1 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

FINAL DRAFT STAFF REPORT

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

RULE 4701 (INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES – PHASE 1)

and

RULE 4702 (INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES – PHASE 2)

August 21, 2003

Prepared by: Joven R. Nazareno, Senior Air Quality Engineer

Saul Gamez, Air Quality Engineer

Manuel Salinas, Air Quality Engineer

Reviewed by: George Heinen, PE, Supervising Air Quality Engineer

Kari Fuqua, Air Quality Inspector 

Richard Karrs, Air Quality Engineer

Mike Oldershaw, Senior Air Quality Inspector

Scott Nester, Planning Manager

I. REASONS FOR RULE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment

area and a serious PM10 nonattainment area for the health-based air quality standards

established by the federal Clean Air Act. The SJVAB is also classified as severe

nonattainment for the California ozone standard and nonattainment for the California

PM10 standard.

This rulemaking project is part of the District’s ozone and particulate matter attainment

strategies. As such, this project is subject to the following state and federal

requirements:

• Ozone and PM10 attainment plans need to implement control measures as

expeditiously as practicable, and provide for attainment. Clean Air Act (CAA)

Section 172(c)(1)

• Ozone attainment plans need to assure that reasonably available control

technology (RACT) for VOC and NOx is in use at major sources and on source

categories subject to control technology guidelines. CAA Sections 182(b)(2),

182(f)

• PM10 attainment plans for serious PM10 nonattainment areas need to assure that

the best available control measures (BACM) for the control of PM10 shall be
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

2

implemented no later than 4 years after the date the area is classified (or

reclassified) as a Serious Area. CAA Section 189(b)(1)(B)

• BACM provisions in attainment plans should include the application of best

available control technology (BACT) to existing major stationary sources. (Federal

Register 8/18/94)

• The control requirements for major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to PM10

precursors (precursors for PM10 in the SJV are VOC, NOx, SOx). CAA Section

189(e)

• Ozone attainment plans should provide for best available retrofit control

technology (BARCT) for existing permitted sources. California Health & Safety

Code (H&SC) Section 40919(a)(3)

• Ozone attainment plans should include “all feasible control measures.” H&SC

Section 40914(a)(2)

To satisfy the attainment goals of the ozone and PM plans, this rulemaking project will

seek to obtain as much emission reduction from each applicable source category as is

expeditiously practicable, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable, as

determined by the District’s Governing Board. The rulemaking project is also intended to

satisfy the state and federal requirements identified above.

On September 14, 1998, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a

simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 4701 because the rule

contains certain requirements that are not consistent with the CAA, and EPA regulations

and policies. EPA finalized the rulemaking decision of the rule on April 1, 2002. EPA’s

action started an 18-month sanction period, during which the District must correct the

EPA rule deficiencies or face penalties such as increased emission offset requirements

for major sources and a loss of federal funds for transportation projects in the Valley.

The offset sanction will engage in October 1, 2003 unless EPA approves revisions to

Rule 4701 before that time.

In this project, new Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 2) is being

developed to implement the EPA and California Air Resources Board (ARB) control

measures and to address the EPA rule deficiencies. New Rule 4702 would be applicable

to spark-ignited internal combustion engines with a rated brake horsepower greater than

50 horsepower. Rule 4701 is being amended to correct the applicable EPA rule

deficiencies. District staff intends to submit the amendments of Rule 4701 and new Rule

4702 to the District Governing Board on August 21, 2003 to ensure that ARB and EPA

have sufficient time to review and approve the amended rules before the expiration of the

October 1, 2003 sanction deadline. The EPA deficiencies are discussed in Section III of

the staff report.

II. RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

As part of the rule development process, District staff conducted public scoping meetings in

Bakersfield, Fresno, and Modesto in March 2002. At the scoping meetings, District staff
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

3

presented the objectives of the proposed rulemaking project. District staff solicited

information from affected source operators, consultants, vendors and manufacturers of

control technologies, and trade associations on the technical feasibility and cost information

that would be useful in developing proposed amendments to the rules. Draft versions of

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 were not presented at the scoping meetings.

District staff conducted public workshops in July 2002, December 2002, and May 2003 to

present and discuss the proposed amendments to Rule 4701 and the provisions of Rule

4702. The comments received from the public, affected sources, ARB, and EPA during the

public workshop process were incorporated into the draft rules as appropriate.

Pursuant to state law, District staff is required to perform a socioeconomic impact analysis

prior to the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule that has significant air quality benefits

or that will strengthen emission limitations. As part of the District socioeconomic analysis

process, District staff and the District’s socioeconomic consultant met with members of the

Focus Group. The Focus Group provided assistance in determining the appropriate

method of gathering information on regulatory compliance costs and business impacts

resulting from compliance with the rules. The results of the socioeconomic analysis were

presented to the public and interested parties along with the refined version of the proposed

amendments during the final workshops for Rule 4701 and Rule 4702. The socioeconomic

analysis is in Appendix C of this staff report.

The public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the rules by the District

Governing Board is planned for August 21, 2003.

III. BACKGROUND

A. Existing Rule 4701 Requirements

Rule 4701 was adopted on May 21, 1992, and subsequently amended on December 17,

1992, October 20, 1994, March 16, 1995, December 19, 1996, and November 12, 1999.

