that appeared in the eight major San Joaquin Valley newspapers. District staff conducted the workshops in person in the Central Region (Fresno), and via video-teleconference links to Bakersfield and Modesto. About 27 people attended the first day of workshops (August 12, 2004) and about 20 attended the second day workshop (August 13, 2004). The August 12 workshops were held at 1:00 pm and 6:30 pm, and the August 13 th workshop was held at 10:00 am. The evening workshop on August

12 th was a community meeting geared toward simplified presentations and discussions of the topics. The comment period for the Draft EOADP ended on August 27, 2004. Participants at the three workshops made over fifty verbal comments, and several other stakeholders submitted written comments.

The District has paraphrased most comments for the sake of brevity, and has consolidated comments when participants raised similar concerns, questions, issues, and suggestions. The comments received (in their entirety) are available upon request at the District’s Central Office. The following is a summary of the comments received, and responses prepared by District staff. To facilitate finding a particular comment or idea expressed in a comment, Verbal Comments are organized by Draft Extreme OADP chapter title. Comments that did not fit cleanly within a particular chapter are noted at the

end of “Verbal Comments” as “Miscellaneous Comments.” The section entitled “Verbal Comments” includes comments made at the workshops as well as comments made during stakeholder meetings after the workshops. Written comments are organized by the name of the organization submitting the comments. Comments appear only once in this Summary and are not repeated under the major headings of “Verbal Comments” and “Written Comments.” Also, if a commenter provided the same comment verbally and in writing, the written version is used for the response. No formal written comments were received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (ARB), or the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) Transportation Planning Agencies.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-2 

### VERBAL COMMENTS

Chapter 1 Purpose of the Plan and Plan Development

1. Comment: Will the plan only be used for the next 12 months or so? Response: The Plan itself may have a limited life due to EPA’s planned revocation of the federal 1-hour ozone standards, but the control measures in

the Extreme OADP will be used to help demonstrate attainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standards, and thus will continue to be viable air quality improvement tools in the future.

2. Comment: How does this program mesh with the 8 hour standard? Response: The Draft Extreme OADP addresses only the federal 1-hour

ozone standards. In collaboration with ARB and the other north-central California air districts, the District has begun work on developing the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan. This plan is due to EPA on June 15,

2007.

3. Comment: This plan does not focus on sub-regional modeling and is focusing on stationary sources of air pollution. Since stationary sources are more heavily located in the Southern Valley, the District controls are mainly in the South Valley, which may not help improve air quality in the North Valley. Also, this approach may not be the most efficient way of controlling air pollution. Response: In this plan the District control measures primarily address the source categories for which the District has authority to control, which is stationary sources. Emissions reductions from ARB control measures supplement those of the District, and do address source categories outside District’s authority. In addition, the District has listed areas of future study that primarily target sources outside of the District’s authority to control (mobile sources). As the District noted in the responses to comments for the January 2004 workshops, sub-regional modeling was not conducted for the 1-hour ozone modeling conducted for plans in 2003 and 2004. The focus for the 1- hour ozone modeling conducted during 2003 and 2004 was on model selection, episode selection, model performance evaluation, incorporation of data from the Central California Ozone Study, and running the model to produce results in time for regulatory deadlines and air quality plan submittals. This baseline level of technical work has to be accomplished before more advanced topics such as sub-regional modeling can be studied and conducted. For the SJVAB, the time available to do modeling for the Extreme

OADP was consumed by developing a working episode for the plan, such thatno time was available for investigating the more advanced topics. Subregional modeling will be explored for the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration plans due in 2007. The District and the ARB believe that the modeling that was done for this plan does meet all EPA requirements for modeling. Also see the Addendum to these comments.

Chapter 2 San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

4. Comment: In the rule development process there are steps the District takes in determining if a rule is feasible, such as a socioeconomic analysis; the District needs to include a health impact assessment to determine feasibility.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-3 Response: Because most District activities are directed towards attaining health-based air quality standards in the SJVAB, protection of public health is the driver for District activities. Therefore, the rule development process does not ignore human health. If a particular rule is determined to be not feasible for reasons including socioeconomic factors, then the emissions reductions from that rule are obtained using controls on other sources, such that human health is protected in accordance with the overall emissions reductions identified in the plan triggering the rule. On the other hand, socioeconomic factors drive many public and private development projects, which is why many states and the federal government have passed laws such as the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act to ensure that human health is considered in decisions involving these types of projects.

Chapter 3 Emissions Inventory

5. Comment: California legislation signed into law in 2003 that regulates agricultural sources of air pollution eliminates agricultural burning in 2010 yet does not eliminate controlled or prescribed burning by federal and state land management and forestry agencies. Yet information from the District shows that emissions from prescribed burning can be a large part of the inventory. How does the District handle this in the inventory? Response: Future inventories will reflect control measures implemented to comply with state law, such as the phase out of agricultural burning, because the District must pass rules to reduce emissions when so directed by state law. The amount of emissions for prescribed burning in the inventory represents the amount that the land management agencies have told the District that they would like to accomplish on an average day in the SJVAB. The District does control prescribed burns on a case-by-case basis, and prohibits them from taking place on days of marginal or poor air quality. Because of this District’s control and other complicating factors that the land management agencies must consider, the land management agencies have not been able to burn as much acreage as they have told the District that they would like to accomplish. Land management agencies assert that prescribed burning and mechanical thinning to maintain fuel loadings in forests at desirable levels offer air quality benefits over no or limited prescribed burning that lets biomass accumulate and makes forested lands susceptible to large wildfires that can have significant air quality impacts.

6. Comment: In the table on page 3-7 of the Draft Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, for the years 2000, 2008 and 2010, the District has 1.5 tpd of NOx coming from petroleum refineries. Did the District factor in the closing of the Shell refinery, which would cut those numbers in half? Will there be any consideration of this closure because it is very significant, and if so does the District plan to do this before locking in these numbers? Shell is scheduled to close this refinery before the end of this year. Response: For the plan the District used a version of the Air Resources Board (ARB) emission inventory (CCOS, Version 2.11) that did not reflect the anticipated closure of the Shell refinery. If the Shell refinery is closed, then future inventories developed after this plan will capture the emissions

reductions from this closure. The District and ARB must submit the Extreme

OADP to EPA by November 15, 2004, and thus the inventory in this Extreme OADP will not show the effects from the closure of the Shell refinery.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-4 However, the 2006 PM10 Plan, the 2007 8-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, and the 2008 PM2.5/Regional Haze Plan will all use updated inventories, so if the Shell refinery does indeed close at some future date, then the emissions reductions from this closure will likely be reflected in inventories used in one or more of these plans.

