### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIEDAIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT Appendix 

### F: Environmental Analysis October 16,2008



# APPENDIX F
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE4306 AND PROPOSED NEW RULE 4320 October 

## 16, 

# 2008

F-1 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306 and Rule 4307 and Proposed New Rule 4320

### SAN JOAQLllN VALLEY UNIFIEDAIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT Appendix 

### F: Environmental Analysis October 16,2008

This page intentionally blank



### F - 

### 2 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306 and Rule 4307 and Proposed New Rule 4320

# SanJoaquinValley AIR POLLUTION 

## CONTROL DISTRICT San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Califorr~ia Environniental QualityAct (CEQA) Recommendation Rule4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 CEQA requires public agencies to evaluate and disclose the potential environ~iiental inipacts of discretionary actions that they undertake, including the issuance of air pollution permits. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) is proposing to adopt Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320. In accordance with Sections 15070 to 15075 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the District prepared an Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the project. These documents were available for public comment from July 24, 2008 to August 13, 2008. No comment letters were received. The District's evaluatio~i of the project concludes that the project's potential environmental impactswill be less than significant. Per the District's Environmental Review Guidelines (adopted August 2000), the District Governing Board is the decision-making body for the adoption of District rules, regulations and plans. The Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) of the District, or his appointed designee, has duly considered said Initial Study and Negative Declaration. Accordingly, the APCO (a) certifies that .the Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration reflect the independent judgment of the District; (b) finds that, the environmental impact of the above-described project will be less than significant; and (c) recommends the Governing Board approve and adopt the Negative Declaration for said rule(s). In accordance with the provisions of Sections 15075 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, and upon approval by the Governing Board, District staff is hereby directed to cause to be filed a Notice of Determination with .the Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare County Clerks and the State Clearinghouse (if required). SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLLI1-IONCONTROL DISTRICT

Executive DirectorIAPCO V

Northern Region Central Region (MainOffice) Southern Region 4800 EnterpriseWay 1990E. Gettysburg Avenue 2700 MStreet, Suite275 Modesto, CA95356-8718 Fresno, CA93726-0244 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2373 Tel: (209)557-6400 FAX:(209)557-6475 Tel: (559)230-6000 FAX:(559)230-6061 -[el: (6611326-6900 FAX:(661)326-6985 www.valleyair.org

Printed on recycled papera

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIEDAIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT A~~endix 

### F: Environmental Analvsis October 16.2008



### This page intentionally blank

Final Draft Staff Report withAppendices ForProposed Amendments to Rule 4306 and Rule 4307 and Proposed New Rule 4320PUBLIC NOTICEOF AVAILABILITY INITIALSTLIDY AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 21, 2008 Notice is hereby given that the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) proposes to issue an lnitial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the following project: PRO.IECT TITLE, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION ProjectTitle: Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 Project Location: All counties within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), including: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera,Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, andTulare. Description of Project: The project is to adopt amendments to Rule 4306 (Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 

### - Phase 3) and adopt proposed Rule 4320 (Advanced Emission Reduction Options For Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 MMBtuIhr). The project will seek to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulfur (SOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions from this source category. This project is part of the District's 2007 8-hour ozone and 2008 PM2.5 attainment strategies. To satisfy the attainment goals of the ozone and PM plans, this project will seek to obtain as much NOx, SOX,and PM emission reductions as is expeditiously practicable, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable, as determined by the District's Governing Board. The control technologies that would likely be installed to achieve the draft NOx limits is an Ultra Low NOx burner (LILNB) system with or without flue gas recirculation, or selective catalytic reduction (SCR), or nonselective catalytic reduction (SNCR). The draft SOXlimit can be met through the exclusive use of PUC-quality natural gas, commercial propane, butane, or liquefied petroleum gas, or a combination of such gases, limiting fuel sulfur content, or add-on pollution control equipment. Add-on control could be a wet or dry scrubber. The draft PM limit can be met through compliance with the SOX limit requirementsor add-oncontrols. For add-on PM emission controls, filters or electrostatic precipitatorsare used. AVAILABILITY OF INITIALSTUDY AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The Proposed Negative Declaration is based upon a finding that the project will not have significant impacts on the environment or human health. The reasons to support such a finding are documented inthe lnitial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration prepared by the District. Copies of the Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration and all documents referenced therein may be reviewed at the following location: San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District: San Joaquin Valley APCD Central Region Office 1990