The purpose of Rule 4701 is to limit NOx, CO, and VOC emissions from internal

combustion engines (ICE). The rule applies to ICE with a rated brake horsepower

greater than 50 horsepower.

The NOx limits in Table 3 of the existing Rule 4701 range from 50 to 600 ppm, or 20 to

90% reduction depending on the type of engine (i.e., rich burn, lean burn, beam-balanced

or crank-balanced pumping rich burn) and the type of fuel used (waste derived gaseous

fuel, diesel, or dual fuel). The CO limit is 2000 ppmv and the VOC limit is 250 to 750

ppmv depending on the type of engine and fuel used.

The rule contains requirements for periodic source testing, monitoring requirements, and

recordkeeping. Additionally, Rule 4701 also allows operators to comply with the emission

limits of the rule through an Alternative Emission Control by achieving an aggregated

emission level no higher than the aggregated emission level that would have resulted if

each unit in operation were controlled individually in compliance with the specified

emission limits.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

4

The change to the draft of Rule 4702 (Rule 4702 would apply to spark-ignited engines)

would not affect how diesel engines are treated under Rule 4701. Diesels are mainly in

three categories in Rule 4701:

1. Emergency standby engines, which can only operate in emergencies and for 200 hours

per year for testing and maintenance, are exempt from the NOx, VOC, and CO emission

limits in Rule 4701. There are approximately 1404 of these diesel engines currently

under permit. Their NOx emissions are approximately 5.04 tons per day, based on an

average of 200 hours per year of operation.

2. Low-use diesel engines, which can operate up to 1,000 hours per year, are also exempt

from the emission limits in Rule 4701, except for low-use diesel engines operated

outside the Westside area at a major NOx source with a potential to emit 50 tons or

more per year of NOx. There are approximately 74 of these diesel engines currently

under permit. Their NOx emissions are approximately 0.49 tons per day, based on an

average of 876 hours per year of operation.

3. High-use diesel engines - those over 1000 hours per year - must meet the very

stringent NOx emission limit of 80 ppm, which is currently achievable only through the

application of Selective Catalytic Reduction or must meet a limit of 600 ppmv, or 20%

reduction, if the engine is owned by a public water district. There are approximately

17 of these high-use diesel engines currently under permit. Their NOx emissions are

approximately 0.33 tons per day, based on an average of 5256 hours per year of

operation.

Rule 4702 was previously drafted to continue the exemption for emergency standby

engines, and change the annual operations threshold from 1000 hours to 200 hours per

year: diesel engines permitted to operate over 200 hours per year would have been

required to meet the 80 ppm NOx limit. District staff believes that because of the

likelihood of other diesel engine regulations from ARB and EPA in the near future, it is

appropriate to remove diesel engines from the applicability of Rule 4702 at this time.

The change would allow approximately 74 diesel engines that are currently permitted to

operate up to 1000 hours per year, to avoid compliance with Rule 4702.

B. Proposed Amendments to Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

District staff has changed the previously drafted applicability of new Rule 4702. Rule

4702 would now apply only to spark-ignited internal combustion engines, not to

compression-ignited internal combustion engines (diesel engines). This change in

applicability has been made as EPA and ARB are currently developing control measures

and regulations for diesel fueled internal combustion engines. District staff will address

the requirements for diesel fueled internal combustion engines as a separate project in

the future after EPA and ARB have further developed their emission standards.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

5

The provisions of draft Rule 4702 that were presented in the first and second workshops

were based on Rule 4702 applying to both spark-ignited and compression-ignited internal

combustion engines with a rated brake horsepower greater than 50 horsepower.

1. Control Measures for New Rule 4702

The purpose of new Rule 4702 is to limit NOx, CO, and VOC emissions from sparkignited internal combustion engines. The rule would apply to spark-ignited ICE with a

rated brake horsepower greater than 50 horsepower. The proposed requirements of new

Rule 4702 would implement control measures as required by the federal and state Clean

Air Acts. In establishing the control measures, District staff used the standards

recommended in the ARB Final RACT/BARCT Determination for Spark Ignited Internal

Combustions Engines, dated November 2001, as the primary basis for the proposed

amendments.

The proposed emission limits in Rule 4702 are shown below.

Spark-Ignited Engine Type Percent NOx CO VOC

Control ppmv at 15% O2

Rich-Burn

• Waste gas fueled

• Cyclically loaded, field gas fueled

• All other engines

90

--

96

50

50

25

2,000

2,000

2,000

250

250

250

Lean-Burn

• Two stroke, gaseous fueled, less than

100 horsepower

• All other engines

85

90

75

65

2,000

2,000

750

750

The likely control technology to meet the proposed emission limits for rich-burn engines,

not cyclically loaded, using fuels other than waste gases, will be nonselective catalytic

reduction with air/fuel ratio controllers. For engines using waste gases, the use of

prestratified charge controls are likely to be used to meet the proposed limits. The likely

control technology to meet the proposed emission limits for rich-burn engines cyclically

loaded using field gas fuels will be nonselective catalytic reduction. For four-stroke

spark-ignited lean-burn engines and two-stroke spark-ignited engines rated at 100 hp or

more, the likely control technique would be to retrofit the engines with low-emission

combustion controls. Other control techniques may be used to supplement these

retrofits, such as ignition system modifications and engine derating. For engines that do

not have low-emission combustion modification kits available, Selective Catalytic

Reduction (SCR) may be used to achieve the proposed limits.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

6

2. EPA Deficiencies and Proposed Amendments to Address the Deficiencies

EPA identified the following rule deficiencies as needing to be corrected to make Rule

4701 fully approvable for inclusion in the SIP. District staff proposes to take the noted

action to address the EPA deficiencies.

a. Westside exemption - Section 2.0: The SJVUAPCD is classified as a serious nonattainment area for PM-10. On the date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments, PM-10 areas (including the SJVUAPCD) meeting the qualifications of

section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act were designated non-attainment by operation of law.

