SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

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, 2011 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

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 DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

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 page B-19) 

assumes two tanks are needed to replace one existing sump. Please provide more 

support for this assumption. For example, were tanks in SJVUAPCD that replaced 

1st stage sumps always installed in pairs for similar redundancy? Were tanks in 

South Coast that replaced 2nd stage sumps always installed 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 Appendix E. 

2. COMMENT: Similar to section 6.1.1, section 6.1.3 of the rule should add 

recordkeeping requirements for "API gravity of crude oil for each exempt sump," as 

this information is necessary to show compliance with the exemption from section 

4.1.3.

 RESPONSE: Operators are currently required to maintain these records pursuant to 

other District rules and previous rule language. However, 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 sources 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 submit a revision to 

the SIP to require that the owner or operator of each stationary source of NOx or 

VOC provide the State with a statement showing actual emissions from that source 

annually. To satisfy CAA Section 182(a)(3)(B) requirements for the state of 

California, ARB maintains and coordinates periodic source category updates for the 

California Areawide Inventory. ARB shares inventory update responsibilities with 

local air districts. The District is responsible for regularly updating 108 source 

categories in the emissions inventory. The sumps category is ARB’s responsibility. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 4 Final Staff Report with Appendices For 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 

Additionally, the recordkeeping requirements in Section 6.1 of the rule require 

records for sumps exempt to the rule pursuant to Section 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 exemptions have recordkeeping 

requirements that include the VOC contents verified by independent laboratories. 

Testing and recordkeeping of the VOC content of sumps 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 requires 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 this rule-amending project is to 

address deficiencies as identified by EPA in the Federal Register and associated 

TSD in order to ensure this rule meets RACT requirements. 

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 emptying the pit using in 

place pumps satisfies the requirement to commence cleanup within 24 hours. For 

example, if an emergency concludes on January 1st, and Aera begins pumping the 

fluids from the pit into on-site tanks later that same day, we have fulfilled the 

obligation to commence cleanup within 24 hours. When the pump has evacuated as 

much fluids as possible, Aera can then schedule additional 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 act of beginning to 

pump the fluids from the pit into on-site tanks fulfills the obligation to commence 

cleanup within 24 hours. 

2. COMMENT: Section 6.1.7: Should this section contain the wording “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 hearing to clarify the 

compliance date for recordkeeping. This amendment does not change the intent or 

requirement of this section of the rule. It was the original intent of District staff for 

this new requirement to become effective as of January 1, 2013, consistent with the 

date specified in the exemption language. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

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 with a PV valve 

seems low. In contrast, CARB’s 1988 "Technical Support Document for the 

Suggested Control Measure for the Control of Organic Compound Emissions from 

Sumps used in Oil Production Operations" (page 4) assumes 90% control efficiency 

for flexible covers, rigid covers, fixed covers, and fixed roof tanks. The relatively 

high cost-effectiveness calculation described in SJVUAPCD'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 costs and control of a vapor recovery 

system in addition to a new tank may significantly lower the overall costeffectiveness. Lastly, SJVUAPCD notes plans to perform such analysis in response 

to Rule 4402 issue B, and asks industry for additional data. Please assure that 

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

RESPONSE: District staff enhanced the cost effectiveness analysis by including a 

more detailed estimate of costs. Also, the District has recalculated the cost 

effectiveness of control measures using information from the ARB TSD. District 

staff always uses due diligence when evaluating information provided by 

stakeholders and will ensure estimates are reasonable and consistent with standard 

practices. Refer to the staff report for a full discussion and the associated analyses. 

2. COMMENT: Please reconsider SJVUAPCD's response to Rule 4402 issue D in light 

of additional analysis previously discussed and data suggesting this may be a 

relatively large source. Specifically, data from the District and information from 

"Corrections to CARB’s AB-2588 Air Toxics 'Hot Spots' Technical Guidance 

Document," Table D-1, Page 11B, estimate emissions from the sump category at 

about 2,700 pounds VOC/day. This calculation assumes the 95 sumps in the district 

have a surface area of 4,690 square feet and are all third stage sumps.