### E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726 On the web at: http://www.vallevair.orq/notices/~ublicnotices idx.htm COMMENTS ON INITIALSTUDY AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Public Review Period: Begins: July 24, 2008 Ends: August 13,2008 Any interested person may submit written comments on the lnitial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration. Written comments will be reviewed by the District in considering the adoption of a Final Negative Declaration for the project. To be considered, comments must be received by 5:00 pmon August 13, 2008.

### SANJOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIEDAIR POLLUTIONCONTROL DISTRICT A~~endix 

### F: Environmental Analvsis October 16. 2008



### This page intentionally blank

Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices ForProposedAmendments to Rule 4306 and Rule 4307 and Proposed New Rule 4320

# San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District



# Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule4320
(District Project# 

## CEQA 

## 20080320)



# InitialStudy and Negative Declaration

August 

# 2008

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLU'TION CONTROL DIS'TRICT GOVERNING BOARD 2008



### CHAIR: LEROY ORNELLAS Sl~pervisor, San Joaquin Co~~nty VICE CHAIR: CHRIS VIERRA Councilmember, City of Ceres

' 

### MEMBERS:



### TONY'BARBA Supervisor, Kings County JUDITH G. CASE Supervisor, Fresno County RONN DOMlNlCl Supervisor, Madera County MICHAEL G. NELSON Sl.~pervisor,Merced COI-~nty WILLIAM O'BRIEN Supervisor, Stanislaus County HENRYT. PEREA

. 

### Council Member, City of Fresno JOHN G. TELLES, M.D. Appointed by ,theGovernor RAYMONDA. WATSON Supervisor, Kern County J. STEVEN WORTHLEY Supervisor, Tulare County

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER 

### SEYED SADREDIN

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 

### August 18, 2008



### A. PRO.IECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION


### 1. Project Title: Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306 (Bo~lers,Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - 

### Phase 3) 

### and Proposed Rule 4320 (Advanced Err~issionReduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 MMBtulhr) 2. LeadAgency Name andAddress: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Poll~~tion Control District 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue Fresno CA 93726-0244 3. 

### Contact Person: CEQA: Jessica Willis (559) 230-5800 Planning: Manuel Salinas (559) 230-5800 

### 4. Project Location: The rule applies to new and modified stationary sources located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (see Exhibit 1, Map of District boundaries). 5. Project Sponsor's Name andAddress: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollu.tionControl District 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue Fresno CA 93726-0244
6. 

### Assessor's Parcel Number: Not applicable to this project.


### 7. General Plan DesignationlZoning: Not applicableto this project.

Page 1 of 21

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 August 18,2008



### Exhibit 1 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Boundaries

San D~ego



### Page 

### 2 of 

### 21

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District InitialStudy and Negative Declaration Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 

### August 18,2008

8. 

### Project Description: This rulemaking project is to adopt amendments to Rule 4306 (Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - 

### Phase 3) and adopt proposed Rule 4320 (Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 NIMBtuIhr). This rulemaking project will seek to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulfur (SOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions from this source category. This project is part of the District's 2007 8-hour ozone and 2008 PM2.5 attainment strategies. To satisfy the attainment goals of the ozone and PM plans, this project will seek to obtain as much NOx, SOX, and PM emission reductions as is expeditiously practicable, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable, as determined by the District's Governing Board. The rl~lemakingproject is also intended to satisfy state and federal Clean Air Act requirements. District staff will submit proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4320 to the District Governing Board for consideration of adoption during a public hearing scheduled for September 18, 2008. NOx Control Technoloqv The control technologies that wol-~ld likely be installed to achieve the draft lVOx limits is an Ultra Low NOx burner (ULNB) system with or without flue gas recirculation, or selective catalytic reduction (SCR), or nonselective catalytic reduction (SNCR). SOXControl Technology The draft SOXlimit can be metthrough the exclusive use of PUC-quality natural gas, commercial propane, butane, or liquefied petroleum gas, or a combination of such gases, lirrliting fuel sulfur content, or add-on pollution control equipment. Add-on control could be a wet or dry scrubber. PM Control Technoloqv The draft PM limit can be met through compliance with the SOXlimit requirementsor add-on controls. For add-on PM emission controls, filters or electrostatic precipitators are used.