In accordance with section 188(a) of the Act, at the time of designation all PM-10 nonattainment areas were initially classified as moderate. Effective February 8, 1993,

EPA reclassified the SJVUAPCD as serious under section 188(b)(1) of the Act (see

58 FR 3334).

Rule 4701 has been adopted by the SJVUAPCD, and the control requirements

contained therein are applicable under state law to facilities throughout the District.

EPA therefore concludes that these control technologies are reasonably available.

The rule contains requirements waiving RACT requirements under the SIP for

facilities on the West Side. This constitutes a failure to implement RACM at these

facilities as required under section 189(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Section 110(l) of the Act

forbids EPA from approving SIP revisions which would interfere with any applicable

requirement, including section 189(a)(1)(C). For this reason EPA disapproved the

Westside exemption.

This deficiency was corrected in another rulemaking project adopted by the Governing

Board in December 2002. Rule 4701 allows federal enforceability for all sources

including those located in the Westside. Rule 4702 would apply to all sources

including those located in the Westside.

b. Section 3.11 defines low-use engine to be any internal combustion engine that is

limited by District permit to operate no more than 1,000 hours in any one calendar

year. This is inconsistent with the RACT Determination. The definition should be

modified to state that the low-use engines are engines which are operated less than

100 hours in any calendar year as determined by a nonresettable elapsed operating

time meter.

This deficiency would be fixed in new Rule 4702 which would apply to spark-ignited

internal combustion engines with a rated brake horsepower of greater than 50

horsepower. The RACT/BARCT Determination applies to spark-ignited internal

combustion engines but not to compression-ignited internal combustion engines. The

low-use spark-ignited internal combustion engines would be subject to Rule 4702 so

no changes are necessary for Rule 4701.

Rule 4702 would not have a definition for low-use engines. Instead, Rule 4702 would

provide the following exemption, which is consistent with the RACT/BARCT

Determination: “Any internal combustion engine limited by permit condition to operate
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

7

no more than 200 hours per calendar year as determined by an operational

nonresettable elapsed operating time meter and which is not used to generate electrical

power that is either fed into the electrical utility power grid or used to reduce electrical

power purchased by a stationary source; to generate mechanical power that is used to

reduce electrical power purchased by a stationary source; or in a distributed generation

application.”

c. Section 5.1.3, Table 3, Item 1, Waste Derived Gaseous Fuel: Waste derived fuel-fired

engines operate primarily at landfills and wastewater treatment facilities. The gaseous

fuel generated from these facilities are burned in IC engines used to run equipment

(e.g., electric generators and blowers). Because of the frequent variation in quality and

quantity of this type of gaseous fuel, the District proposed a 125 ppmv emission limit for

NOx or 80% control, 750 ppmv for VOC, and 2000 ppmv for CO, for this type of

operation. The BARCT limit specified in the RACT/BARCT Determination is 50 ppmv or

a 90% control for NOx and 250 ppmv for VOC. EPA recommends that the limits in Rule

4701 be adjusted to 50 ppmv for NOx, and 250 ppmv for VOC.

This deficiency would be fixed in new Rule 4702. Rule 4702 would specify the

emission limits for waste gas fueled engines at 50 ppmv or 90% reduction for NOx,

250 ppmv for VOC and 2000 ppmv for CO to be consistent with the RACT/BARCT

Determination. No changes are necessary for Rule 4701 for this deficiency.

d. Section 5.1.3, Table 3, Item 2, Engines Owned by Public Water Districts: Engines

owned by the public water district are allowed higher emission limits because of the

difficulty and long lead time necessary to secure funds for these facilities. EPA

appreciates the concerns of the public water district. However, water districts

throughout the State are meeting the RACT/BARCT Determination, including those

located in Kern County owned by the Tehachapi-Cummings Valley Water District.

Therefore, EPA believes, the RACT limits in the RACT/BARCT Determination are

appropriate for these sources.

Rule 4702 would not specify any special consideration for spark-ignited internal

combustion engines owned by public water districts. Engines subject to Rule 4702

owned by public water districts would need to meet the applicable proposed emission

limits. No changes are necessary for Rule 4701 for this deficiency.

e. Section 5.1.3, Table 3, Item 3.a.i, Beam-balanced or crank-balanced pumping engine:

Rich-burn, beam-balanced or gear-balanced pumping engines are used in oil

production. District staff explained that this type of engines operate under variable load

conditions during pumping operations. Because of this, the District proposed a 300

ppmv emission limit which is higher than the RACT/BARCT Determination. EPA

recommends that the District implement the values in the RACT/BARCT Determination

for rich-burn engines.