7. Comment: Table 3-2 on page 3-15 shows a positive number for the growth factor for refineries. Since the refinery industry is in a downturn, how did the District get a positive growth factor? For example, since 1980 there have been about 30 refineries shut down statewide, including two in the Valley, and the Shell refinery is due to close this year. Response: District staff researched the Table 3-2 growth rate information for refineries and confirmed that it is reported correctly in Table 3.2 as a growth factor of 0.1% for stationary source combustion. This information comes from the California Air Resources Board’s California Emission Forecasting System. It should be noted that Table 3-2 only compares NOx emissions for the year 2000 with the year 2010, such that the growth rate reflects projected growth for this decade for fuel combustion at refineries. Any refinery downturn in the 1980 to 2000 time period would already have been reflected in the 2000

baseline.

8. Comment: On pages 3-25 of the plan, it indicates that the plan is based on two types of inventories: a planning inventory and a modeling inventory. When a control measure is built into the plan and enters the rule development process, the District’s practice has been to send out a survey and request

information from stakeholders. This allows the District to refine emissions inventory for a particular rule. How does that information get incorporated into the planning and modeling inventories? Response: The District sends new information on emissions from particular source categories to ARB, and the ARB evaluates the information for possible inclusion in future emissions inventories. The modeling inventory used in the attainment demonstration is a day-specific inventory, so and new information would be incorporated into this inventory as appropriate for the affected source category and the day of interest. To go from the planning inventory to the modeling inventory, District and ARB staff also spatially allocate the emissions for the day of interest and also subdivide the volatile organic compound emissions into reactivity class for use by the photochemical model.

9. Comment: Are the ARB reductions given in the control measure workshop presentation of 90 tons per day of reactive organic gases and 140 tons per day of nitrogen oxides the total reductions from the state, or are the new ARB

reductions for the Extreme OADP in addition to these totals? Response: The 90 tons per day of ROG and 140 tons per day of NOx are reductions from measures that have long since been adopted; the 15 tons per day of ROG and 20 tons per day NOx are from new ARB measures to be adopted by 2010.

10. Comment: What is the proportion of the problem caused by stationary

sources versus mobile sources? Response: Emissions from mobile sources account for about 60% of the ozone precursor emissions; the other 40% is accounted for by area and stationary sources. That’s why an integrated solution is needed. The District only controls 40% of emission sources and ARB and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have authority over mobile sources.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-5 11. Comment: The rapid decrease in the on-road motor vehicle emission source category shown in Table 3-1 for 2000, 2008 and 2010 appears optimistic and undoubtedly is based on an assumed rate of vehicle turnover (these numbers did correlate with independent runs of CARB’s EMFAC 2002 model, though). How do these data account for significant on-road life and limited vehicle population turnover? Response: This is based on fleet turnover assuming people will buy new vehicles and the fleet and engines will turn over (i.e., new, cleaner burning engines will replace older engines that emit more air pollutants). The benefits of cleaner burning engines are assumed to phase in over time after a new standard becomes effective. Vehicle buy back programs and alternative vehicle registration programs that are discussed in Chapter 4 of the Extreme OADP help encourage fleet turnover. The buy-back program provides funds for people to scrap older, high emitting vehicles in lieu of newer cleaner burning vehicles. The alternative registration programs either prohibit registration of older vehicles (as Phoenix, Arizona has done through legislation) or increase the cost of registering higher polluting vehicles relative to the cost of registering low emitting vehicles.

12. Comment: Table 3-2, page 3-15 shows that the source category of Food and Agricultural Processing has a large inventory yet only has a control factor of 10.1%. It seems like the District could obtain large emissions reductions from this source category that would help improve air quality. Response: It is important to note that Table 3-2 only reflects emissions changes relevant to ERC calculations for NOx for the years 2000 and 2010. Thus the 10.1% control factor reflects only additional controls for this time period; all of the emissions controls already placed on this source category prior to the year 2000 do not show up in the 10.1% because they are already reflected in the year 2000 emissions that for the baseline for computing the

additional controls in the 2000—2010 time frame.

Chapter 4 Control Strategies

13. Comment: What percentage of the emissions reductions needed for attainment address mobile source emissions and what percentage addresses stationary source emissions? Response: The State of California has authority to regulate mobile sources, and most of the reductions in the plan that address mobile sources come from the state (ARB) measures. As noted in the workshop presentation on state control measures, the state has already achieved large emissions reductions in the SJVAB (see Comment Number 9 above). About 40% of the new additional emissions controls identified in this plan as needed for attainment can be attributed to ARB (see Chapter 5).

14. Comment: As far as Smart Growth and transportation, what is happening with the Indirect Source Rules (ISR)? Response: The District continues to work on revising the internal draft rule based on comments provided during the spring 2004 public meetings; more

information will be available within the next two months.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-6 15. Comment: How is the District going to deal with the North American Fair Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? The large amount of trucks coming into our air basin per day will slow traffic down and cause air pollution to go up. Response: Research is being done by ARB on how much pollution is caused by trucks coming into California due to NAFTA, especially trucks based in Mexico. The ARB is developing this information, and plans to have it available for the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration plans that are due to EPA in 2007. The air quality impacts from NAFTA trucks are not considered in this Plan because the Supreme Court decision allowing trucks to enter California happened too late in the Plan development process, and because very little information is available regarding emissions from NAFTA trucks in California.

16. Comment: What is the District currently doing with Smart Growth? Response: Elements of smart growth are currently considered in the District’s programs related to land use, including the development of Indirect Source Rules, the District’s review of development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act, and the District’s guidance documents such as Guidelines for General Plans currently under revision.

17. Comment: There are air impact fees in some communities now, which are pretty hefty on each home being built; where do these fees go, and are they used to reduce pollution? Response: The District is working on an Indirect Source Rule, which has not been adopted yet, so the District is not collecting any fees at present to account for the air quality impacts from new homes. The City of Bakersfield is assessing fees on new homes, and the process for deciding how this money gets spent is still being set up. The District is working with parties involved in the Bakersfield new housing impact fee to ensure that the money is spent on projects that actually generate emission reductions; however the District does not have authority over funds are spent, and can only provide advice and

information.

18. Comment: Is the District required to control emissions from mobile sources? If mobiles sources are 60% of the cause, how does your plan line up with

sources? Response: See Comment Number 13 above. The District has only limited regulatory authority over mobile sources, whereas ARB does have authority and consequently most of the responsibility for mobile sources. Two control measures shown in Table 4-1 reflect the District’s rules for reducing mobile source emissions: school bus fleets and indirect source rules (combined reductions of 4.1 tons per day of NOx in 2010). Because the District has limited regulatory authority to reduce emissions from mobile sources, it uses incentive programs to assist in providing emissions reductions (see Section

4.4 in the Draft Extreme OADP ). For example, the District has provided incentive funds for the purchase of light duty vehicles that use hybrid technology to reduce emissions, and it provides funds for reducing emissions from heavy-duty engines currently in use. In addition, Section 4.3.1 of this plan presents ideas for controlling mobile source emissions in the future; the District and others will examine these for viability as future measures to reduce

mobile source emissions.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-7 19. Comment: For the record, language should be included in this plan stating that the SJVAB’s attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard is contingent upon implementation of EPA and ARB emission control measures, especially

for mobile sources. Response: Chapter 5 of the Draft Extreme OADP clearly shows that ARB

emissions controls are needed to demonstrate attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard in the SJVAB. Typically the type of wording referenced in the comment is included in the resolution adopting a plan. For example, the District Governing Board resolution requesting EPA to reclassify the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for the federal 1-hour ozone standard (Resolution Number 03-12-10) contains the following language: “The Governing Board expects the ARB and EPA to continue to actively pursue mobile source emissions reductions in the SJVAB.” Similar language will be considered for the resolution adopting the Extreme OADP

.