Page 3 of 21

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 4306Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 

### August 18,2008



### 9. 

### Other Agencies Whose Approvals Are Required and Permits Needed: 

### This project is a n~le development project and does not require permits from any dgency. The United States Environmental Protection Agency must approve the rule for inclusion into California's State Implementa.tionPlan. 10.Name of Person Who Prepared Initial Study: 

### Manuel Salinas, Air Quality Engineer San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 1990 E. 

### Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726 (559) 230-5800

Page4 

### of 21

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir PollutionControl District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 4306

### AmendmentsandProposed Rule 4320 

### August 18,2008

B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 

### The environmental factors checked belowWOI-~ld be potentially affected by the proposed project, involving at least one irr~pact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated", as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & 

### Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services UtilitiesIService Systems Agriculture Resources Air Quality Cultural Resources GeologyISoils HydrologyNVater Land Uselplanning Quality Noise Population/Housing Recreation Transportationrrraffic Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION 

### I certify that this project was independently reviewed and analyzed and that this document reflects the independent judgment of the District. 

## [XI I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signi.ficant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project.A NII-I-IGATEDNEGATIVE DECLARA-I-IONwill be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRObIMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 

### 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature: Date:
Printed Name: Leroy Ornellas Title: Board Chair

Page 

### 5 of 21

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 August 18,2008



### D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST 

## I Potentially 

## 1 I. AESTHETICS Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?



### II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create lightor glare?

In determiningwhether impactsto agricultural resources are significantenvironmental effects, lead agencies may referto the California Agricultural Land Evaluationand SiteAssessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an Potentially Significant

Impact 

## J J

optional model to use inassessing impactson agricultureand farmland. Wouldthe project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Discussion: Proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4320 is a rule development project. The rules do not impose requirements that would affect any changes in the physical environment that would obstruct any scenic vistas or views of interest to the public. The project would not create aesthetically offensive sites visible to the public. No significant adverse aesthetic impacts are expected from the adoption and 

# 1 implementation ofthe rules.

Mitigation: None Reference: Proposed Amendments to Rule4306, Proposed Rule 4320, and supporting staff report.

Farmlandof Statewide Importance (Farmland),as shown on the maps preparedpursuantto the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Programof the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoningfor agricultural use, or aWilliamsonAct contract? c) Involve otherchanges inthe existing environment, significant lmpact Unless Mitigated

which, dueto their locationor nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural Less Than Significant Impact

Less Than Significant Impact Impact 

# ~ J

Potentially Significant lmpact 

# I
Potentially Significant lmpact Unless

use? Discussion: Proposed amendments to Rule4306 and proposed Rule 4320 is a rule development project. The project does not impose requirements affecting agricultural resources, as identified above. Mitigation: None Reference: Proposed Amendments to Rule4306, Proposed Rule 4320, and supporting staff report.



### Page 6 

### of 21

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration 

### Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 August 18,2008

Ill. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to makethe following determinations. 

# 1 Would the project: 

# I Impact Mitigated Impact 

# 1 Impact

increase of any ~riterii~ollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed auantitative thresholds for ozone Potentially Significant a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result ina cumulativelv considerable net I v 

## J Potentially Significant Impact Unless

precurs&s)?



