SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 1 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 

## APPENDIX A

Summary of Significant Comments and Responses For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

December 15, 2011SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 2 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 This page intentionally blank.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 3 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR RULE 4402 (CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION SUMPS)

FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING

EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS

1. COMMENT: The RACT Cost Effectiveness Analysis (section D.1 p age B-19) assumes two tanks are needed to replace one existin g sump. Please provide more support for this assumption. For example, were tan ks in SJVUAPCD that replaced 1st stage sumps always installed in pairs for simil ar redundancy? Were tanks in South Coast that replaced 2nd stage sumps always in stalled in pairs for similar redundancy?

RESPONSE: District staff has elaborated on the justification for the replacement of a sump with two tanks as an addendum to the public hearing board package. This addendum is attached to this staff report as Append ix E.

2. COMMENT: Similar to section 6.1.1, section 6.1.3 of the rule should add recordkeeping requirements for "API gravity of crud e oil for each exempt sump," as this information is necessary to show compliance wi th the exemption from section

4.1.3.

RESPONSE: Operators are currently required to maintain thes e records pursuant to other District rules and previous rule language. H owever, to clarify this existing requirement, District staff updated language in the clean rule pursuant to the authority granted to the APCO in the Resolution as approved by the Governing

Board on December 15, 2011.

3. COMMENT: Clean Air Act (CAA) section 182(a)(3)(B) requires s ources to annually report emissions. Please add a testing requirement for VOC concentration for all sumps in section 6.1 or elsewhere in Rule 4402, or explain why this information is not needed to comply with CAA section 182(a)(3)(B).

RESPONSE: CAA Section 182(a)(3)(B) requires the state to su bmit a revision to the SIP to require that the owner or operator of ea ch stationary source of NOx or VOC provide the State with a statement showing actu al emissions from that source annually. To satisfy CAA Section 182(a)(3)(B) requ irements for the state of California, ARB maintains and coordinates periodic source category updates for the California Areawide Inventory. ARB shares inventor y update responsibilities with local air districts. The District is responsible f or regularly updating 108 source categories in the emissions inventory. The sumps c ategory is ARB’s responsibility.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 4 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 Additionally, the recordkeeping requirements in Sec tion 6.1 of the rule require records for sumps exempt to the rule pursuant to Se ction 4.0. Exemptions 4.1.2 and 4.1.7 are the only two exemptions that contain VOC limit requirements because they are applicable to clean produced water; both exempt ions have recordkeeping requirements that include the VOC contents verified by independent laboratories. Testing and recordkeeping of the VOC content of sum ps are not necessary for compliance enforcement of any other exemptions.

District staff reviewed rules specific to sumps in other air districts; each of which has been determined as meeting RACT by EPA, and none re quires testing and reporting of VOC concentration of the contents of the sumps. To request this of Valley facilities would be beyond RACT. The purpose of th is rule-amending project is to address deficiencies as identified by EPA in the Fe deral Register and associated TSD in order to ensure this rule meets RACT require ments.

ARB STAFF COMMENTS

No comment letter has been received from ARB.

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS Aera Energy LLC (AERA)

1. COMMENT: Section 4.1.8: Aera would like to confirm that emp tying the pit using in place pumps satisfies the requirement to commence c leanup within 24 hours. For example, if an emergency concludes on January 1 st , and Aera begins pumping the fluids from the pit into on-site tanks later that s ame day, we have fulfilled the obligation to commence cleanup within 24 hours. Wh en the pump has evacuated as much fluids as possible, Aera can then schedule add itional cleaning work as necessary. Aera understands that the cleanup must be completed to the APCD’s satisfaction within 15 days. (AERA)

RESPONSE: District staff agrees with this assessment. The ac t of beginning to pump the fluids from the pit into on-site tanks ful fills the obligation to commence cleanup within 24 hours.