20. Comment: The District should consider using natural sources as buffer zones to capture some of these ozone emissions after they have been released. The uses of buffer zones have already been examined by cities and industry. The District should look at planting extremely fast growing trees with deep root systems of hardwood that will improve air quality. Response: See similar comment under Written Comments. The District will add a future study measure regarding the role of urban landscape management in improving air quality.

21. Comment: On page 4-3 of the plan there is no column with total reductions. The reductions in Table 4-1 do not add up to the 300 tons per day that the District has previously identified as being needed to attain the federal 1-hour

ozone standard. Where will the additional reductions come from? Response: The 300 tons per day emissions reduction target was derived from an old inventory in an old plan, and was based on a different modeling process and a different model. The information that is presented to the public today is better. It uses the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) information that was gathered through the year 2000, as well as updated and more sophisticated meteorological and photochemical models. So the District is moving away form the old number and replacing it with the new information and analyses that are in this extreme plan. The prior estimate of 300 tons per day was developed around 2001/2002. Using the information in this Draft

Extreme OADP to compare 2002 emissions (Chapter 7) with the 2010 emissions needed to demonstrate attainment (Chapter 5) shows that the reductions needed are still about 300 tons per day.

22. Comment: In Table 4-2 (Potential Control Measures Requiring Further Study) the District is looking at future measures and their feasibility. If a control measure is determined not feasible, the District may decide to drop it. What is the time frame for these decisions, between now and when the plan goes to the Governing board, or is this between now and 2007? Response: For some of the control measures the District is already looking at the emissions inventory and what the feasibility is, for others it may be a year or two, but it will not be something the District will be deciding between now and the Governing Board hearing on October 8, 2004. The District may commit to these measures in a future plan, such as the reassessment of the

PM10 Plan in 2006 or the 8-hour Ozone Plan in 2007 .EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-8 23. Comment: In regards to integrated solutions to air quality, the School Bus Fleet Rule is a very specific way to reduce emissions. What is the status of the rule currently? Response: The District held workshops on August 25 th and 26 th, 2004, to present, discuss, and receive comments on draft rule 9310. This rule is listed in Table 4.1 and is estimated to result in a NOx reduction of 0.1 tons per day in

2010.

24. Comment: In looking at the Carrying Capacity chart (Figure 5-5), the line is drawn at 125 ppm for VOC. How do these levels compare with limits established in District permits for NOx? Response: The limits that are shown in the graph are ambient air quality limits, and represent concentrations of ozone in the ambient air. Ozone is formed in the air by chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, and the District’s permit conditions address limits of nitrogen oxides or VOCs. Concentrations given in permits usually refer to the level of the pollutant in the exhaust gas, and the concentrations referred to in Figure 5-5 refer to the ambient air.

25. Comment: Control strategies are still across the board, yet there are different inventory mixes in the regions. The District may find you need more NOxreduction one area and more VOC in another. The District may find subregional control is a big leap from the way it has been doing things. When the District writes plans, sub-regionalization is not in there as anything more than an idea. How can the Valley get a plan that does this, and if the 1-hour is a placeholder how does sub-regionalization get into the 8-hour plan? Response: The District is working to get the modeling done early to drive the plans, and then staff can run different types of scenarios before the District completes a draft plan. As indicated in the response to Comment Number 3 above, insufficient time was available in the Extreme OADP schedule for this type of work once the episode used was finally ready.

26. Comment: Has the District examined emissions from dairies and crops? Response: Rule development is underway for dairies and for open burning, as indicated by Table 4-1. Also, emissions from plants are included in the biogenic inventory used in the modeling inventory.

27. Comment: Was there any numerical credit taken for emissions reductions for all of the “Integrated Solutions” presented at the workshop? Did the District

take numerical credit for the mobile source incentives? Response: The District did not take emissions reductions credit for all of the “Integrated Solutions” listed in the workshop presentation; most of the reductions in the Draft Extreme OADP come from stationary and mobile source control measures, and some from fleets and land use policies (principally indirect source rules).

28. Comment: How do you determine the impact of a specific rule? How do you determine the impact on ozone? Response: The impact of a rule shows up in the planning inventory by an emission reduction, but even there the magnitude of the reduction and the number of significant figures used in the inventory play key roles in whether the reductions from the rule will show up. For example, if the inventory is expressed to the nearest 0.1 tons per day, and a rule achieves a reduction of 0.04 tons per day, it may not show up from one inventory to another. TypicallyEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-9 only large emissions reductions of tens of tons per day show up in ozone levels predicted by a gridded photochemical model. The ultimate judges are the monitors at that future date saying whether or not you made it.

29. Comment: There appears to be less VOC/NOx control in District Control Measure Schedule (Table 4-1) than are claimed for new District measures in SJVAB Federal 1-hour Ozone Attainment Concept (Table 5-1, p 5-11). What

is the source of the difference? Response: As noted in the footnotes to Table 5-1, a variety of data sources are used to demonstrate attainment, one of which is the post-PM10 Plan measures presented in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 only reflects reductions from

control measures under District Control. Reductions from District incentives and from ARB control measures are also used to demonstrate attainment, but are not shown in Table 4-1. Also, the reductions from PM10 Plan measures are used as given in the Amended PM10 Plan , which was approved by EPA effective June 25, 2004. The footnotes in Table 5-1 clearly identify all data

sources used in the attainment demonstration. The District will add additional text cautioning against the comparison of Table 4-1 with Table 5-1.

Chapter 5 Future Ozone Air Quality

30. Comment: The way the modeling is set up, when data is given to District staff developing the control strategies, could the District do sub-regionalization to link the sources to impacts of control measures on ozone levels? Response: In the model, staff can remove emissions in any portion of the region and take a look at the model sensitivity. The District has done some exploratory work on this and has seen some changes in predicted ozone levels. This can be done, but is not required. Sub-regionalization is one of our goals, but as noted above in Comment Number 3, it was not pursued for this particular Extreme OADP . Most of the modeling was done by ARB. For the 8- hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, the District is planning to and encouraging its partners to look at doing different things, such as more expansive modeling of different episodes, and looking at regional variations. Since the information necessary to do this type of modeling was not available

in the Draft Extreme OADP’s timeframe, the District decided to direct this effort to the 8-hour plan and not pursue it for the 1-hour plan due to the limited time

available.

