SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses October 16, 2008 

 A - 1 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306 

and Rule 4307 and Proposed New Rule 4320 

APPENDIX A 

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 

4306 AND RULE 4307 AND PROPOSED NEW RULE 4320 

October 16, 2008 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses October 16, 2008 

 A - 2 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306 

and Rule 4307 and Proposed New Rule 4320 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT WRITTEN COMMENTS 

FROM THE FINAL COMMENT PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 

AND DISTRICT STAFF’S RESPONSES 

EPA Comments: 

1. COMMENT: The innovative fee provisions in proposed Rule 4320 raise complex issues 

related to EPA’s guidance on economic incentive programs (EIP). In 2006, EPA 

provided general comments on fee program strategies and approvability issues related 

to such programs, it is still not clear how any emission reductions resulting from the fee 

provision would be achieved and quantified for SIP credit. Please let us know if you 

would like us to perform a more thorough analysis of this provision at this time or if you 

would rather discuss some of the general issues first. 

RESPONSE: The comments on the annual emissions fee provision in Rule 4320 might 

best be included in ongoing discussions between EPA and District staff on other issues 

involving SIP approvability and incentive programs. 

2. COMMENT: In the staff report, the District notes that this rule will help fulfill obligations 

from the District’s PM 2.5 plan. We understand that the District currently does not have 

any test data directly measuring PM 2.5 emissions from boilers. EPA Other Test 

Method 27, (formerly Conditional Test Method 40, see: 

http://epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm27.pdf), can be used to obtain these data. EPA 

encourages the District to use OTM 27 to directly measure PM 2.5 emissions, and 

consider future revisions to Rule 4306 based on those data. 

RESPONSE: This suggestion will be considered by the District in any future revisions 

to these rules. 

ARB Comments: 

Rule 4306 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters – Phase 3

 

3. COMMENT: Section 5.2.1, in part, allows units to be test fired without triggering a tuneup requirement if the unit is otherwise not operated during the year. ARB staff 

recommends that the term “test fired” be limited in time by definition or in Section 5.2.1. 

RESPONSE: It is not possible to create a single standard for test-firing. Test-firing 

requirements will vary in time and frequency depending on the use of a unit, e.g. 

hospital back-up units may have more frequent and longer test-firing requirements than 

a commercial standby unit. Specific test-firing limits are best set as permit conditions. 

Those units are limited in use by permit conditions so emissions are not expected to be 

significant during annual operations. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses October 16, 2008 

 A - 3 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306 

and Rule 4307 and Proposed New Rule 4320 

4. COMMENT: The second sentence in Section 5.4.4 includes the word “periodically”. 

For improved clarity we recommend that the District provide a definition for the term 

“periodically” as it applies to this section. 

Section 5.4.4 also allows one master meter to measure fuel to a group of similar units to 

show the annual fuel energy input to be less than 9.0 billion Btu per calendar year. 

Since it would be impossible to tell how the fuel was distributed, and because any one 

unit could be exceeding the limit, ARB staff recommends that language be added to 

clarify that, if the combined group exceeds 9.0 billion Btu annually, all units in the group 

will be subject to the standards of Section 5.2. 

RESPONSE: The need to compensate the volumetric flow measurements will depend 

on the meter and operating parameters so it is not possible to specify a specific 

calibration period in the rule. Automatically requiring all units in a jointly metered group 

to comply with the more stringent emission limits rule in case of an exceedance could 

be excessively punitive. Any such determination is best made on a case-by-case basis 

by the Compliance Section should a violation occur.

Rule 4307 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters – 2.0 MMBtu/hr to 5.0 

MMBtu/hr

5. COMMENT: We commend the District for removing the exemption for units used at 

schools. We would also encourage the District to consider shortening the time allowed 

to comply with the emission limitations from July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2012 similar to the 

proposed deadlines in other district’s rules.

RESPONSE: The rules are not directly comparable due to higher fuel use exemption 

levels in the other districts’ rules (9 billion Btu/yr versus 1.8 billion Btu/yr), the 

exemption of units less than 10 MMBtu/hr in the Bay Area’s rule and the District’s 

requirement for a much lower emission limit (9 ppmv NOx) for new or replacement units. 

The units in question are small or low-use units which were not considered to be cost 

effective to include in the last round of rule making. By providing the longer compliance 

schedule for these units, operators can better recover their investment, thereby 

reducing the cost-effectiveness of the rule by lowering the residual equipment value. 

6. COMMENT: ARB staff recommends that the term “test fired” be limited in time by 

definition or in Sections 5.2.1.1 and 5.5.1.2. 