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

discussed in the 2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology 310 – 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 DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

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 described in response to Rule 4402 

issue E. Instead, since EPA understands the units to be uncovered by ponds 

designed to evaporate water, EPA recommends calculating 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 units, 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 water through a 

combination of evaporation and percolation. Staff does not agree with the 

assessment that all VOC emissions evaporate into the air because of the percolation 

mechanism. However, District staff has updated the emissions calculations. Refer 

to the staff report for a more detailed discussion of the use and appropriateness of 

WATER9.

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

of section 4.1.5 in Rule 4402 does not address emergency pits.

RESPONSE: Refer to the staff report for an updated discussion and clarifications 

regarding emergency pits. 

5. COMMENT: EPA does not believe that SJVUAPCD's response to Rule 4402 issue 

J adequately addresses EPA’s concern regarding NSR exemptions.

RESPONSE: Staff have worked diligently with EPA staff to determine 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 DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

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-effectiveness 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 the same measure. Even if the 

cost were $50,000/ton, the District should implement the amendment because 

health should be considered above all costs. (AIR)

RESPONSE: District staff has updated the cost effectiveness analyses. Refer to the 

staff report and appendices for this discussion. Additionally, VOC emissions 

reductions are generally less important to the Valley’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 released off of ponds 

and secondary sumps? It seems to be a lot during the 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 source category, as 

discussed in the 2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology 310 – Oil 

Production Fugitive Losses, which is available on the District website at 

www.valleyair.org. These emissions and potential control technologies are 

discussed in detail in the staff report. 

8. COMMENT: The District needs to provide a cost benefit analysis for these rule 

amendments. For the $27,000 cost per ton of emissions reductions, the District is 

assuming the area of most sumps is 5000 sq. ft. Most sumps are actually around 

1000 sq. ft. so the District is exaggerating the cost/benefit ratio. The presentation 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

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 reductions will result from the proposed 

amendments. 

The increased costs of abandoning sumps and replacing them with tanks and other 

ancillary equipment could result in small to mid-size operators going out of business. 

Producing leases will be sold to larger operators and the number of oil gathering 

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

revenues to the area. Where smaller or isolated facilities 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 rule 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 sumps with control equipment. As 

such, staff are recommending that the exemptions and requirements sections of the 

rule be not amended; therefore, there would be no socioeconomic 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 report 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 produced 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 water” to create a distinction 

between the Rule 1020 definition and Rule 4402 applicability. Otherwise, the District 

should remove the definition of “clean produced water” from Rule 1020. (IEC)

RESPONSE: District staff has evaluated the effectiveness of reducing the limit of 

VOC in clean produced water to 5 mg/l and has determined that it would go beyond 

RACT to do so; therefore, there is no proposal to amend the VOC content limit of 

clean produced water at this time. Staff will consider 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 DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

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 the 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 because removal of oil below this level 

is very difficult and not cost effective using available technologies. To achieve 5 mg/l 

would be almost impossible. It would result in filtration and disposal issues and it will 

have a significant cost impact to oil and gas operators. Maybe an exemption for 

current above ground tanks would be acceptable. (DPC, VPC, IEC)

RESPONSE: Staff have performed a comprehensive cost effectiveness analysis for 

alternatives and for the 5 mg/l VOC limit and is not proposing any significant 

changes to rule requirements. Refer to the staff report for this discussion. 