2. COMMENT: Section 6.1.7: Should this section contain the wor ding “On and after January 1, 2013, . . .”, similar to Section 6.1.6? We assume the expectation is that the recordkeeping will commence on that date as the cleaning timeline contained in Section 4.1.8 commences on January 1, 2013. (AERA)

RESPONSE: Section 6.1.7 was amended prior to the public hear ing to clarify the compliance date for recordkeeping. This amendment does not change the intent or requirement of this section of the rule. It was th e original intent of District staff for this new requirement to become effective as of Janu ary 1, 2013, consistent with the date specified in the exemption language.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 5 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR RULE 4402 (CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION SUMPS)

EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS

1. COMMENT: The assumption of 20% emission control for a tank w ith a PV valve seems low. In contrast, CARB’s 1988 "Technical Sup port Document for the Suggested Control Measure for the Control of Organi c Compound Emissions from Sumps used in Oil Production Operations" (page 4) a ssumes 90% control efficiency for flexible covers, rigid covers, fixed covers, an d fixed roof tanks. The relatively high cost-effectiveness calculation described in SJ VUAPCD's response to Rule 4402 issue A seems driven largely by the low (20%) emission control estimate. Even if this estimate is reasonable, adding the cos ts and control of a vapor recovery system in addition to a new tank may significantly lower the overall costeffectiveness. Lastly, SJVUAPCD notes plans to perf orm such analysis in response to Rule 4402 issue B, and asks industry for additio nal data. Please assure that

estimates used for these elements are reasonable to consider in any revised costeffectiveness calculation and are generated consist ent with standard practices.

RESPONSE: District staff enhanced the cost effectiveness anal ysis by including a

more detailed estimate of costs. Also, the Distric t has recalculated the cost effectiveness of control measures using information from the ARB TSD. District staff always uses due diligence when evaluating inf ormation provided by

stakeholders and will ensure estimates are reasonab le and consistent with standard practices. Refer to the staff report for a full di scussion and the associated analyses.

2. COMMENT: Please reconsider SJVUAPCD's response to Rule 4402 issue D in light of additional analysis previously discussed and dat a suggesting this may be a relatively large source. Specifically, data from t he District and information from "Corrections to CARB’s AB-2588 Air Toxics 'Hot Spot s' Technical Guidance Document," Table D-1, Page 11B, estimate emissions from the sump category at about 2,700 pounds VOC/day. This calculation assume s the 95 sumps in the district have a surface area of 4,690 square feet and are al l third stage sumps.

RESPONSE: The approved emission inventory for this entire sou rce category, as

discussed in the 2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology 31 0 – Oil Production Fugitive Losses , is 968 tons per year of VOC. This methodology

includes the corrected AB-2588 information.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 6 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 3. COMMENT: EPA Headquarters personnel familiar with the WATER9 model did not recommend use of the model for the purpose describe d in response to Rule 4402

issue E. Instead, since EPA understands the units to be uncovered by ponds designed to evaporate water, EPA recommends calcula ting the VOC emissions simply by assuming all 35 mg-VOC/liter-water would be emitted. Assuming, as did SJVUAPCD, 1,000,000 gallons/day are sent to these u nits, we calculate 53 tons per year of VOC emissions per pond. Please reconsider whether a limit lower than 35 mg is appropriate.

RESPONSE: Ponds are designed to dispose of clean produced wat er through a combination of evaporation and percolation. Staff does not agree with the assessment that all VOC emissions evaporate into th e air because of the percolation

mechanism. However, District staff has updated the emissions calculations. Refe r to the staff report for a more detailed discussion of the use and appropria teness of

WATER9.

4. COMMENT: The response for Rule 4402 issue F is unclear, as t he current version

of section 4.1.5 in Rule 4402 does not address emer gency pits.

RESPONSE : Refer to the staff report for an updated discussi on and clarifications regarding emergency pits.

5. COMMENT: EPA does not believe that SJVUAPCD's response to Ru le 4402 issue J adequately addresses EPA’s concern regarding NSR exemptions.

RESPONSE: Staff have worked diligently with EPA staff to dete rmine that the standards set with the adoption of similar language in District Rule 4702 establish the appropriateness of this language in this rule. As such, staff propose to not amend the NSR language in the revised proposed rule , with the exception of the replacement of the word “may” for the word “shall.”

ARB STAFF COMMENTS

No comment letter has been received from ARB.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 7 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

Aera Energy LLC (AERA) Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) Chevron (CR) Drilling & Production Company (DPC) Engineers Oil Company (EOC) Envirotek (ET) Howard E. Caywood Inc. (HECI) Insight Environmental Consultants (IEC) Plains Exploration Company (PEC) Victory Oil (VO) Vintage Petroleum Company (VPC) Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)

6. COMMENT: Has the District updated their formula for cost-eff ectiveness recently? When considering all external costs, $27,000/ton of emissions reductions is cheap. If other areas are implementing emission reductions measures, the District should not have a choice of whether or not to implement th e same measure. Even if the cost were $50,000/ton, the District should implemen t the amendment because health should be considered above all costs. (AIR)

RESPONSE: District staff has updated the cost effectiveness a nalyses. Refer to the staff report and appendices for this discussion. A dditionally, VOC emissions reductions are generally less important to the Vall ey’s long-term attainment goals

than are NOx emissions reductions, as reflected in the Valley’s attainment strategies.