31. Comment: Is there a modeling inventory in the Appendices and is it broken down into source categories. Response: As noted on page 3-6 of the Draft Extreme OADP, the modeling inventory is not included with the plan because of its complexity and volume. It is not suited to presentation in either tabular or text form.

32. Comment: Referring to the photochemical modeling presentation, the slide entitled Model Performance Zones shows numbers on a map; what do the numbers in the grid represent? Response: They represent individual areas with source receptor relationships that were set up to evaluate model performance.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-10 33. Comment: Did the District take biogenic emissions out of the inventory to

show attainment? Response: No, they were removed to test the model, biogenic emissions are hard to quantify, so staff wanted to see if uncertainty in biogenics emissions had a large effect on predicted ozone levels. Biogenic emissions are included in the modeling inventory used as input to the production of the carrying capacity diagram.

34. Comment: In the carrying capacity diagrams, do any sources of NOx come

from natural sources? Response: Yes, there are some natural sources of NOx that are included in the modeling inventory that is used to ultimately produce the diagrams.

35. Comment: Do the biogenics stay the same for the model in the future? Response: When staff runs the model, they keep the biogenics the same for the Base case and for future cases, so that it is consistent.

36. Comment: What do the ozone monitors record in the atmosphere after control measures are implemented? Response: District and state control measures reduce emissions, and emission reductions improve air quality. Chapter 2 presents a number of graphs that show improving ozone air quality in the SJVAB due to emissions reductions and other factors. The weather and geography of the SJVAB can combine to sometimes mask the effects of these emission reduction programs, or to sometimes show significant improvements in air quality. It is important to remember that the relationship between ozone precursor emissions reductions and ozone formation in the atmosphere is not one to one. A given reduction in emissions can produce drastically different ozone responses in different air

basins or in the same air basin at different times.

Chapter 6 Outreach

37. Comment: The District doesn’t have anything in the plan about partnering with other agencies, such as the USDA being able to cost share diesel engines, possibility of cost sharing mobile diesel engines and the other cost-share programs that are available to facilitate cleaner air? Response: Yes, the district does have incentive programs for heavy-duty diesel engines. The District has tried to partner in the past with the USDA and others on cost sharing the replacement of older dirtier engines with cleaner engines, and will continue to do so in the future where possible. With the changes to agricultural operations and regulations the legislature has passed legislation to allow those funds to still be available for those sources, and other sources, such as school buses, but the bill has not yet been signed. The District is looking at replacing a lot of the older school buses with cleaner buses that have fewer emissions. The District is looking for funding opportunities for those sources.

38. Comment: This plan is so important for the Valley and the comment deadline is only ten days. Why wasn’t more time allowed for the public to participate in this plan? What will happen if the plan is not submitted on time? Response: The District held the first workshop for this plan on July 23, 2003, so the total time for the public to be involved in plan development is about 18

months. The Draft Extreme OADP was released for public review on July 30,EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-11 2004, and the comment period closed on August 27, 2004. The approximately 30-day public review period is consistent with prior District actions of this type, especially since much of the plan’s contents has been available for 6-18 months. For example, the control measures consist of PM10 Plan measures that have been available since March 2003, and new District and State measures that have been available since January 2004 (and many of the District measures have been developed in a very public process in response to state legislation passed last year). Modeling results were first shared in January 2004. The process of incorporating voluminous CCOS data into a multi-agency, highly technical SIP modeling process has been extremely involved, and consumed a large part of the project schedule. EPA staff has indicated to District staff that EPA would issue a “Finding of Failure to Submit” if the Extreme OADP is not submitted to EPA by November 15, 2004. Furthermore, this finding is also likely to trigger sanction clocks and a federal implementation plan clock, both of which the District, ARB, and stakeholders are trying to avoid.

39. Comment: The overall plan development schedule may not allow enough time for the District to provide meaningful responses to comments and to make corresponding plan revisions. Even though most of the control measures in the Plan have been available for public review for some time, members of the public may want to suggest new control measures or other things they want added to the plan; will there be time to add these? Response: The District’s schedule allows time for responding to the comments and for making necessary plan revisions. Appropriate new ideas for control measures will be considered for inclusion in the Plan, most likely as areas for future study that will lead to control measures for the next ozone plan.

40. Comment: Do you have anything in the plan that works toward educating the public to get their buy-in? Response: The District has an active Public Education program to outreach to the public, to do community events, and to provide clean air materials in multiple languages. Examples are the Spare the Air Day, and lawn mower exchanges and billboard and radio advertisements. See Chapter 6 of the

Draft Extreme OADP as well as Section 4.4.

41. Comment: Is there a way to adequately inform the public of upcoming workshops? Response: The District currently publishes workshop notices in eight major newspapers throughout the San Joaquin Valley. The notices are located in

the Public Notice sections of the Classified Advertisements. The District’s website ( www.valleyair.org ) that offers a listing of upcoming workshop notices and materials. The website also offers materials and handouts from past workshops. The website is frequently publicized in the District’s radio and

television advertisements.

Chapter 7 Rate of Progress

42. Comment: What is the total emissions inventory that will support attainment of

the federal 1-hour ozone standard in the SJVAB? Response: As shown in Table 5-1, the emissions inventory that

demonstrates attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard is about 85% ofEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-12 the 2010 VOC inventory (or about 312 tons per day of VOC), and about 86% of the NOx inventory (or about 346 tons per day).

Chapter 8 California Clean Air Act

43. Comment: Will the state requirements change with the Federal 1-hour standard going away? Response: No, the state will keep its 1-hour ozone standard of 0.09 ppm and will also implement an 8-hour standard, currently proposed at 0.07 ppm.

Miscellaneous Comments

44. Comment: Certification may be an alternative to permitting; there may be other options available. Response: The District always considers alternatives to the typical command and control. Certification or registration is worth considering for large numbers of sources for which the administrative costs of permitting, source testing, and/or inspecting would be prohibitively expensive.

45. Comment: Are Brandy producers aware that a control measure has been proposed? Response: The district has been working with the Wine Institute and has consulted with all the major brandy producers.

46. Comment: Why would Brandy Production be considered as a new Control

measure? Response: Brandy production is a significant source of VOC emissions, perhaps even higher than wineries. New control measures could be designed to reduce VOC emissions created during the production of brandy, including distillation, aging and bottling.

47. Comment: Will portable stationary IC (agriculture) engines be listed under potential Control Measures Requiring Further Study? Response: The District is waiting for ARB to finalize Air Toxic Control Measures (ATCM’S), and then the District will look at measures in this area for all portable engines.