Rule 4702 would require cyclic loaded, field gas fueled engines to meet a proposed

NOx emission limit of 50 ppmv. Based on the limits in other districts and the
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

8

measured emissions from San Joaquin Valley engines, District staff feels that these

limits can be met. No changes are necessary for Rule 4701 for this deficiency.

f. Section 5.1.4, averaging time should be clearly specified for clarity. EPA recommends

15 consecutive minutes averaging at 15% oxygen by volume on a dry basis for

consistency with other districts and the RACT/BARCT Determination.

After discussions with Industry and EPA, Rule 4701and Rule 4702 would be amended

as follows:

Rule 4701, Section 5.1.4 and Rule 4702, Section 5.2 All continuous emission

monitoring systems (CEMS) emissions measurements shall be averaged over a period

of 15 consecutive minutes. Any 15-consecutive-minute block average CEMS

measurement exceeding the applicable emission limits of this rule shall constitute a

violation of this rule.

The following language has also been added to the indicated section:

Rule 4701, Section 5.4.3 and Rule 4702, Section 5.6.9 “NOx emission readings

taken pursuant to this section shall be averaged over a 15 consecutive-minute period

by either taking a cumulative 15 consecutive-minute sample reading or by taking at

least five (5) readings, evenly spaced out over the 15 consecutive-minute period.”

Rule 4701, Section 6.3.2 and Rule 4702, Section 6.3.2 “For emissions source testing

performed pursuant to Section 6.3.1 for the purpose of determining compliance with an

applicable standard or numerical limitation, the arithmetic average of three (3) 30-

consecutive-minute test runs shall apply. If two (2) of three (3) runs are above an

applicable limit, the test cannot be used to demonstrate compliance with an applicable

limit. ”

Rule 4702, Section 8.0, The corrections to this section are discussed below.

g. Section 6.2, Recordkeeping, the phrase “other information deemed necessary by the

APCO” is vague and not enforceable, and therefore should be deleted. EPA

recommends specific tasks should be identified clearly such as engine/control

equipment operational characteristics and corrective/preventive maintenance

procedures used to maintain continual compliance with the requirements of the rule.

Rule 4701 would be amended to clearly identify specific tasks such as engine/control

equipment operational characteristics and corrective/preventive maintenance

procedures used to maintain continual compliance with the requirements of the rule.

Rule 4702 would clearly identify specific recordkeeping requirements.

h. Section 6.3, Compliance Testing: Rule 4701 requires compliance every 24 months.

However, internal combustion engines have greater wear and tear as compared to

boilers, heaters, and gas turbines. Based on this premise and the RACT/BARCT

Determination, EPA recommends the testing interval be based on an accumulated cap
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

9

operating hours of 8760 hours and/or 24 month interval whichever comes first to ensure

that engines operating continuously are tested in a timely manner while giving longer

period for engines operating a limited number of hours per year.

Rule 4701 would be amended to require owners/operators to use a portable NOx

analyzer to take NOx emission readings to verify compliance with the emission limits or

percent control limits specified in Section 5.1 during any quarter in which a source test is

not performed. Rule 4702 would specify similar requirements for the use of portable

NOx analyzers.

i. Section 6.3.2, EPA policy generally does not allow emission test results from individual

engines to represent emissions for a group of engines (i.e., allowing engines in the

group to be exempt from testing requirements) for purposes of making compliance

determinations. Therefore, EPA recommends that Section 6.3.2 be deleted entirely and

Section 6.3.2.7 be transferred under the recordkeeping requirements in Section 6.2.

Rule 4701 would be amended to remove the option for representative testing as

recommended by EPA. Rule 4701 would also be amended to transfer the requirements

of Section 6.3.2.8 (Section 6.3.2.7 is referenced in error by EPA) under the

recordkeeping requirements in Section 6.2. Rule 4702 would not allow representative

testing.

j. Section 6.5, Exempt Engines: The phrase “support documentation” in Section 6.5.1 is

vague and should be clarified to be enforceable.

The recordkeeping requirements for exempt engines of both rules would clearly specify

what specific information should be recorded to ensure better enforceability.

k. Section 7.3 provides the Emission Limit Compliance Schedule for the various classes of

engines. Several classes of engines are allowed until May 31, 2001 to comply with

RACT. This is inconsistent with EPA policy as contained in the “repowering memo.” All

final compliance dates should be changed to no later than May 31, 1999 as required by

EPA policy. Further, several classes of engines are given at least the option of never

having to meet the emission limits in Table 3. Since the emission limits in Tables 1 and

2 are less stringent than, and therefore fail to comply with the RACT Determination, all

engines must be required to ultimately meet the emission limits in Table 3 by no later

than May 31, 1999.

EPA has acknowledged that this deficiency is moot and no action is to be taken as the

May 31, 1999, date is past.

l. Section 8, AECP: This provision does not meet EPA’s Economic Incentive Program

(EIP) rules found in 40 CFR 51.493. EPA recommends that this provision be deleted. If

the District wishes to maintain this provision, the following modifications should be

made:
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

10

 (A) and (F) In Sections 8.1 and 8.1.1, the 10% environmental benefit described by

EPA’s comment letter dated August 22, 1996 and required in 40 CFR 51.493 should

be added. Section 8.5, AECP Requirements: EPA recommends that the 10%

additional emission reduction be included in the actual aggregated value and that the

motor value be deleted. The Section 8.5.2 equation would then read:

AEactual <= 90% (AElimit + AEmotor).