12. COMMENT: The proposed limit of 5 mg/l VOC is based on the Los Angeles basin 

limits. The limits imposed there should not be applied to the District rule for the 

following reasons: First, while the SCAQMD VOC tests must be maintained by the 

operators, they are not submitted annually to the air district (such as is required by 

the District). Secondly, Los Angeles basin crude oils are generally lighter than SJV 

crude oils, which make it easier to obtain lower residual oil levels and the resultant 

VOC test levels. Lastly, in many areas, Los Angeles basin operators are able to 

dispose of their produced water into the Los Angeles 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 reaches a produced water storage 

tanks where the lower limit would apply. Further investigation 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 matter how SCAQMD justified the low 

threshold, it may have resulted in facilities installing alternative equipment to avoid 

the rule. (DPC, VPC, IEC)

RESPONSE: Staff has incorporated information provided by stakeholders into the 

staff report as appropriate. Staff has also performed a cost effectiveness analysis as 

part of our efforts to determine if this is a reasonable control technology. The cost 

effectiveness analysis indicates that it is not cost effective to treat the clean 

produced water from 35 mg/l to 5 mg/l. Staff has also requested feedback from EPA 

regarding the methods of disposal used for clean produced water in the Los Angeles 

basin. Staff is still waiting for responses to this inquiry. Please see the response to 

Comment 11 and the staff report for further discussion of this analysis. 

13. COMMENT: The time provided before the proposed changes are to be approved 

does not provide sufficient time to do any meaningful analysis of the emissions 

savings, the cost-benefit of making the modifications, and of determining what the 

best means of achieving lower limits if they are made effective as proposed. The last 

time that something of this magnitude was raised was in the mid-1990’s (tank 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 10 Final Staff Report with Appendices For 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 

emissions that resulted in Reid Vapor Tests every two years); it took two years of 

analysis in a joint effort by industry, the California EPA and the U. S. Department of 

Energy to study the issue. The current mandate cannot 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 period since the amended rule and 

full list of changes are still not available for viewing? (VO, AERA, VPC, DPC) 

RESPONSE: In contrast to District rule projects driven by attainment 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 new 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 effectiveness thresholds. The District 

has concluded that the only feasible control technique available for reducing VOC 

emissions from sumps is the replacement of sumps with 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 being 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 staff 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 account percolation and 

biodegradation of the VOCs in the ponds. See the staff report for the detailed 

discussion and calculations. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 11 Final Staff Report with Appendices For 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 

17. COMMENT: The District will probably never reach compliance because 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 transport, including 

transport within the San Joaquin Valley, transport of pollutants into the Valley from 

other air basins, and transport of Valley pollutants into other air basins. Previous 

evaluations suggested that pollutants from other air basins accounted for between 

7% to 27% of Valley air pollution. The District will continue to evaluate this in future 

attainment plans. Regardless of the contribution of pollutants from outside the 

Valley, the District must continue to address sources of air pollution under its 

jurisdiction. 

18. COMMENT: How much do oil companies contribute to ozone pollution in the San 

Joaquin Valley? (HECI)

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

19. COMMENT: The changes will require installation of additional tankage and 

equipment amounting to at least $70,000 per facility 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 1000 bbl above ground impoundment 

($20,000). Under the existing regulations, these would have to be qualified as 

“tanks” and would require permits with increased annual 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 installation of filtration units and 

possibly additional tanks (at $50,000 each). This will create considerable waste 

material that will have to be disposed of at off-site 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 are 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 Angeles basin crude oil VOC’s is not 

justified. (DPC)

RESPONSE: As a part of performing a RACT analysis, the District must evaluate all 

corresponding limits in other air districts, compare these to District limits, and assess 

whether these limits would be RACT in the Valley. District staff will take into account 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

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 basin in our continuing analysis of 

RACT for this source category. 

21. COMMENT: For the sake of clarity, it would be good to add the 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 to keep exemption 

language limited to Section 4.0 of each rule. There 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 negatively 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 language for what 

records should be kept. Also, not all locations have offices located at them as many 

are at rural locations making it difficult to secure 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 presence 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 it 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 analyses to determine 

if it would be RACT to implement amendments as discussed in the EPA TSD. A 

summary of those analyses is in the following table: (WSPA) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 13 Final Staff Report with Appendices For 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 

Table A-1. Summary of Cost Effectiveness of Different 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 1,500,000 

Treat Water and Then Inject Water for Disposal 1,792,452 

Note: 

The cost effectiveness range depends on a given type of production sump 

(secondary or tertiary) and the type of production. The cost effectiveness for each 

sump type used for each production type is discussed in detail in the attached report. 