7. COMMENT: What are the estimates for the VOC emissions relea sed off of ponds and secondary sumps? It seems to be a lot during t he summer and this could pose a major problem. What is being done for emissions from secondary sumps? (AIR)

RESPONSE: The approved emission inventory for this entire sou rce category, as

discussed in the 2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology 31 0 – Oil Production Fugitive Losses , which is available on the District website at www.valleyair.org. These emissions and potential c ontrol technologies are discussed in detail in the staff report.

8. COMMENT: The District needs to provide a cost benefit analy sis for these rule amendments. For the $27,000 cost per ton of emissio ns reductions, the District is assuming the area of most sumps is 5000 sq. ft. Mo st sumps are actually around 1000 sq. ft. so the District is exaggerating the co st/benefit ratio. The presentationSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 8 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 does not present many numbers on this matter so the companies subject to this rule do not really know what kinds of emissions reductio ns will result from the proposed

amendments.

The increased costs of abandoning sumps and replaci ng them with tanks and other ancillary equipment could result in small to mid-si ze operators going out of business. Producing leases will be sold to larger operators a nd the number of oil gathering

facilities will be reduced; however, this will resu lt in the loss of jobs and local

revenues to the area. Where smaller or isolated fac ilities cannot be sold, or where the added costs cannot be justified, the wells and associated facilities will have to be abandoned prematurely with the added impact on the local economy. Thus, the District should make sure that amending the new rul e will cost effectively reduce emissions. (ET, DPC, VO, VPC)

RESPONSE: District staff have updated the cost effectiveness analysis and included that discussion in the staff report. The analyses showed that it would not be cost effective to replace sumps with tanks or to cover s umps with control equipment. As such, staff are recommending that the exemptions an d requirements sections of the

rule be not amended; therefore, there would be no s ocioeconomic impacts resulting from this rule-amending project.

9. COMMENT: Recordkeeping practices are very redundant since ET has to send in records twice for two different departments within the District. The District staff should improve the records submission process. (ET)

RESPONSE: The District requests that ET send in a cost repor t for the repetitive recordkeeping practices discussed. Any suggestions for how the District can streamline the process are welcomed.

10. COMMENT: There is grave concern about revising the “clean pr oduced water” definition to 5 mg/L. It would not be appropriate to have two different definitions of the same term in the District’s dictionary. If the District is forced to create the 5 mg/L definition, please consider the title “clean sump w ater” to create a distinction between the Rule 1020 definition and Rule 4402 appl icability. Otherwise, the District should remove the definition of “clean produced wat er” from Rule 1020. (IEC)

RESPONSE: District staff has evaluated the effectiveness of r educing the limit of VOC in clean produced water to 5 mg/l and has deter mined that it would go beyond RACT to do so; therefore, there is no proposal to a mend the VOC content limit of clean produced water at this time. Staff will cons ider changing the name of this term to improve clarify to rule requirements if, in the future, it is decided that this limit should be changed.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 9 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 11. COMMENT: Oil in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) is heavier at t he surface, in comparison to other regions in California. This is apparent from the data on facilities with pits, ponds, and sumps in the SJV. The limit of 35 mg/l VOC’s was established for heavy oil production facilities specifically be cause removal of oil below this level is very difficult and not cost effective using avai lable technologies. To achieve 5 mg/l would be almost impossible. It would result in fil tration and disposal issues and it will have a significant cost impact to oil and gas opera tors. Maybe an exemption for current above ground tanks would be acceptable. (DP C, VPC, IEC)

RESPONSE: Staff have performed a comprehensive cost effectiv eness analysis for alternatives and for the 5 mg/l VOC limit and is no t proposing any significant changes to rule requirements. Refer to the staff r eport for this discussion.