RESPONSE: Please see response to Comment #3. 

7. COMMENT: Section 5.5.2 allows one master meter to measure fuel to a group of 

similar units to show the annual fuel energy input to be less than 5.0 billion Btu or 1.8 

billion Btu, as appropriate, per Section 5.2.1 or Section 5.2.2. Since it would be 

impossible to tell how the fuel was distributed, and because any one unit could be 

exceeding the limit, ARB staff recommends that language be added to clarify that if the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses October 16, 2008 

 A - 4 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306 

and Rule 4307 and Proposed New Rule 4320 

combined group exceeds 5.0 billion Btu annually, as appropriate, that all units in the 

group will be subject to the standards of Section 5.2.1 or Section 5.2.2, as appropriate. 

RESPONSE: Please see response to Comment #4. 

8. COMMENT: The emission limits in Table 2 apply to new and replacement units. To 

improve enforceability of the rule, ARB staff recommends that the term “replacement 

unit” be defined in Section 3.0. 

RESPONSE: The rule uses the plain English meaning of replacement and the rule 

definition of unit and replacement unit does not have a special meaning as defined in 

other rules. For the purpose of Table 2, replacement of a “unit”, as defined in the rule, 

does not include just a burner replacement. If only a burner were replaced, the unit, that 

contains that burner, would still be subject to the 30 ppmv NOx limit and not 9 ppmv limit. 

Rule 4320 Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 MMBtu/hr

9. COMMENT: Section 5.5.1, in part, allows units to be test fired without triggering a tuneup requirement if the unit is otherwise not operated during the year. ARB staff 

recommends that the term “test fired” be limited in time by definition or in Section 5.5.1. 

RESPONSE: Please see response to Comment #3. 

10. COMMENT: Section 5.7.3 allows one master meter to measure fuel to a group of 

similar units to show the annual fuel energy input to be less than 1.8 billion Btu per 

calendar year. Since it would be impossible to tell how the fuel was distributed, and 

because any one unit could be exceeding the limit, ARB staff recommends that 

language be added to clarify that if the combined group exceeds 1.8 billion Btu per 

calendar year that all units in the group will be subject to the standards of Section 5.5. 

RESPONSE: Please see response to Comment #4. 

Industry Comments: 

Comments were received from the following stakeholders: 

Big West of California, LLC, (BWC) 

California Independent Petroleum Association, (CIPA) 

Enovity, Inc., (EI) 

Independent Oil Producers Agency, (IOPA) 

Kern Oil & Refining Co., (KERN) 

Plains LPG Services, L.P., (PLPG) 

Western States Petroleum Association, (WSPA) 

Any further comments received, will be included in the Final Staff Report. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses October 16, 2008 

 A - 5 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306 

and Rule 4307 and Proposed New Rule 4320 

11. COMMENT: During our discussions with District staff and management, District staff 

and management committed to continue working with members of the Refiners Council 

to develop an alternative, refinery-specific rule for the units covered by Rule 4320. 

We proposed implementation of a facility-specific "bubble" concept, so that each 

refinery would have the option of complying through achievement of NOx reductions 

across all of its covered units. This would provide refiners with the opportunity to 'overcomply' through installation of SCR technology where it was practical and cost-effective 

to do so, providing greater flexibility and opportunities for refiners to creatively manage 

their overall NOx emissions. (BWC), (KERN), (PLPG)

RESPONSE: Future rule development concerning refinery units may be accomplished 

through creating a separate rule applicable to them. Other air districts in and out of 

California have taken this approach. Similarly the District may seek emissions 

reductions by focusing on a refinery’s summative emissions. 

12. COMMENT: We understand you will look to see whether the staff report can explain 

how Rule 4320 will not re-establish BACT. As you know, BACT is the more stringent of: 

Achieved in practice, required by a SIP/local air regulation, or cost-effective and 

technically feasible. (BWC), (PLPG) 

RESPONSE: The NOx emission limits of Rule 4320 would require the very forefront of 

controls for boilers, steam generators, and process heaters. The District has not sought 

to reestablish Best Available Control Technology (BACT) through the implementation of 

these advanced limits. Rule 4320 includes an option to pay an emissions fee in addition 

to the option to meet the control requirements. A BACT analysis would have to 

consider the impacts of that option, not merely the proposed emission limits. 

13. COMMENT: The proposed compliance dates in Table 1, Category C are overly 

burdensome. Several of our members have made substantial capital investments in 

order to comply with current SJVUAPCD Rules 4306 and 4320. That rule required 

these operators to install equipment on a phased compliance schedule. At least 25% of 

their equipment was required to be in compliance by June 1, 2005, 62.5% of their 

equipment by June 1, 2006 and the remainder by June 7, 2007. (CIPA), (IOPA) 

RESPONSE: District staff accepted stakeholder input and suggested changes to the 

initial compliance deadlines. The proposed compliance deadlines have already been 

appropriately modified. 