## I (d) Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology would likely be used to comply with the proposed

amendments. SCR uses ammonia in the presence of a catalyst to convert NOx to harmless nitrogen and water vapor. The California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has not classified ammonia as a carcinogen. However, ammonia does have acute and chronic health effects. The District's thresholds for significance for toxic impacts are a cancer risk greater than 10 in a million and/or a hazard index (HI) of 1.0or greater for chronic non-carcinogenic or acute risks. The District's permitting process is such that a project cannot be permitted if the health risks exceed the District's Thresholds. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

(e) District Rule 4102 (Nuisance) applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. In the event that a project creates a public nuisance, it could be in violation and be subject to District enforcement action. Also, since the olfactory organs can detect ammonia at very low concentrations, there is little chance that any long-term exposure at unhealthy concentrations could mistakenly occur. LessThan Significant

I Y 

# 4



# I Global Warming Impacts 

# I No

Discussion: (a-c) Proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4320 is a rule development project. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is a non-attainment area for the state andfederal ambient ozone and PMlo standards. NOx is a precursor to both ozone and PMlo. It is expected that the use of NOx emission control devices will have positive effects on the air quality of the Valley. It is anticipated that some increased emissions of ammonia will result from the use of SCR control systems. The amount of ammonia emissions is assumed to be a small fraction of the amount of NOx that is controlled and that the large, net, positive air quality benefit outweighs the small increase in fugitive ammonia emissions.

Combustion processes generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in addition to criteria pollutants. The effects of GHG gas emissions on global climatic change occur over long periods of time and aretypically considered to be cumulative impacts. Implementation of Rule 4306 and Rule 4320 has the potential to increase fuel use, which will increase C02emissions. Emitted C02is the primary GHG pollutant emitted during the combustion process. For the purpose of addressing GHG impacts of implementing the proposed rule changes, the overall increase in C02emissions was calculated. As presented in Table1 (Attachment I), implementation of the proposed rule changes could increase C02emissions by a total of 583,000 metric tons per year. District records show 369 facilities could be affected by the proposed rule revisions, resulting in an average increase in C02 emissions of 1,581 tons per year perfacility. 

# 1 At this time there are no generally accepted thresholds of significance for determining the impact of GHG 

# I
Page 7 of 

### 21SanJoaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration 

### Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 August 

### 18,2008

emissions from an individual project on global climatic change. In the absence of a specific significance threshold, District staff evaluates the significance on a case-by case basis. One approach in determining significance is to estimate what percentage of the total inventory of GHG emissions are represented by emissions from a project. If emissions are a relatively small percentage of the total inventory, it is possible that the project w~ll have little or no effect on global climatic change. As presented in Table 1, the increase in C02 emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed rule amendments would be 0.11 % of the State's GHG emissions inventory. In its 

### CEQA & 

### Climatic Change, document (January, 2008) CAPCOA identifies several potential GHG significance thresholds. A potentialthreshold identified by CAPCOA is 25,000 metric tons per year per project, which is also equivalent to CARB's proposed mandatory reportingthreshold under AB 32 for a single facility. In addition, the District in assessing the significance GHG emissions from individual projects has previously applied a threshold of 38,000 metrictons per year, on a case-by-case basis. In conclusion, the maximum cumulative GHG emissions increase that could result from the implementation of these rules would be an extremely small percentage of the State's GHG emissions inventory and total project emissions would be significantly below the 38,000 metric tons per year threshold previously applied by the District for individual facilities on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, on a per facility basis, increased C02 emissions from an individual facility would be significantly below CARB's proposed 25,000 metric tons per year mandatory reportingthreshold for a single facility. Any increase in emissions of GHG from a single facility, as a result of complying with the rules, would be substantially below the thresholds discussed above. District staff concludes that adverse impactfrom implementing Rule 4306 and Rule 4320 are less than significant. Mitigation: None Reference: Proposed Amendments to Rule4306, Proposed Rule4320 and supporting staff report; 

### CEQA & 

### Climatic Chanae. CAPCOA. 2008



### IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have asubstantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitatmodifications, on any species identifiedas acandidate, sensitive, or special status species in localor regionalplans, policies, or regulations, or bythe California Departmentof Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have asubstantialadverse effecton any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in localor regional plans, policies, regulationsor bythe California Departmentof Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have asubstantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limitedto, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interferesubstantially with the movement of any native resident or migratoryfish or wildlife species orwith established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impedethe use of native wildlife nurserysites? Potentially Significant

lmpact Potentially Significant lmpact Unless Mitigated LessThan Significant lmpact lmpact



### Page 

### 8 

## of 21

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 4306Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 

### August 18,2008



## I I I Potentially 

## l I 1



# I
' protecting biological resources, such as a tree 

# I I I I J 

# 1

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES(continued) Would the project:
e) Conflict with anv local policies or ordinances preservation policy or ordinance? 1 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 

## I 

# 1 l Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, 

# I Potentially 

### Significant Impact

regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 

### Discussion: Proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4320 is a rule development project. Adoption of the rules and subsequent implementation are not expected to adversely affect existing plant or animal species or communities and unique or endangered plant or animal species. The adoption of the rules is not expected to conflict with plans, ordinances, or policies to protect biological resources, as described above. Mitigation: None Reference: Proposed Amendments to Rule4306, Proposed Rule 4320, and supporting staff report.