Section 8, AECP, has been removed from Rule 4701 as such provisions are no longer

needed in the rule. Provisions for an AECP have been added to Rule 4702 as

requested by operators. The proposed AECP provisions in Rule 4702 contain the noted

corrections to the deficiencies identified by EPA.

Section 8.1 specifies the 10% additional emission reduction. The motor value has been

deleted. See item E above. The Section 8.1 equation reads as follows:

AEactual <= 0.90 (AElimit).

(B) In Sections 8.1, 8.3.1, and 8.3.2, the 14-calendar-day period averaging should be

replaced by the averaging requirements recommended for Section 5.1.4 as noted

above.

Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 have been changed to delete the 14-calendar-day period

averaging. Compliance with AECP NOx emission requirements shall be

demonstrated over any 7 (seven) consecutive-calendar-day period on the basis of

source test NOx emission factors. The 7 (seven) consecutive-calendar-days is a

reasonable period which allows operational flexibility while ensuring good air quality.

The AECP also results in 10% less emissions so that there is a benefit from such a

plan.

(C) In Sections 8.3.1, 8.3.2, and 8.4.2, the phrase “...or an equivalent, District-approved

method,” must be deleted because it represents inappropriate director’s discretion. If

the District wishes to include this phrase, then it should be modified to include

“approved by the District, CARB, and EPA.”

Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 include “approved by EPA, ARB, and the APCO.” The

requirements of Section 8.4.2 have been deleted.

(D) Section 8.3.2: the symbol Efi should be defined as the actual emission of the engine

rather than the emission factor.

EPA has noted that this item is not a deficiency and has withdrawn this comment.

(E) Section 8.4, Electrification: this provision is inconsistent with Section 5.3 and should

be deleted.

EPA has noted that this item is not a deficiency and has withdrawn this comment. The

requirements of Section 8.4, however, have been deleted from the final draft rule.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

11

m. Section 6.2, Recordkeeping: EPA recommends that records be kept on site for 5 years

for compliance with Title 5 requirements and the federal statute of limitation.

Both rules would require that records “be readily available” and kept for 5 years.

3. Other Requirements for Rule 4701 and New Rule 4702

The proposed amendments for Rule 4701 would better clarify and/or specify the

requirements for engines that would be exempt, continuous monitoring systems, the

emission control plan, recordkeeping, the inspection and monitoring plan, compliance

testing, and the compliance schedule. Other proposed requirements for Rule 4702 would

be very similar to Rule 4701.

Spark-ignited internal combustion engines will remain subject to the applicable

requirements of Rule 4701 until the engine is required to be in full compliance with Rule

4702 pursuant to the schedule of Section 7.6 of Rule 4702. Compression-ignited engines

will remain subject to Rule 4701 because Rule 4702 would apply only to spark-ignited

engines. An operator of a spark-ignited internal combustion engine can elect to transition

from being subject to Rule 4701 and becoming subject to full compliance with Rule 4702

earlier than the applicable compliance date in the schedule of Section 7.6 of Rule 4702.

Operators will transition a spark-ignited internal combustion engine from being subject to

Rule 4701 and becoming subject to full compliance with Rule 4702 by demonstrating full

compliance with Rule 4702 and meeting the necessary permitting requirements. There

will be a period when a spark-ignited internal combustion engine will be subject to both

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 simultaneously. This period is when an operator will need to

comply with some requirements (for example, the submittal of an emission control plan

and ATC) of Rule 4702 that need to be performed before full compliance with Rule 4702

can be demonstrated.

IV. CURRENT EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION

District staff estimates that approximately 408 permitted spark-ignited internal combustion

engines, including nine gaseous-fueled engines that are permitted as low-use engines,

would be subject to the NOx emission limit requirements of Rule 4702. District staff

estimates total NOx emissions of approximately 4.3 tons per day from the 408 engines that

would be subject to the NOx limit requirements of Rule 4702. District staff estimates total

NOx emissions reduction of approximately 1.8 tons per day if the 408 engines comply with

the proposed NOx limit requirements of Rule 4702.

V. COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

District staff has prepared a cost effectiveness analysis of the estimated costs to comply

with the proposed amendments. The cost effectiveness analysis is attached as Appendix

B to this staff report.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

12

VI. SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Pursuant to state law, District staff is required to analyze the socioeconomic impacts of any

proposed rule or rule amendment that significantly affects air quality or strengthens an

emission limitation. During the scoping meeting, District staff solicited volunteers from

stakeholders, and manufacturers and vendors of control devices to participate as members

of the socioeconomic focus group for the rule. District staff worked closely with the focus

group to estimate direct compliance costs of the proposed amendments. The District’s

independent consultant participated with the focus group to identify and analyze the

socioeconomic impacts of the proposed amendments to the rules. District staff has

considered the socioeconomic analysis to further refine the proposed rule amendments.

The socioeconomic report is attached as Appendix C to this staff report, and was presented

to the public at the final workshop for the rules. The final socioeconomic report will also be

presented to the District Governing Board in order to disclose any expected economic

impacts.