48. Comment: What does Control measure N (Water heaters, 0.075-2.0 MMBtu/hr) include? Response: This rule could include new commercial, industrial or institutional units. Emissions will be reduced mostly by new units, based on furnace incentives for replacement of unit (see page 4-21 of the Draft Extreme OADP ). This will be a one for one replacement; the facility will not be required to change all units over at the time of the first replacement.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-13 

### WRITTEN COMMENTS

Comments submitted by Western State Petroleum Association (WSPA), August 25, 2004.

49. Comment: In regards to the potential Control Measures Requiring further study (Table 4-2) WSPA believes all of the future control measured identified be subject to an open review during the consultation, development, and review phase. Since the list of future control measures was based on other districts’ measures that may have potential application in the SJVAPCD planning process, it is important to note that because these measures work in one district they may not work in another. Each of the future measures must undergo rigorous scrutiny as to applicability and effectiveness given the uniqueness of each air district. Response: The process described above is consistent with what happens during the District’s rule and plan development process. The District does not merely adopt another district’s rules.

50. Comment: Section 5.6 indicates that the additional 5 tons per day of NOX and 5 tons per day of VOC’s will be obtained through an unknown control measure (i.e., ‘Black Box”), which will be identified in 2007 and implemented by 2010. Will the black box be effective since the modeling will be basin-wide, with no sub-regional analysis? Sub-regional control measures may get a bigger reduction. WSPA understands that nothing can be done for this OADP. It is crucial that such modeling be included in the 8-hour Plan. WSPA intends to

hold the District to this commitment. Response: See responses to verbal comments regarding sub-regional analyses. The District will relay these points to ARB, who will be primarily responsible for conducting the modeling for the 8-hour ozone plans.

51. Comment: Section 4.3.2 discussed the consideration of new concepts in air quality planning under the title of Sustainable incentives. WSPA believes the District should go even further in this section of the OADP and include Alternative Emission Reduction Programs as a viable and proactive approach to future air quality planning. WSPA feels this is the key to future air quality planning and strongly recommend that Section 4.3.2 be amended to include this approach. Response: The District will investigate alternative approaches and will add

some text to the section.

52. Comment: WSPA is concerned that there may be a potential for a double cap on ERC credits. The baseline has been moved to Year 2000. However, ERC’s are already massively discounted. WSPA believes the combination of discounts and Federal limits essentially caps the ERC’s. The addition of a cap in the OADP further restricts an already heavily discounted program. Response: The District agrees with WSPA that emission reduction credits (ERCs) are discounted as they are generated and used in the District’s permitting program, but we do not agree that discounting can be considered to be a cap on allowed ERC-use, even when coupled with the comparison to time-of-use federal discounting requirements.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-14 If the District fails to demonstrate that the existing District offsetting program is equivalent to the federal time-of-use requirements, there is a specific end result (the “hammer”) already contained in the District’s New and Modified Source Review (NSR) rule - the District must require that new major sources and major modifications use only federally acceptable offsets (those that are surplus at the time of their use). There is no cap, in the current NSR rule, on the quantity of federally acceptable offsets that can be used for new major sources and major modifications, and in fact, there are no limits at all on ERCs that can be used to offset non-major projects.

Therefore the District does not agree that the OADP’s cap on pre-baseline ERC usage is a “double cap”.

53. Comment: WSPA hopes that the 8-hour Ozone Plan will incorporate the comments made here with regard to detail and accuracy. The 8-hour should provide more accurate emissions inventories, refined air quality modeling (including sub-regional modeling), reliable traditional emission control measures and alternative emission reduction programs (including sub-regional measures and programs). Response: Planning is underway with ARB (who develops modeling emissions inventories and conducts the photochemical modeling for the 8-hour plans) and with adjacent districts to develop the framework for producing all of the north-central California 8-hour ozone SIPs that are due to EPA by June 15, 2007. All of the above points have been conveyed to the working group that is developing this framework, and every effort within the resources available will be made to make sure the 8-hour plan development process is an improvement over the process used to develop the 1-hour plan. See also response to comment number 3 and the addendum to these comments.

Comments submitted by The California Building Industry Association (CBIA)

54. Comment: The letter summarized CBIA’s previous comments on the draft rules presented earlier this year and includes the following statements: There was lack of balance in the District’s proposed rules, citing the scant emission reductions that are out of proportion with the cost and administrative burden needed to implement the regulations. Comments also cited the incompleteness of the District’s proposed program, identifying the inadequate modeling capability to estimate project emissions as well as reductions in emissions attributable to control measures accurately. Finally, CBIA’s comments called to the District’s attention its failure to recognize and take into account the shrinking emission reductions over time as cars become cleaner. Response: It should first be recognized that the indirect source control measure has already been approved in the 2003 PM10 Plan and rule development have been started. In addition, plan control measures are general, and rules cover specifics. The previous comments listed above were on a first draft rule that in no way should be considered complete. The draft provided an opportunity to identify areas of the program that needed more support and documentation. The District has been working over the last several months to gather information needed to respond to previous

comments and to revise the rule to address issues.

The District has a history of adopting rules that minimize administrative burden and maximize efficiency. The emission reductions expected from the indirectEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-15 source program are relatively large compared to rules adopted by the District

on other emission sources and are needed to attain the ozone and PM10 air quality standards by 2010. The District disagrees that the modeling capability is inadequate and the proposed model is currently being upgraded to increase its accuracy. Although tailpipe emissions per vehicle are declining, growth in travel related to new development is projected to cause an additional 25 tons/day of NOx emissions that would not be emitted if the growth did not occur. This means that the mobile source program is inadequate to do the job by the mandated 2010 attainment date and that additional reductions are needed. The indirect source program can provide some of the emission reductions to offset growth

55. Comment: ISR fails to establish a nexus between development and the emissions that homebuilders and homebuyers the Plan proposes to tax. Response: The indirect source program is being designed to account for all air mitigation activities that affect a development project and to provide flexibility and efficiency for developers in meeting their obligation to implement all feasible measures to reduce air quality impacts. Any mitigation fee collected will be used for projects that reduce the air quality impacts of the development project in keeping with nexus requirements, and is in no way a tax. The plan control measure is consistent with EPA requirements and any rule submitted to EPA to implement the indirect source control measure will meet all federal Clean Air Act requirements.

56. Comment: ISR has no direct connection between payer and emitter. Response: Many precedents exist for using mitigation fees. When used to mitigate other impacts, mitigation fees have been found to be a good public policy solution for problems that cannot be solved by the individual developer who is creating an impact. For example, regional transportation impact fees enable a jurisdiction to collect funds from all new development that is contributing to impacts on the regional transportation system just as an indirect source mitigation fee would fund projects that mitigate regional air quality impacts.