### V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: 

### significant Unless Mitigated

Potentially Significant a) Cause a substantial adverse change inthe significance of a historical resource as defined in
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? 

### LessThan 

### Significant Impact

Potentially Significant N o Impact

adoption and implementation of the rules do not impose requirements affecting cultural resources and will not result in a significant adverse impact. Mitigation: None c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?



# - 

# / Reference: Pro~osed Amendments to Rule 4306. Pro~osed Rule 4320. and su~~ortina staff report. 

## J J

Page 9 

### of 21 Discussion: Proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4320 is a rule development project. The

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 

### August 18,2008



### Page 

### 10

### of 21 VI. GEOLOGYISOILS Wouldthe project: Potentially Significant

Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Ruptureof a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued bythe State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Referto Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result insubstantial soil erosion or the lossof top so^^? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result inon- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined inTable 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated

pp LessThan Significant Impact



## --- 

## 4 J J J
J

J

disposal systems where sewers are not available Discussion: Proposedamendmentsto Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4320 is a rule development project. The adoption and implementation of the rules does not impose requirements affecting geology/soils, as identified above. Reference: Proposed Amendments to Rule4306, Proposed Rule 4320, and supporting staff report.



### VII. HAZARDS 8 

### HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact a) Create a significant hazardto the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Potentially Significant

Unless Mitigated

b) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mileof an existing or proposed school? 

## J

J LessThan Significant Impact No Impact

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 August 18,2008



# I Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 

## I VII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (continued) Would the project:

hazardous materials sites compiled pursuantto Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result. would it create a sianificant hazard to the Potentially Significant

publicor the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use planor, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working inthe project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working inthe project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact 

# J

intermixed with wildlands? Discussion: Proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4320 is a rule development proiect. Proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4'320 is a rule development project. 

## he facilities'that would be affected include industrial and commercial facilities located in industrial/commerciaI zones. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology would likely be used to comply with the proposed amendments. SCR uses ammonia in the presence of a catalyst to convert NOx to harmless nitrogen and water vapor. California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment has not classified ammonia as a carcinogen. However, ammonia does have acute and chronic health effects. Acute exposure to ammonia at a concentration of 3,200 micrograms per cubic meter has been found to cause irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract. Higher concentrations cause conjunctivitis, laryngitis, and pulmonary edema. Long-term exposure to ammonia at concentrations of 200 micrograms per cubic meter or greater has been found to affect the respiratory tract. Since the olfactory organs can detect ammonia at very low concentrations, there is little chance that any long-term exposure at unhealthy concentrations could mistakenly occur. Also, since state and local safety regulations govern the handling, storage, and transport of ammonia, the potential for accidental release and acute exposure is minimized. Adherence to these regulations is anticipated to minimize significant impacts associated with the use of ammonia. Some SCR systems can also use non-hazardous urea or aqueous ammonia ipjection to achieve the proposed emission limits without anhydrous ammonia. The use of anhydrous ammonia involves greater risk than aqueous ammonia because it is stored and transported under pressure. In the event of a leak or rupture of a tank, anhydrous ammonia is released and vaporizes. Aqueous ammonia is a liquid at ambient temperatures and gas is only produced when a liquid pool from a spill evaporates. Under current Office of Emergency Services regulations implementing the California Accidental Release Prevention program, aqueous ammonia is regulated under California Health and Safety Code Section 2770.1. The use of aqueous ammonia would further minimize any potential hazard impacts associated with anhydrous ammonia use. A limit on ammonia slip is normally included in permits to operate of stationary sources, which should minimize potential air quality impacts associated with ammonia slip from sources operating SCR. Furthermore, properly operating and wellmaintained equipment could reduce the level of ammonia emissions. Therefore, the levels of ammonia emissions from potential ammonia slip are not expected to reach hazardous levels. Certain catalvsts used in SCRs mav contain hazardous materials that must be pro~erlv disposed of at the end 