VII. RULE CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

Pursuant to state Health and Safety Code, Section 40272.2, District staff has prepared a

rule consistency analysis that compares the elements of the proposed rule with the

corresponding elements of other District rules and federal regulations and guidelines that

apply to internal combustion engines. The rule consistency analysis is attached as

Appendix D to this staff report.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), District staff has investigated

the likely environmental impacts of the proposed amendments and will file a Negative

Declaration. The Environmental Analysis is attached as Appendix E to this staff report.

IX. REFERENCES

1. Federal Register, Volume 63, Number 77, September 14, 1998, page 49053.

2. Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Rule

4701, dated July 31, 1998.

3. SJVUAPCD Rule 4701, amended December 19, 2002.

4. ARB “Final RACT/BARCT Determination for Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion

Engines), dated November 2001.

5. SJVUAPCD BACT Clearing House Database.

6. ARB BACT Clearinghouse Database.

7. Ventura County APCD Rule 74-9 (Stationary Internal Combustion Engines),

Revised 11/14/00.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

13

APPENDIX A

Comments and Responses for

Rule 4701 (Internal Combustion Engines– Phase 1) and

Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines– Phase 2)

August 21, 2003
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

14

COMMENTS FROM SCOPING MEETING HELD MARCH 19, AND 20, 2002

EPA - No comments received.

ARB

1. COMMENT: Section 4.3: In this section, low-use engines operating less than 1,000

hours and not subject to the RACT requirements of Section 5.2 are exempted from

the provisions of the rule except for the administrative requirements of Section 6.1

and 6.5. Most districts with internal combustion engine rules have set the low-use

threshold at 200 hours. In addition, the ARB Determination of Reasonably Available

Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Stationary

Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines, November 2001 (Determination) also

specifies a low-use threshold of 200 hours. Based on cost estimates, it appears to

be cost effective to control emissions from engines operating as little as 200 hours

annually. We recommend that the District amend Rule 4701 to define low-use

engines in Section 3.12 as engines operating less than 200 hours per year.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 would specify the 200 hours threshold as contained in the

RACT/BARCT Determination. No changes are necessary for Rule 4701.

2. COMMENT: Section 5.1: In general, the NOx emission limits found in this section are

not as effective as those in the Determination. With the exception of lean burn

engines, we recommend that the District revise their emission limits in Rule 4701 to

correspond to those in the Determination. The following table summarizes the

differences in the NOx limits between Rule 4701 and the Determination:
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

15

NOx EMISSION LIMITS COMPARISON

Engine Type Rule 4701 NOx Limit BARCT NOx Limits

GENERAL

Rich Burn 50 ppm or 90% reduction 25 ppm or 96% reduction

Lean Burn 75 ppm or 85% reduction 65 ppm or 90% reduction

Lean Burn, 2-Stroke,

< 100 horsepower 75 ppm or 85% reduction 200 ppm

Waste Gas-fueled 125 ppm or 80% reduction 65 ppm/90% if lean burn,

50 ppm/90% if rich burn

PUBLIC WATER DISTRICTS

Rich Burn 90 ppm or 80% reduction 25 ppm or 96% reduction

Lean Burn 150 ppm or 70% reduction 65 ppm or 90% reduction

Lean Burn, 2-Stroke,

< 100 horsepower 150 ppm or 70% reduction 200 ppm

CYCLICALLY-LOADED ENGINE

Rich Burn 300 ppm 300 ppm

A review of source test data and the cost effectiveness analysis contained in the

Determination indicates that these recommended limits may be met cost effectively.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 would specify the BARCT NOx emission limits consistent

with the emission limits in the RACT/BARCT Determination except for cyclic loaded,

field gas fueled rich burn engines. The proposed emission limits for cyclic loaded,

field gas fueled rich burn engines are 50 ppmv for NOx, 2000 ppmv for CO and 250

ppmv for VOC. Based on the limits in other districts and the measured emissions

from District sources, District staff feels that these RACM limits can be met. The

new limits would not be necessary for Rule 4701.

3. COMMENT: Section 5.4: Section 5.4 specifies either a CEMS or alternate

monitoring equipment for engines with external control devices, and the monitoring

of operational engine characteristics for engines without external control devices.

We recommend that the District require quarterly monitoring on all engines during

any quarter in which a source test is not performed. We believe that quarterly

monitoring would ensure a higher degree of compliance because emissions would

be checked regularly and brought into compliance as necessary in the intervening

periods between source tests. In addition, we recommend that the District require

acceptable test methods, protocols, or procedures, which are to be followed when

conducting a screening analysis using a portable analyzer.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 would specify that a portable NOx analyzer

be used to take NOx emission readings during each quarter that a source test is not

performed. The rules would also require that the analyzer be calibrated,

maintained, and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and

recommendations or a protocol approved by the APCO.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

16

4. COMMENT: Section 6.3: Section 6.3 describes compliance testing requirements, but

does not specify the conditions under which a compliance test is to be conducted.

NOx concentrations from an engine can vary significantly with load. These

concentrations can be relatively low at low power levels, and reach a peak at or near

the engine’s maximum rated load. This could allow an engine that exceeds the rule’s

emission limits to be found in compliance if the engine is source tested at a low power

output. A similar situation could arise if the Alternative Emission Control Plan (AECP)

option is exercised as explained in Section 8.3.2. The AECP emissions calculation

procedure, which utilizes the results of source tests, may allow a group of engines

which collectively exceed the rule’s emission limits to be in compliance by source

testing at low power levels. We recommend the modification of Section 6.3 so that all

engines are required to be tested at peak rated load and under a typical duty cycle as

specified in the RACT/BARCT Determination.