12. COMMENT: The proposed limit of 5 mg/l VOC is based on the Lo s Angeles basin limits. The limits imposed there should not be appl ied to the District rule for the following reasons: First, while the SCAQMD VOC tes ts must be maintained by the operators, they are not submitted annually to the a ir district (such as is required by the District). Secondly, Los Angeles basin crude oi ls are generally lighter than SJV

crude oils, which make it easier to obtain lower re sidual oil levels and the resultant VOC test levels. Lastly, in many areas, Los Angele s basin operators are able to dispose of their produced water into the Los Angele s and Orange County sewer systems with oil content of up to 60 ppm to 100 ppm , respectively; thus, oil having VOC’s above 5 mg/l is often disposed of before it r eaches a produced water storage tanks where the lower limit would apply. Further in vestigation on the District’s part may reveal that although SCAQMD has a threshold of 5 mg/liter, there may be no permits subject to such a rule requirement. No matt er how SCAQMD justified the low threshold, it may have resulted in facilities insta lling alternative equipment to avoid the rule. (DPC, VPC, IEC)

RESPONSE: Staff has incorporated information provided by stak eholders into the staff report as appropriate. Staff has also perfor med a cost effectiveness analysis as part of our efforts to determine if this is a reaso nable control technology. The cost effectiveness analysis indicates that it is not cos t effective to treat the clean produced water from 35 mg/l to 5 mg/l. Staff has a lso requested feedback from EPA regarding the methods of disposal used for clean pr oduced water in the Los Angeles basin. Staff is still waiting for responses to thi s inquiry. Please see the response to Comment 11 and the staff report for further discuss ion of this analysis.

13. COMMENT: The time provided before the proposed changes are t o be approved does not provide sufficient time to do any meaningf ul analysis of the emissions savings, the cost-benefit of making the modificatio ns, and of determining what the best means of achieving lower limits if they are ma de effective as proposed. The last time that something of this magnitude was raised wa s in the mid-1990’s (tankSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 10 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 emissions that resulted in Reid Vapor Tests every t wo years); it took two years of analysis in a joint effort by industry, the Califor nia EPA and the U. S. Department of Energy to study the issue. The current mandate cann ot and should not be done with

less than two months of notice, but the District is asking the industry to comment in two weeks. Can the District extend the comment per iod since the amended rule and full list of changes are still not available for vi ewing? (VO, AERA, VPC, DPC)

RESPONSE: In contrast to District rule projects driven by att ainment plan commitments, this project is principally focused on ensuring that a previouslyadopted rule meets requirements for RACT. As such, this project is on an expedited schedule as compared to a full rule project for a n ew attainment plan commitment.

Comments received by November 29, 2011 are ensured consideration prior to the Governing Board hearing. However, comments can be submitted up to and during the public hearing.

14. COMMENT: The District concluded that due to the small amount of emissions of VOCs from second and third stage sumps the cost of additional controls for reducing

emissions would exceed the maximum cost effectivene ss thresholds. The District has concluded that the only feasible control techni que available for reducing VOC emissions from sumps is the replacement of sumps wi th tanks. We agree with the District’s conclusions. We support the conclusion that replacement of sumps with tanks is not a cost-effective approach. (PEC, WSPA)

RESPONSE: District staff has explored this analysis in great detail in the staff report. Refer to the language in the staff report for this discussion.

15. COMMENT: The presentation from the workshop states that the test methods for Rule 4402 are being updated. What methods are bein g updated and which methods are they being updated to? (AERA)

RESPONSE: The updated test methods are presented in Section 3 and Section 6 of the revised proposed rule and discussed in the s taff report.

16. COMMENT: How did the EPA estimate the emissions from ponds? (AERA)

RESPONSE: The EPA performed a mass balance equation to assume that all emissions from the ponds are emitted into the air. District staff does not agree with

this assessment because EPA did not take into accou nt percolation and biodegradation of the VOCs in the ponds. See the s taff report for the detailed

discussion and calculations.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 11 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 17. COMMENT: The District will probably never reach compliance b ecause ozone pollution travels into the San Joaquin Valley from other countries and cities. This seems like a major issue, so how does the District estimate the pollution traveling in from other areas? (HECI)

RESPONSE: The District periodically evaluates air pollution t ransport, including transport within the San Joaquin Valley, transport of pollutants into the Valley from other air basins, and transport of Valley pollutant s into other air basins. Previous evaluations suggested that pollutants from other ai r basins accounted for between 7% to 27% of Valley air pollution. The District wi ll continue to evaluate this in future attainment plans. Regardless of the contribution o f pollutants from outside the Valley, the District must continue to address sourc es of air pollution under its jurisdiction.

18. COMMENT: How much do oil companies contribute to ozone pollu tion in the San Joaquin Valley? (HECI)

RESPONSE : Previous estimates from the District indicate ab out 6-7%.