### Page 

### 1 1

## of 21

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 4306Amendments and ProposedRule 4320 August 18,2008

or their useful life. Existing waste disposal regulations are considered to be adequate to prevent any significant impact from occurring. In conclusion, the transportation, storage, and use of anhydrous ammonia, aqueous ammonia, or urea in conjunction with the operation of SCR as well as disposal of spent catalyst are not expected to have any adverse impacts on the environment as well as living things. Mitiaation: None Reference: Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306, Proposed Rule4320, and supporting staff report. 

## I I Potentially 

## l I 1 VIII. HYDROLOGYIWATERQUALITY significant Potentially Impact Less Than Would the project: 

# I Significant

# 1
Unless 

# 1 Significant

# 1

NO



### Page 

### 12

## of 21 discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantiallywith groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a loweringof the localgroundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a levelwhich would notsupport existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantiallyalter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a streamor river, in a manner, which would result in substantialerosion or

the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rateor amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? e) Createor contribute runoffwater which would exceed the capacity of existing or plannedstorm water drainagesystems or provide substantial f) Otherwise substantiallydegrade water quality? g) Placehousingwithin a 100-year flood hazard area as mappedon afederal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Placewithin a 100-year flood hazard area structureswhich would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structuresto a significant risk of loss, injuryor death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 

### j) lnundation byseiche, tsunami, or mudflow 

## 4 J
J 

# ~ J Discussion: Proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4320 is a rule development project. The project does not impose requirements affecting hydrologylwater quality, as identified above. Mitigation: None Reference: Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306, Proposed Rule 4320, and supporting staff report.

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration 

### Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 August 18,2008



### IX. 

### LAND USEIPLANNING Would the project:
a) Phvsicallv divide an established communitv? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, orzoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 

### Potentially Significant lmpact Potentially Significant lmpact Unless Mitigated LessThan Significant Impact

I I I I 

### Discussion: Proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule4320 is a rule development project. The District does not have land use authority and is generally prohibited from encouraging or prohibiting specific land uses. As such, the rules and their provisions have no characteristics that would directly change land use, zoning or land use plans or directly affect the land use classification, or location criteria of any public or private residential, commercial, industrial, or public land use facility. Any facilities affected by the proposed rules would still be anticipated to comply with, and not interfere with, any applicable land use plans, zoning ordinances, habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. Thus, no significant adverse land use impact is antici~ated.

I 

### Mitigation: None

Reference: Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306, Proposed Rule 4320, and supporting staff report. 

## I I I Potentially 

## l 1

X. 

### MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: 

### significan-t 

# 1 Potentially

# 1 lmpact 

# 1
LessThan

Significant Unless Significant

region and the residents of the state? b) Result inthe loss of availability of a locally a) Result inthe loss of availability of a known mineral resourcethat would be of value to the
important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific planor other land use plan? 

### Discussion: Proposed amendments to Rule4306 and proposed Rule4320 is a rule development proiect. The in 

### pact

adoption and implementation of the proposed rules would nitresult in the loss of availability'of a kn'owi mineral resource of value to the region and the residents of the state or of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Therefore, significant adverse impacts to mineral resources are not anticipated. IVlitiaation: None 

# - Reference: Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306, Proposed Rule 4320, and supporting staff report. Mitigated



### Page 

### 1 

## 3 

## of 21 impact Impact 

### ,I

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 4306Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 August 18,2008



### Page 14

## of 21 Potentially 

### XI. NOISE Significant Potentially Impact LessThan Would the project result in: 

### Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established inthe local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposureof persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels inthe project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels inthe project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working inthe project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working inthe project area to excessive noise levels? 

## 4
4

4

4
Discussion: Proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4320 is a rule development project. The project does not impose requirements affecting noise, as identified above. Mitigation: None Reference: Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306, Proposed Rule 4320, and supporting staff report.