RESPONSE: The rules would require engines to be tested at peak rated load and

under a typical duty cycle as specified in the Determination. Rule 4701 would be

amended to delete Section 8.0, Alternative Emission Control, as District staff is not

aware of any operator using Section 8.0. Rule 4702 would not contain any

requirements for Alternative Emission Control Plans.

5. COMMENT: Section 6.3.2: This section allows the owner or operator of multiple,

similar engines the option of source testing 10 percent of these engines every year

rather than source testing all engines once every 24 months, as required in Section

6.3.1. On average, an engine under the provisions of Section 6.3.3 would be source

tested only once every ten years rather than once every two years. The provisions

in Section 6.3.2 could significantly weaken compliance with the rule and should be

deleted.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 would be amended to delete the representative testing option

requirements in Section 6.3.2 as recommended. The rule would also be amended to

transfer the requirements of Section 6.3.2.8 (Section 6.3.2.7 is referenced in error by

EPA) under the recordkeeping requirements in Section 6.2. Rule 4702 would not

contain any requirements for representative testing.

6. COMMENT: Section 6.3.3: This section indicates that, once Section 6.3.2.9 has

been satisfied, subsequent source testing shall be performed pursuant to Sections

6.3.1 or 6.3.2. This section should be rewritten to clarify its meaning. It is unclear

when Section 6.3.3 is “satisfied.” Section 6.3.2.9 indicates that if any of the

representative engines exceeds the emissions limits, each engine in the group must

be source tested. Failure to complete the testing within 90 days will be considered a

violation of the rule for each untested engine. It is unclear whether “satisfied” refers

to finding a representative engine exceeding the limits, or whether it refers to the

failure to complete source testing of each engine in the group within 90 days.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 would be amended to delete Section 6.3.2.8 and Section

6.3.2.9.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

17

STAKEHOLDERS

7. COMMENT: Rule 4701, Section 5.1.3, Table 3: District proposes to reduce the

emission limits to meet the proposed limits on page 9 of the February 26, 2002

Preliminary Draft Staff Report. We are opposed to the addition of a 250 VOC limit

for rich-burn cyclically loaded field gas fired engines. These engines operate under

extreme variable load conditions. Currently, there is no field data to support the

achievability of this new limit. We are also opposed to the reduction of the NOx limit

for rich-burn “other” category engines that are continuously loaded. Currently, these

engines have a 50 ppm NOx limit. The District proposes to reduce this limit down to

25 ppm, or below. These engines normally run on produced field casing gas which

has inherent variations in gas composition and BTU content. Based on historical

source test and portable analyzer data, the 25 ppm limit for rich-burn engines is not

reasonably achievable. We recommend the District maintain the emission limits for

rich-burn engines currently in effect as specified in Section 5.1.3, Table 3 (3a.i and

3.a.ii) of the rule.

RESPONSE: Rich-burn cyclically loaded field gas fired engines can meet the 250

VOC limit as presented in the test results presented in Table IV-1 of the

RACT/BARCT Determination. The RACT/BARCT Determination also presents data

demonstrating that the 25 ppm limit for rich-burn engines is reasonably achievable

and is being met. The proposed new emission limits would be contained in Rule

4702.

8. COMMENT: Rule 4701, Section 6.3: District proposes to eliminate the allowance

for representative testing of similar engines. Historical compliance source test data

supports the effectiveness of representative testing. Representative testing also

provides a more cost effective alternative to testing every 24 months. Our company

recommends the representative testing provisions specified in Section 6.3.2 be

retained. We are opposed to the 8760 hour (12 month) trigger for compliance

testing. This proposal will have a significant economic impact on operators since it

increases the frequency of source testing from every 24 months down to every 12

months. If adopted, this requirement will increase our annual source testing costs

by over $20,000 per year. In addition, the increased source testing will not help to

reduce emissions or bring the District any closer to achieving attainment. It is

important to recognize that most engines are source tested every 24 months (unless

they qualify for representative testing). They are also being tested at least every 6

months with the portable analyzer. In addition, all engines are being checked by

District Inspectors annually during compliance inspections.

RESPONSE: Although District staff agrees that representative testing can provide a

more cost effective alternative to testing every 24 months, District staff also agrees

with EPA’s and ARB’s comments regarding representative testing. Section 6.3.2,

Representative testing of similar engines, in Rule 4701 would be deleted. Rule

4701 would also be amended to require owners/operators to use a portable NOx
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

18

analyzer to take NOx emission readings to verify compliance with the emission limits

or percent control specified in Section 5.1 during any quarter in which a source test

is not performed. Rule 4702 would not contain any requirements for representative

testing.

9. COMMENT: Even though mobile sources (cars and trucks) represent a significantly

greater portion of the emissions inventory, the compliance testing requirements for

mobile sources are much less stringent than for stationary IC engines. Motor

vehicles older than 1973 are not required to be smog checked at all. New vehicles

can qualify for smog check testing every 5 years. There are no tune-up

requirements or periodic portable analyzer inspection requirements for motor

vehicles as there are for stationary IC engines. Notwithstanding, the District is

proposing that clean burn natural gas fired stationary IC engines be source tested

every year in addition to existing requirements to check them every 6 months with

the portable analyzer with periodic inspection, maintenance and tune-up

requirements. We request the District justify the rationale for increasing the

frequency of compliance testing of stationary IC engines. We also request the

District to quantify the projected emission reductions this requirement will provide as

SIP approved reductions credited toward the Non-Attainment Plan.