19. COMMENT: The changes will require installation of additional tankage and equipment amounting to at least $70,000 per facilit y location. In DPC’s case, it will require the installation of at least one additional 1,000 bbl tank ($50,000) and installation of a deck (lid/top) on an existing 100 0 bbl above ground impoundment ($20,000). Under the existing regulations, these wo uld have to be qualified as “tanks” and would require permits with increased an nual fees, monitoring, operating

costs and outside contractor services. DPC’s total estimated cost would be $140,000. Even with the additional tankage listed, other water treatment measures not currently needed might be required, such as ins tallation of filtration units and possibly additional tanks (at $50,000 each). This w ill create considerable waste material that will have to be disposed of at off-si te waste facilities. (DPC)

RESPONSE: District staff have incorporated the costs provided into the staff report as appropriate.

20. COMMENT: Actual emissions from heavy oil less than 20° API a re not as great as with lighter crude oils. The District’s own models show this to be the case. Thus, comparing SJVAPCD district VOC limits to Los Angele s basin crude oil VOC’s is not justified. (DPC)

RESPONSE: As a part of performing a RACT analysis, the Distr ict must evaluate all corresponding limits in other air districts, compar e these to District limits, and assess whether these limits would be RACT in the Valley. District staff will take into accountSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 12 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 the API of heavy oil in the Valley versus the LA ba sin in our continuing analysis of RACT for this source category.

21. COMMENT: For the sake of clarity, it would be good to add th e following to the start of the sentence in new Section 5.2: “Unless exempt under 4.0 of this rule,... ” (EOC)

RESPONSE: The standardized formatting for District rules is t o keep exemption language limited to Section 4.0 of each rule. Ther e are of course some rare exceptions to this standard. If exemption language were to be added to the Requirements section of the rule it could negativel y impact the clarity and consistency of rule language. As such, staff will not propose to add the language to

Section 5.0 of the rule.

22. COMMENT: Section 6.1 does not provide specific enough langua ge for what records should be kept. Also, not all locations ha ve offices located at them as many are at rural locations making it difficult to secur e and maintain records “on site.” The District is not clean which records should be kept at what locations. Some companies have tanks and sumps at several locations . Also, it is unlikely that EPA or ARB would come unannounced to our site, so the p resence of records may not be that useful. (EOC)

RESPONSE: Staff have clarified what type of records should be maintained and due to the remote locations of sumps staff agree that i t may not be appropriate for operators to maintain records on site. The revised proposed rule has been updated and this update is discussed in more detail in the staff report.

23. COMMENT: WSPA performed a series of cost effectiveness analy ses to determine if it would be RACT to implement amendments as disc ussed in the EPA TSD. A summary of those analyses is in the following table : (WSPA)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 13 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 Table A-1. Summary of Cost Effectiveness of Differ ent VOC Control

Techniques

Proposed Control Technique Control Cost Range ($/Ton)

Low High Replace Sumps with Tanks 40,601 68,188 Replace Sumps with Tanks & Vapor Recovery 46,022 89 ,405 Treat Water to Achieve a 5 mg/l Effluent Limit 1,50 0,000 Treat Water and Then Inject Water for Disposal 1,79 2,452

Note: The cost effectiveness range depends on a given typ e of production sump (secondary or tertiary) and the type of production. The cost effectiveness for each sump type used for each production type is discusse d in detail in the attached report.

RESPONSE: District staff have evaluated the information provi ded to support the summary table above. The cost information provided for this cost effectiveness analysis has been incorporated into the staff repor t as appropriate.

24. COMMENT: EPA has proposed that the District reduce the efflu ent limitation for produced water from 35 mg/l to 5 mg/l. WSPA is str ongly opposed to any change in the produced water effluent limitation. The curren t limit is consistent with the effluent guidelines established by the EPA for the onshore o il and extraction point source category; and is allowed by the Water Discharge Req uirements (WDRs) listed on permits issued to oilfield operators by the Califor nia Regional Water Quality Control

Boards. Furthermore, the cost effectiveness of the VOC reductions achieved from lowering the effluent concentrations to 5 mg/l is s o great (about $1.5 MM to $1.7 MM per ton) that it renders the control technique infe asible. (WSPA)

RESPONSE: The cost effectiveness of the VOC reductions achiev ed from lowering the VOC content limit from 35 mg/l to 5 mg/l has be en incorporated into the staff report as appropriate.