### XII. POPLILATION/HOUSING Would the project: 

### Potentially Significant Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 

## 4

4
4 Potentially Significant lmpact Unless Mitigated ---



### Discussion: Proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4320 is a rule development project. The project does not impose requirements affecting population/housing, as identified above. Mitigation: None Reference: Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306, Proposed Rule 4320, and supporting staff report. LessThan Significant Impact

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration 

### Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 August 18,2008

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project Potentially Significant Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Result insubstantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public

Fire protection? Police protection?

Mitigation: 

### None Reference: 

### Pro~osed Amendments to Rule 4306. P~ODOS~~ Rule 4320. and su~~ortina staff re~ort. Potentially Significant Impact Unless

Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? b) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? c) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? d) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?



### XIV. RECREATION

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?



### Page 

### 1 5

## of 21 

## J J 

## 4 J J J Less Than Significant



# fi implementation of the proposed rules is not anticipated to generate significant adverse impacts to public services (i.e., fire departments, police departments, and local governments). The proposed rules would not result in the need for new or physically altered government facilities in order to maintain acceptable service Mitigation: 

### None Reference: 

### Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306, Proposed Rule 4320, and supporting staff report.

Discussion: 

### Proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4320 is a rule development project. The project does not impose requirements affecting recreation, as identified above Potentially Significant Impact No

Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact N o Impact 

## J

J

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 

### 4306Amendmentsand Proposed Rule 

### 4320 August 18,2008



### Page 

### 16of 

### 21 Potentially 

### XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Significant Potentially Impact Less Than Would the project: Significant Unless Significant a) Cause an increase intraffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated 

## J

J
c) Result in a change in airtraffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 

## J
J 

## J J J
Discussion: Proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4320 is a rule development project. The project does not impose requirements affecting transportation and traffic, as identified above. Mitigation: None



### XVI. UTILITIESISERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RegionalWater Quality Control Board? b) Require or result inthe construction of newwater or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result inthe construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the projectthat it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Potentially Significant Impact

. Potentially Significant lmpact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact 

### No Impact 

## J J

J

J

J

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 August 18,2008



### Page I7 

### of 

### 21 XVI. UTILITIESISERVICESYSTEMS (continued) Would the project: f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodatethe project's solid waste disposal needs? Potentially Significant Impact

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 

## J Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated



### --- Less Than Significant Impact

Discussion: Proposed amendments to Rule 4306 and proposed Rule 4320 is a rule development project. Installation of SCR and other control systems will require electrical power for fans, electronics and control motors. The project is not expected to have any adverse impacts on utilities/service systems, as identified above Mitigation: None Reference: Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306, Proposed Rule 4320, and supporting staff report.



### XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Doesthe project havethe potential to degradethe quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish orwildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plantor animal community, reducethe number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Doesthe project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively Considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Doesthe project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: (a-b) Proposed amendments to Rule project. No significant adverse impacts on the categories outlined above are anticipated as a result of this project. (c) Compliance with proposed Rule 4320 has the potential to cause adverse effects on humans. However, as discussed in Section Ill.Air Quality (d, e) and Section VII. Hazards 

### & Hazardous Materials (a-h), the impacts to human health risks are less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact

4306 and Potentially Significant lmpact Unless Mitigated

proposed Rule LessThan Significant Impact



# J
4320 is a rule 

### N o Impact



## J

J

development

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District August 18,2008 InitialStudy and Negative Declaration Rule 4306 Amendments and ProioosedRule 4320 

### E. INI'I'IAL STUDY DIS'TRIBU'I'ION LIST FresnoCounty County of Kern 2221 Kern Street 1 115 Truxton Ave. Fresno, CA 93721 .Bakersfield,CA 93301 County of Kings 1400W. Lacy Blvd. Hanford, CA 93230 County of Madera 209 W. Yosemite Ave. Madera,CA 93637 County of Merced County of San Joaquin 2222 "M" Street, Room 14 6 S. El Dorado St., 2ndFloor Merced, CA 9534 Stockton, CA 95202 County of Stanislaus 1021 