57. Comment: ISR has exaggerated, speculative emission benefits. In the purported benefits of the Plan’s indirect source program are based on a rough estimate of how much money the District could amass if all future projects paid an indirect source fee to avoid mitigation requirements. Since no fee amount has yet been proposed, this calculation is speculative at best. Response: The emission reductions are based on reasonable estimates of the potential reductions achievable from the program. The reduction estimates are based on emission reductions and cost-effectiveness of projects that the District has successfully completed through its grant and incentive programs. Details will be provided during the next phase of the rule development process.

58. Comment: While the District is on record that it prefers on-site mitigation of all future development, the emission reduction estimate in the Plan is not based on actual emission reductions that could be reasonably expected from on-site mitigation. Response: On-site measures will be credited toward reducing the mitigation fee on a proposed project. The combination of on-site mitigation and off-site mitigation will be equivalent to a project that mitigated emissions solely through paying the mitigation fee. Therefore, the actual reductions will be theEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-16 same whether developers include on-site measures in their project or pay the mitigation fee.

59. Comment: Due to the speculative manner in which potential emission reductions are calculated, it is doubtful that the measure in the Plan can achieve the emission reductions claimed, leading to an emission reduction shortfall. The potential emissions reduction shortfall can lead to transportation conformity problems and the inability to program federal transportation funding. Response : The reductions are based on over a decade of experience in quantifying air quality projects funded by District grant and incentive programs and provide a reasonable estimate of the program’s potential benefit. Air quality plans contain estimates of reductions that are expected from each control measure. Control measures are necessarily less detailed than rules that implement the control measures. The District commits to the total emission reductions in the plan. If a shortfall in any one measure occurs this can be made up with other rules that achieve higher emission reductions than were anticipated in the plan or by adopting other measures to achieve the needed reductions. The District works closely with the Transportation Planning Agencies to ensure that any needed changes are made in a timely manner that prevent transportation conformity problems and sanctions from occurring.

60. Comment: ISR fails to meet Federal Clean Air Act requirements. The

measure described in the Draft Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan does not meet the Federal Clean Air Act test for surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, permanent and adequately supported reductions in air emission, as set forth in 42 U.S.C. Section 7410 (a)(2)(F). Response: The commenter appears to have quoted an incorrect code section. The section referred to relates to stationary source monitoring and reporting requirements. The rules being developed for the indirect source program will meet all federal requirements.

61. Comment: The expected emissions benefits are not quantified. There is no documentation of assumptions and calculations. Response: Air quality plans do not typically provide emission calculation documentation in the plan text. The District submits supporting documentation as needed to EPA for their review. Detailed calculations will be accomplished during the rule development process based on the content of the rule. The District will provide the calculation methods used to estimate the plan reductions with the plan submittal.

62. Comment: There is no discussion of whether the emissions are surplus. URBEMIS is not able to identify new trips only associated with development. Response: The indirect source program will not overlap with existing rules. It will dovetail and compliment other rules such as Regulation VIII and with TPA commitments. Projects committed to as TCM RACM for the ozone plan will not be eligible for indirect source funds. The District is designing the program to only address new trips that would not otherwise occur and will demonstrate this during rule development.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-17 63. Comment: The proposed Indirect Source Mitigation Program does not contain

an enforceable commitment. No legal nexus between the proposed mitigation requirements and fee and individual development projects has been

established. Response: The District has committed that the indirect source program will provide a clear nexus between the project’s impacts and any fees collected by the program to reduce the impact. The nexus analysis cannot be completed until more program specifics have been developed. However, the impact of new development on air quality is well documented and the air quality benefits of projects being proposed to mitigate the impacts are well accepted.

64. Comment: There is no finding that the benefits of the proposed measures will be permanent. Response: The proposed measures used for indirect source program will comply with all applicable federal regulations. Specific findings are not required for plan control measures.

65. Comment: The proposed Indirect Source Mitigation Program is not adequately supported. The Plan provides no information on the commitments from other agencies that are necessary to implement the various measures. There is no discussion regarding the availability of funding to implement the land-use activities. Likewise, there is no information that other government agencies with jurisdiction to pursue these strategies will cooperate. Finally, there is no indication that the proposed requirements have been or will be integrated into local development plans. Response: No commitments from local agencies are needed to implement the indirect source program since the District has authority under the Health and Safety Code. Although the District encourages local agencies to participate in the indirect source program, the program is being designed to operate independently if needed. The District disagrees that there is no indication that local agencies are interested in land use changes that improve air quality. The Landscape of Choice that was prepared with the participation of the Building Industry Association and adopted by all cities in Fresno County is an excellent example of the desire to plan and build projects to minimize air emissions consistent with the goals of the indirect source program. The August 27, 2004 comment letter also included copies of comment letters on draft rule 9510 and 3180 that were submitted in April 2004. The District is in the process of addressing all concerns voiced over the initial draft rules. The next version of the rules will incorporate suggested changes and will include a response to all comments received in writing and during the workshop process. The District has been doing the necessary research to provide a complete response and has delayed the release of the next draft to ensure that all issues are addressed before continuing the rule development

process.

Comments submitted by the Kern Oil and Refining Co., August 27, 2004.

66. Comment: Table 3-1 indicates refinery emission levels have remained constant and are projected to do so. These levels should be changed to reflect the recently adopted NOx controls on refinery equipment and the pending Bakersfield Shell Refinery closure. Response Forecasted inventories for this category and others do need to be updated for future use and this is acknowledged in this plan in our discussion of what is included in the planning and modeling emission inventories thatEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-18 were used. Controls adopted and implemented by early 2002 were already included in the inventory and no additional reductions in the inventory would appear due to those controls in the period 2002-2010. Controls adopted in the latter part of 2002 or later were not in the inventory, and would not show up in the 2010 inventories for planning or modeling. These reductions that were not yet part of the inventory were taken as part of the “after-model” adjustments as described in the plan. Most of the refinery controls were effective either by 2000 and included in the inventory or were after 2002 and were taken as adjustments to the model. Therefore, the earlier reductions were accounted for in the planning and modeling inventories, and since the inventory did not include the reductions after 2002 in Table 3-1, it appears that we did not give credit for the additional controls. They were credited as “after-model” adjustments.

67. Comment: Table 4-1 and 4-2 Control Measures are too focused on stationary source controls. The District should acknowledge that the traditional command-and-control strategy of controlling the same stationary sources, in particular oil refineries, will not lead to attainment of the federal ambient air standards. Such facilities should be deemed Adequately Controlled and efforts must be made to look beyond the District's traditional span of control to uncontrolled stationary sources and mobile sources. Response: The District is responsible for controlling emissions from stationary and areawide sources, so effective, economically feasible control measures on those facilities will remain one of the areas we must continue to focus on, but we have expanded controls to non-traditional types of sources in the last two plans. Staff welcomes suggestions, however, for measures that would generate emission reductions via non-traditional methods.