25. COMMENT: Operators should only have to test new sumps initia lly to demonstrate that the sumps qualify for the Section 4.1 exemptio n. Additional testing should not be required unless there is some pertinent change i n the method of operation of the sump. Where operators have already demonstrated th at existing sumps quality for an exemption, then additional testing should not be required. (WSPA)

RESPONSE: Current rule requirements to not call for annual te sting. Current standards require the test results be submitted to the District annually; however, as

discussed with EPA staff, the District has amended the requirement and are proposing that operators should keep records availa ble but not submit them to the District unless requested to do so.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 14 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 26. COMMENT: The District has proposed that operators be require d to submit annual reports to document the exemption status of the sum p. The validity of the exemption can be easily verified by simply requiring that ope rators maintain records documenting their exemption status. (WSPA)

RESPONSE: The District is committed to streamlining processes for both

stakeholders and District staff. With this in mind , the proposed amendments to this rule change the requirements from submitting record s to maintaining them for at least five years and making them available to EPA, ARB, and the District upon

request.

27. COMMENT: The use of sumps should not be limited to “emergenc y occurrences” only and the time allowed to commence “clean-up” op erations should be extended to 72 hours after the termination of the event. A per iod longer than 24 hours is required because an event could occur over a weeken d, and the event might go undetected until the following Monday. We also req uest that the time allowed for completing the “clean up activity” be extended to a t least 30 days. (WSPA)

RESPONSE: Staff have evaluated this request and determined th at sumps in the Valley differ greatly from those in other air basin s because they are located in rural locations and they are not manned 24 hours a day se ven days a week like in the South Coast. As such, staff have clarified the req uirement for emergency sumps in the discussion section of the staff report. Refer to this section for this language and analysis.

28. COMMENT: With respect to the reporting requirements for pits , the reporting of the time when the event occurs may not be possible: if the event occurs at unmanned facility or over the weekend, then it might be impo ssible to determine when the even initially began. We propose that operators maintai n records documenting when the event was discovered, when clean-up activities comm enced, and when clean-up activities were completed. (AERA)

RESPONSE: Please see response to Comment 27.

29. COMMENT: WSPA provided comments to the effect that the Dist rict emissions inventory is incorrect. The information provided i n the ARB TSD contains the correct emissions factors for sumps and the District has ov erestimated the emissions from this source category by a factor of 4. Additionally , the District misrepresented the number of active sumps in the Valley. The number o f active sumps as presented in

the 2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory methodology shows less sumps thenSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 15 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 what is calculated and presented in Table 3 of the staff report. The District should consider updating the table with the approved emiss ion inventory table. (WSPA)

RESPONSE: The current emission factors used for the District emission inventory

are a corrected set of emission factors. These emi ssion factors have been submitted for review to the public and to stakehold ers and have been approved by all parties asked to comment. These emission facto rs have also been vetted through the District permit streamlining process, w hich also allows opportunities for stakeholder input. The District will continue to e xplore the relevance and appropriateness of the emission factors for this so urce category during the development of the next air quality attainment plan . In response to the comment regarding the number of active sumps; District staf f have update the number of active sumps represented in the staff report to ref lect the number in the emission inventory. Refer to the staff report for the updat ed information, now presented in

Table 2.

30. COMMENT: EPA’s comment regarding “clean produced water” shou ld not apply to Valley ponds, which are evaporation/percolation pon ds. The EPA commenter is mismatching the comparison between sumps and ponds. SCAQMD Rule 1176 and SLOCAPCD Rule 419 do not regulate percolation ponds . Based on the definitions given in Rule 1176, a percolation pond cannot be cl assified as a sump or as part of a wastewater system. Similarly, a percolation pond d oes not fit the definitions Rule 419 gives for a pit, pond, or sump. Also, Rule 419 ’s Applicability section states that the rule applies to pits, ponds, etc. where crude o il or petroleum material is produced, gathered, separated, processed, or stored . However, crude oil or petroleum material is not produced, gathered, separ ated, processed, nor stored in waste water evaporation/percolation ponds. Therefo re, based on other air district’s rule applicability and definitions, EPA’s statement is strictly applicable to wastewater sumps in the Valley. (CR)

RESPONSE: District staff appreciates the comment. However, t he definition of pond is not limited percolation ponds and therefore could be interpreted as being

similar to the two rules mentioned in the comment.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A

- 16 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 This page intentionally blank.