### "I" Street, Suite 101 Modesto,CA 95354 Countyof Tulare 221 S. Mooney Blvd., Rm. 105 Visalia, CA 93291 California Dept. Fisli 

### & Ganie Califorr~ia Dept. Fish 

### & Game Region 2 (North Central) Region4 (Central) 1701 Nimbus Road, SuiteA 1234 E. ShawAve. Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Fresno, CA 93710 California Dept. Fish

### & Game California Dept.Transportation, District6 141 6 gthStreet, 1 2th

### lo or 2015 E. Shields Ave., Suite 100 Sacramento,CA 95814 Fresno, CA 93726 California Dept.Transportation, District 10 California Dept.Water Resources 1976 E. CharterWay 14.1 6 gthStreet, 

### P.O. Box 942836 Stockton, CA 95205 Sacramento, CA 94236 Regional Water Quality Control Board Regional Water Quality Control Board CentralValley - 

### Region 

### 5F Central Valley - 

### Region 

### 5s 1685 "El1 Street 11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200 Fresno,CA 93706 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

Page 18 of 21San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration 

### Rule 4306 Amendments and Proposed Rule 4320 August 

### 18, 2008



## Attachment 

## 1

COP,emission increase due to Rule 4320 as Percent of Statewide GHG (C02,) 

### = 0.11% District's GHG (C02e)Significance Threshold per project (facility), case bycase basis 

### = 38,000 metric tonslyr Number of facilities subject to Rule 4320 

### = 369 Average annual C02e increase per facility 

### = 1,581 metric tonslyr 

### Table 

### 1

## -GREENHOUSE GAS (C02e) EMISSIONS FROM UNITS SUBJECTTO RULE 4320 USING SCR



### Page 

### 1 9 of 

### 21 Category Category A (>5 to 20 MMBtu) Category B (>20 MMBtuIhr) Category C (Oilfield steam generators) Category 

### D (Refinery Units) TOTAL Statewide 1990 GHG(C02e) emissions inventory 

### = 499,000,000 metric tonslyr Statewide 2020 GHG Emissions lnventory C0,e 

### = 600,000,000 Interpolated Statewide 2012 GHG Emissions InventoryC02e

### = 544,000,000 

### # Units

370

237

238

70 915 Total MMBtuIhr

6,081.72

15,637.11

16,304.36

2488.05 40,511.24 Operating Capacity

0.5

0.5

0.75

0.75 Operating Hourslyr

4380.0

4380.0

6570.0

6570.0 Fuel Used without penalty MMBtuIyr

2.7E+07

6.8E+07

1.IE+08

1.6E+07 2.2E+08 5% fuel penalty MMB~UI~~~

1331897

3424527

5355982

817324 10929730 C02EF I~IMMB~U~

11 7.65

11

7.65

117.65

1 17.65 

## co2 Emissions lblyr

1.57E+08

4.03E+08

6.30E+08

9.62E+07 1.29E+09 

## co2 Emissions short tonslyr

7.83E+04

2.01E+05

3.15E+05

4.81E+04 6.43E+05 

## co2 Emissions metric tonslyr

7.11E+04

1.83E+05

2.86E+05

4.36E+04 5.83E+05

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 4306 Amendments and Pro~osed Rule 4320 August 18,2008



# APPENDIX A Responseto Comments

Page 

### 20 of 

### 21

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District Initial Study and Negative Declaration Rule 4306

### Amendments and Pro~osed Rule 4320 

### August 18, 2008



# District Responseto Comments

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §I5072 the District provided a Notice of Availability (NOA) to each of the Responsible and Trustee Agencies and County Clerks identified above in Section 

### E. lnitial Study Distribution List. 

### The NOA was published in the newspaper of major circulation in each county. The NOA and Negative Declaration were also posted on the District's website. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline §I5105, the District provided a 20-day commenting period, beginning July 24, 2008, and ending on August 13, 2008. The District did not receive any comments on the Negative Declaration. Therefore, no response to comments is required.

Page 21 of 21

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIEDAIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT Appendix 

### F: Environmental Analysis October 

### 16,2008

This page intentionally blank

F - 

### 30 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306 and Rule 4307 and Proposed New Rule 4320