68. Comment: Table 4-1 does not list amendments to Rule 4623. During the public workshop, District staff indicated that the rule was not significant. Industry states that the changes are significant to industry. Response: Rule 4623 is not included in Table 4-1 because the amendments are not proposed to generate significant emission reductions. Any significant impacts to industry will be examined during the rule development process.

69. Comment: Table 4-1 indicates the estimated emission reductions from the stationary sources. Industry comments that the total is far less than the amount required to reach attainment. They suggest that language be added

to indicate that attainment cannot be reached without the mobile source

reduction commitments of the USEPA and CARB. Response: There are numerous references throughout the plan to the significant commitments that USEPA and CARB are making to mobile source

emissions.

70. Comment: Section 4.3 lists Further Study Measures outside the typical stationary source measures pursued by the District. Industry suggests other measures could be added including:

• Gross Polluting Vehicles: More aggressive steps should be taken to identify, repair, and remove gross polluters. Make it a priority to fund the vehicle scrapping program.

• Emissions from fires: Jointly develop forest management controls with state and federal agencies. Provide funds to fire departments to decrease response time and diminish loss of life and property.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-19 • Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD): Lobby CARB and EPA to require the train locomotives transiting the Valley use ULSD.

• Marine Vessels: Adopt rules similar to the SCAQMD for Marine Tank Vessels and Lightering Vessel Operations. Apply Carl Moyer Program funding to retrofit tugboat engines. Energy Efficiency in new construction: Work with planning agencies to mandate renewable energy features and greater energy efficiency in new

construction. Response: The District is already involved with many of the suggested

issues:

• Gross Polluting Vehicles: The District agrees with this suggestion and the plan already addresses further steps such as those suggested.

• Emissions from fires: The District currently works closely with forest management agencies to minimize impacts from proscribed and wildlife fires. Emissions from structural fires are small compared to other sources. Our understanding is that fire departments currently try to arrive at the fire as quickly as possible.

• Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD): The District, CARB, and others have urged the EPA to apply the ULSD standards to off-road. USEPA has already developed a schedule for those requirements.

• Marine Vessels: The Valley does not have the large marine tanker and lightering fleets common to the SCAQMD so similar rules would have minimal or no benefit. Staff is a member of the ARB cargo handlingequipment regulatory working group. That group will examine intermodal transfer sites such as ports. A tugboat at the Port of Stockton is eligible to apply under the Moyer Program for engine replacement.

• Energy Efficiency in new construction: District staff work with the various Valley planning agencies as part of the CEQA review process and recommend emission reduction possibilities for new construction projects. Building construction for energy efficiency, however, is outside the District's authority and expertise and is best left to the state and local building agencies, which currently promote green technologies such as solar cells.

Comments submitted by Dennis C. Tristao, Kings County City Representative on the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, August 27, 2004.

71. Comment: The District should consider creating urban tree planting guidelines to facilitate the urban landscape’s role in improving air quality. Response: The District will add text to the plan regarding a measure for future study in the area of research, education and outreach regarding the role of urban landscapes and agricultural land use on ozone air quality.

72. Comment: The District should consider developing a horticultural biogenic emissions education program. Response: See Number 71.

73. Comment: The District should consider opening up grant programs to fund programs that make landscape changes that improve air quality. Response: See Number 71EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-20 74. Comment: The District should consider an outreach program that encourages and promotes the beneficial effects of vegetation on air quality. Response: See Number 71.

75. Comment: The District should consider funding additional research through CCOS on the air quality benefits of trees. Response: See Number 71.

Comments submitted by Environment California, August 30, 2004

76. Comment: Can you accelerate the timeline for Rule 4702 by one year (from 2008 to 2007)? Response: The current Rule 4702 amendment is governed by Section 40724 of the California Health and Safety Code, which calls for adoption no later than July 1, 2005. Given that this deadline is less than one year away, and that rule development is underway, accelerating the schedule for any significant time savings is not feasible. Furthermore, the compliance schedule for engines already covered by Rule 4702 is not affected by these amendments. Workshops for this rule began on August 30, 2004 (see www.valleyair.org ).

77. Comment: The District should adopt a technology-neutral treatment for engines and turbines, with one pollution limit for both technologies that would help drive the market toward the cleanest forms of micropower. Response: District rules address specific, existing inventories such as turbines, and not specific applications, such as micro-power generation. The District's New Source Review process, however, does consider Alternate Basic Equipment for new power generation projects and is a technology

neutral review.

78. Comment: The Draft Extreme OADP references treatment for agricultural engines, something we strongly support. The turbine section refers to the CARB rule; however, the engine section does not. Response: CARB has not adopted guidelines or rules for either agricultural engines or for compression ignition engines.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-21 

### ADDENDUM Inclusion of Prior Comments and Responses on Photochemical Modeling

Chevron-Texaco submitted written comments on January 19, 2004 regarding preliminary photochemical modeling results shared at the January 6-7, 2004 workshops. Chevron-Texaco requested that those prior comments and responses be included with this package of comments and responses on the Draft Extreme OADP . Note that the photochemical modeling presented at the January 6-7, 2004 workshop is preliminary and is not the same as that used in

the Draft Extreme OADP . Any reference to “current modeling” in these comments refer to an earlier version of the modeling.



### WRITTEN COMMENTS

Chevron Texaco, January 19, 2004

1. Comment: The District should use modeling to examine strategy alternatives for not only the one-hour standard but also the 8-hour ozone standards. Assuming revocation of the one-hour standard in the next year or two, it is important that any strategy be effective for both. Response: The District is focused on meeting regulatory requirements related to the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan, but remains open to conducting appropriate analyses of the effects of emissions reductions on the

8-hour ozone standard where resources allow.

2. Comment: Due to the very real sub-regional nature of the ozone problem, the District should develop an overall strategy that takes into account sub-region differences rather than “one size fits all” approach in their plan. Response: The District has conducted sub-regional analyses in the past. See response to Verbal Comment # 20. [This refers to Comment #20 from the January 2004 Workshop Comments and Status Report Public Review. The response to #20 is as follows: “As specified in the District’s authorizing legislation, we will continue to implement control measures on a basin-wide basis. While some logic exists for implementing sub-regional control measures (as suggested above), their implementation could lead to possible disadvantages such as creation of “pollution pockets” with possible resulting environmental justice consequences.” The District will investigate the issues associated with sub-regional modeling in the 8-hour SIP development effort.

3. Comment: If the District feels compelled to submit a plan based on modeling that demonstrates only minimally acceptable performance, the District should formally commit to revising the plan as better modeling becomes available, including revision of control measures if justified by the modeling. This would not be a mid-course correction, but a continuation of the ongoing effort. Response: The District is focused on meeting regulatory requirements related to the federal 1-hour ozone standard, which in part call for the District to submit an ozone attainment demonstration plan to EPA no later than November 15, 2004. The best available information will be used to develop this plan; however, as better information is developed over time, it will be incorporated in future plan revisions. The District is committed to revisiting theEXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-22 federal 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan in 2007 (unless the standard is revoked as planned, in which case the District would focus on 8-hr ozone attainment), at which time the modeling will be repeated with new information, the emissions inventory updated, and long-term control measures

identified.