14. COMMENT: A requirement in Section 5.4.1.3 of this rule requires operators to install 

and properly operate emission control systems to reduce SO2 by 95% by the NOx

compliance deadline. The steam generator exhaust will be limited to a 9 ppmv

concentration. According to the District Staff figures, these control systems will increase 

the costs of reducing the NOx emissions between $16,438 and $230,608 per ton of NOx

reduced. We are concerned that District Staff have included cost-effectiveness 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses October 16, 2008 

 A - 6 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306 

and Rule 4307 and Proposed New Rule 4320 

numbers for SO2 control equipment and then expressed them in terms of $/ton of NOx

reduced. We requests that this requirement be revised to accurately express the true 

cost. (CIPA), (IOPA) 

RESPONSE: Table C-14 lists the SO2 control equipment cost effectiveness and the 

final column mistakenly reads $/ton NOx. The units should read $/ton SO2. These 

costs are analyzed separately as suggested. The cost for SO2 control equipment as 

stated would add to the overall costs including NOx control equipment costs. The 

District has mitigated the additional SO2 control equipment costs by including several 

options for particulate matter control. Most units would comply by firing on PUC quality 

natural gas or by limiting fuel sulfur content. 

15. COMMENT: Based on additional information obtained outside this process, if urea is 

used to control NOx emissions, then the requirement is 5.0 lbs/hr/unit. Based on your 

Emissions Reduction Analysis, there will be 1,176 units affected by this rule and only 50 

units currently comply with a 5 ppmv NOx limit. Table B-1 of that Analysis indicates that 

656 steam generators will be affected. If each of those units were to consume 5 lbs/hr, 

then 551,040 lbs/week would be required. If an operator were to choose Ammonia for 

their Selective Cataytic Reaction control system, we assume that an equivalent amount 

of Ammonia would be used. The Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration, 

Table III and Table VI do not indicate a potentially significant impact nor do they state 

that any mitigation will be required. (CIPA), (IOPA) 

RESPONSE: The Initial Study was completed assuming the worst case scenario with 

the maximum number of units utilizing a selective catalytic reduction system (SCR). 

The study includes calculating greenhouse gas emissions from units subject to the rule 

and utilizing SCR. As stated in the study 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. District staff also believe 

that operators will not install the maximum number of SCR systems assumed in the 

study. Rule 4320, Table 1, contains NOx limits that can be met in some cases with 

ultra-low NOx burners. In some cases operators may choose to pay the annual 

emissions fee. 

16. COMMENT: We recommend that the District work in coordination with us and PG&E to 

promote energy efficiency measures and the technical services and financial 

incentives/rebates that are available to help offset costs for efficiency upgrades. A 

sample list of common boiler energy efficiency measures include burner controls 

upgrades, burner fan VFD, high-efficiency burners, feed-water economizer heat 

recovery, condensing economizer heat recovery, blow-down heat recovery, process 

heater recovery, condensate return, pipe & tank insulation, pump VFD, high-efficiency 

boilers including direct-contact water heaters and condensing boilers. (EI) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses October 16, 2008 

 A - 7 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306 

and Rule 4307 and Proposed New Rule 4320 

RESPONSE: Comment noted. 

17. COMMENT: Several of our members have inquired about inclusion of multiple control 

strategies in the ECP. Based on guidance provided by the District, it is our 

understanding the ECP may include more than one control option for a given emission 

unit. Operators would be allowed to implement either one of the designated options, 

provided that the selected option is implemented prior to the compliance trigger date for 

a given NOx target. (WSPA)

RESPONSE: The ECP can include more than one control option for a given emission 

unit or can be changed from one option to another. The critical factor would be 

complying with the dates in Rule 4320 such as the emissions fee payment date, ATC 

deadline, or final compliance deadline. The emissions fee is to be paid until the units 

either comply with the limits or are removed from service. Also, the rule allows paying 

the fee retroactively only for units that comply with the staged enhanced initial limit but 

cannot achieve the staged enhanced final limit. 

18. COMMENT: In order for Section 5.4.1.1 to function as intended it should be revised to 

remove the word “all”. (WSPA) 

RESPONSE: District staff concur. The section has been modified so as not to exclude 

any options. Please refer to the rule for details. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses October 16, 2008 

 A - 8 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306 

and Rule 4307 and Proposed New Rule 4320 

This page intentionally blank.