RESPONSE: District staff have evaluated the information provided to support the 

summary table above. The cost information provided for this cost effectiveness 

analysis has been incorporated into the staff report as appropriate. 

24. COMMENT: EPA has proposed that the District reduce the effluent limitation for 

produced water from 35 mg/l to 5 mg/l. WSPA is strongly opposed to any change in 

the produced water effluent limitation. The current limit is consistent with the effluent 

guidelines established by the EPA for the onshore oil and extraction point source 

category; and is allowed by the Water Discharge Requirements (WDRs) listed on 

permits issued to oilfield operators by the California Regional Water Quality Control 

Boards. Furthermore, the cost effectiveness of the VOC reductions achieved from 

lowering the effluent concentrations to 5 mg/l is so great (about $1.5 MM to $1.7 MM 

per ton) that it renders the control technique infeasible. (WSPA) 

RESPONSE: The cost effectiveness of the VOC reductions achieved from lowering 

the VOC content limit from 35 mg/l to 5 mg/l has been incorporated into the staff 

report as appropriate. 

25. COMMENT: Operators should only have to test new sumps initially to demonstrate 

that the sumps qualify for the Section 4.1 exemption. Additional testing should not 

be required unless there is some pertinent change in the method of operation of the 

sump. Where operators have already demonstrated that existing sumps quality for 

an exemption, then additional testing should not be required. (WSPA) 

RESPONSE: Current rule requirements to not call for annual testing. 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 available but not submit them to the 

District unless requested to do so. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 14 Final Staff Report with Appendices For 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 

26. COMMENT: The District has proposed that operators be required to submit annual 

reports to document the exemption status of the sump. The validity of the exemption 

can be easily verified by simply requiring that operators 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 records 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 “emergency occurrences” 

only and the time allowed to commence “clean-up” operations should be extended to 

72 hours after the termination of the event. A period longer than 24 hours is 

required because an event could occur over a weekend, and the event might go 

undetected until the following Monday. We also request that the time allowed for 

completing the “clean up activity” be extended to at least 30 days. (WSPA) 

RESPONSE: Staff have evaluated this request and determined that sumps in the 

Valley differ greatly from those in other air basins because they are located in rural 

locations and they are not manned 24 hours a day seven days a week like in the 

South Coast. As such, staff have clarified the requirement 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 impossible to determine when the even 

initially began. We propose that operators maintain records documenting when the 

event was discovered, when clean-up activities commenced, 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 District emissions 

inventory is incorrect. The information provided in the ARB TSD contains the correct 

emissions factors for sumps and the District has overestimated 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 of active sumps as presented in 

the 2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory methodology shows less sumps then 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

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 emission inventory table. (WSPA) 

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

are a corrected set of emission factors. These emission factors have been 

submitted for review to the public and to stakeholders and have been approved by 

all parties asked to comment. These emission factors have also been vetted 

through the District permit streamlining process, which also allows opportunities for 

stakeholder input. The District will continue to explore the relevance and 

appropriateness of the emission factors for this source category during the 

development of the next air quality attainment plan. In response to the comment 

regarding the number of active sumps; District staff have update the number of 

active sumps represented in the staff report to reflect the number in the emission 

inventory. Refer to the staff report for the updated information, now presented in 

Table 2. 

30. COMMENT: EPA’s comment regarding “clean produced water” should not apply to 

Valley ponds, which are evaporation/percolation ponds. 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 classified as a sump or as part of a 

wastewater system. Similarly, a percolation pond does 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 oil or petroleum material is 

produced, gathered, separated, processed, or stored. However, crude oil or 

petroleum material is not produced, gathered, separated, processed, nor stored in 

waste water evaporation/percolation ponds. Therefore, 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, the 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 DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 16 Final Staff Report with Appendices For 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 

This page intentionally blank.