4. Comment: As has been made clear in statements by District staff and others, the July-August 2000 episode is not a particularly good episode for planning purposes. The need for relative reduction factors to help predicted ozone levels agree with measured ozone levels, and the presence of large wildfires, create uncertainties in the viability of this episode for control program development. The District should only use the July-August 2000 episode as a fall back (and only then if the model performance can be improved), and should seriously consider other episodes such as September 2000 or July

1999. Response: The District will base the federal 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan on the best available information. Data gathered during CCOS, which includes the July/August 2000 episode, will be used where possible. Due to issues such as disagreement between actual vs. predicted ozone levels and the presence of large fires in the episode, the District is examining other episodes for use in modeling to supplement the July/August 2000 episode. These alternative episodes under study include September 2000 and July 1999.

5. Comment: Performance of the CAMx model for the July/August 2000 episode is also of concern because the meteorology has been modified to improve results, and because even then the performance of the model is spotty in predicting ozone levels (modeling results meet EPA criteria in some subregions and do not in others). It should also be noted that the EPA performance metrics are not very stringent, and there are prior examples of modeling simulations that pass those metrics but still had identifiable and significant problems. Response: The District strongly supports the need to analyze the results of the current modeling and identify the problems. The Technical Committee, districts and ARB are identifying and correcting issues associated with the modeling. The Technical Committee, districts and ARB are developing an overall schedule for modeling improvements and implementation. Modeling will be needed for the 8-hour SIP and the 1-hour update SIP (if needed) by September 2006.

6. Comment: Another modeling issue is the significant difference in shapes of the carrying capacity diagrams for Bakersfield/Edison vs. Fresno/Arvin, even though these areas are not far apart. The shapes of the Fresno/Arvin diagrams are similar to what was observed in previous SJVAB modeling exercises, and show that reductions in either VOC or NOx emissions will lead to attainment. However, the diagrams for Bakersfield and Edison show that VOC is limiting in these areas, and the vertical pattern of the curves is substantially different that what would be expected, and also suggests that no ozone air quality improvements would result from NOx controls in the Bakersfield area. A related issue is that the carrying capacity diagrams for Bakersfield/Edison contradict the findings of most of the previous ozone air quality data analysis for this area. This discrepancy raises a red flag with regard to model performance.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-23 Response: The District agrees that geographic differences in carrying capacity diagrams, as well as the departure of these new results from previous findings, warrant further study before the results are used in planning. See response to previous comment.

7. Comment: The carrying capacity diagrams presented at the workshop reflect the application of a relative reduction factor. When EPA developed the concept of the relative reduction factor, they assumed that application of the

factor dealt with the non-linear nature of ozone formation over a small concentration range, and that this was acceptable. However, the current application is done over a much larger concentration range, and it is not clear whether the assumptions hold when doing this type of scaling. Based on some of the work done by Blanchard and Reynolds (JAWMA, Vol.53, 195 (2003)) to look at attainability of the 8-hour ozone standard in Central California, the efficiency of ozone production increases with reductions of NOx at the lower concentrations currently predicted by the model, as compared to the higher observed concentrations. Thus, real thought should go into use of

the relative reduction factor. Response: Relative reduction factors were included in the preliminary modeling results presented at the workshop. The District and ARB continue to evaluate the appropriateness of using relative reduction factors for the SJVAB ozone modeling, and may decide to abandon the concept of relative reduction factors for the SJVAB ozone modeling.

8. Comment: Significant improvements have been made in the emissions inventory over the decade; however the recent top down analysis of the mobile source inventory for the Fresno sub-region of the modeling domain suggests that heavy-duty diesel NOx emissions are underestimated by 60%. While top down analyses have uncertainties, an underestimate of this magnitude suggests a need to reexamine the inventory from the bottom up. Response: The District and ARB recognize that a variety of uncertainties exist with respect to the emissions inventory, including the one mentioned above. The 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan will be developed using the best inventory available at the time. The District and ARB will work towards identifying and resolving these inventory issues in time for the 2007 update to the 1-hour ozone plan (if needed) as well as for the 8-hour plan to be developed in the same general time frame.

9. Comment: While the 1-hour plan is important, the District should also start looking at emissions reductions needed to attain the 8-hour standard. The work done by Reynolds and Blanchard indicates that while either VOC or NOx might lead to reductions of the one-hour standard, NOx reductions were much more effective in reducing 8-hour ozone (and the state one-hour ozone) standard. VOC reductions became ineffective below 100 ppb (8-hour average). Thus, the District needs to formulate a strategy that addresses both standards in an optimal fashion. To do so, it must look at the impacts on the 8- hour standard as part of this SIP. Response: The District and ARB are focused on completing the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan and submitting it to EPA by the deadline. Where possible, the modeling analyses will also look at the relationships

between emissions rates and 8-hour ozone levels.EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN

_______________________________________________________________ SJVUAPCD Appendix H - Comments and Responses

H-24 10. Comment: The San Joaquin Valley may be a single air basin, but evidence exists of physical sub-regions within the district boundaries. At times these sub-regions may exhibit different emissions characteristics (e.g., the VOC emissions inventory fraction represented by mobile sources in Fresno vs. Bakersfield). Thus, “a one-size fits all” strategy may not always be appropriate. To prepare an effective one-hour (and 8-hour) emissions reduction strategy, the District should determine if different mixes of emissions

reductions are the most effective means to address ozone concentrations in the north, central and southern sub-regions. Response: As the CCOS data analyses that are now ongoing provide additional insights into ozone production and behavior in the SJVAB, the District and ARB will have an improved technical basis for identifying the existence of “sub-regions” and understanding their sources and fate of ozone pollution. At present, merely correlating emissions profiles with measured ozone levels at a particular location gives little attention to pollutant transport, which can be an important contributor; consequently, the District is reluctant to explore sub-regional controls at this time. However, the appropriate technical base may exist for the 2007 extreme plan revision and/or the 8-hour plan.

11. Comment: Based on currently available data, the District should minimize future rules controlling VOC emissions and instead focus on reducing NOx emissions (unless the VOC reductions are needed for attainment with the PM2.5 standard or for air toxics considerations). Otherwise, additional VOC reductions may satisfy the bookkeeping requirements for Rate of Progress plans, but be ineffective in an optimal ozone strategy that results in attainment

of the 1-hour and 8-hour standards. Response: Modeling results presented at the workshop, while preliminary in nature, do show that both NOx and VOC emission reductions reduce ozone levels in the SJVAB. The District will continue to pursue both VOC and NOx reductions for the 1-hour ozone plan.