RESPONSE: The District is not proposing that clean burn natural gas fired

stationary IC engines be source tested every year. EPA recommended that the

testing interval be based on an accumulated cap operating hours of 8760 hours

and/or 24 month interval whichever comes first. Rule 4701 would be amended to

require owners/operators to use a portable NOx analyzer to take NOx emission

readings to verify compliance with the emission limits or percent control specified in

Section 5.1 during any quarter in which a source test is not performed. The District

will consider quantifying the projected emission reductions this requirement will

provide as SIP approved reductions credited toward the Non-Attainment Plan. Rule

4702 would also require owners to use a portable NOx analyzer to take NOx

emission readings to verify compliance with the emission limits or percent control

during any quarter in which a source test is not performed.

10. COMMENT: Retrofit rules should establish control levels within which equipment

can be expected to be in continuous compliance during normal operation. Industry

believes that the control levels proposed by the District may not be realistically

achievable on a continuous basis. The NOx emission control levels proposed for

most internal combustion engines would in effect require retrofit of all rich burn

engines with non-selective catalytic reduction and air-to-fuel ratio controllers. The

control requirements for lean burn IC engines (except for 2 stroke, gas fired engines

<100 Hp) will require extensive combustion modifications or the replacement of the

post combustion controls (selective catalytic reduction).

RESPONSE: District staff feels that the proposed requirements can be met.

11. COMMENT: Regarding Rich Burn Engines (All Engines except Cyclically Loaded):

Under certain conditions, non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) has proven to be
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

19

a reliable control technology for reducing NOx emissions. However, NSCR systems

are extremely sensitive to equipment load variations. Even small perturbations in

engine load (which would not otherwise be defined as cyclic loading) can cause

variations in the performance of the NSCR system and significantly effect engine

emissions. Industry proposes that the District establish a NOx limit of 40 ppmv

(15% oxygen) for these engines. Industry proposed control levels for rich burn IC

Engines are shown below.

Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion NOx CO VOC

Engine

Percent

Control ppmv at 15% O2

Rich-Burn (Cyclically loaded) -- 300 4,500 250

Rich-Burn (All Other Engines) 93.6 40 4,500 250

Regarding Lean Burn Engines (All Engines except 2-Stroke, gas fueled, <100 Hp):

The proposed control requirements for lean burn IC engines (except for 2-Stroke,

gas fueled engines <100 Hp) will require extensive combustion modifications or the

replacement engine or post combustion controls (selective catalytic reduction).

These systems may not be able to operate reliably within the narrow constraints

required by the proposed limits. Industry proposes that the District establish a NOx

limit of 70 ppmv (15% oxygen) for these engines. Industry proposed control levels

for lean burn IC Engines are shown below.

Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion NOx CO VOC

Engine

Percent

Control ppmv at 15% O2

Lean-Burn (2-stroke, <100 Hp) -- 200 4,500 750

Lean-Burn (All Other Engines) 89.2 70 4,500 750

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 would contain the proposed RACM emission limits as

noted in Section III (B) in the staff report. As noted in the staff report, the proposed

RACM emission limits are based on existing limits in Rule 4701 of the District, on

the limits in other districts and the measured emissions from sources in the District.

District staff feels that these limits can be met. Additionally, some of the industry

proposed limits (200 NOx ppmv for Lean-Burn, 2-stroke <100 Hp, and 4,500 ppmv

for CO) are less stringent than the existing Rule 4701 limits and would be a rule

relaxation which is not allowed by EPA.

COMMENTS FROM WORKSHOP HELD JULY 15, 17, AND 18, 2002

Rule 4701 (Internal Combustion Engines– Phase 1) and

Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines– Phase 2)

EPA - No comments received.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

20

ARB - No comments received.

STAKEHOLDERS

A. 

1. COMMENT: Rules 4701, 4702 Industry is concerned that the District rule making

staff have not considered the socio-economic or cost impacts the rules will have on

the regulated community. Industry recommends staff build on their efforts by

satisfying the requirements in the Clean Air Act that require districts “consider” the

economic aspects of the proposed reasonably available control measure (RACM).

Furthermore, Industry is also concerned the District rule making staff have indicated

they will not seek to establish a cost-effectiveness threshold to evaluate what is

“reasonable available” RACM.

RESPONSE: District staff is in the process of conducting a socioeconomic analysis

and cost effectiveness analysis of Rule 4702. The analysis would be used to refine

the draft rule. In general, we start the socioeconomic analysis by convening a

meeting with the Focus Group after completing the workshop for the second draft of

Rule 4702. The purpose of the Focus Group meeting is to assist in determining

industries' compliance costs for the rule, the economic impacts on industries, and

the likely business responses to the costs of compliance. Information obtained

through the Focus Group as well as from affected sources will be analyzed to

determine the regional economic impacts on the San Joaquin Valley. The

socioeconomic analysis report will be published and presented at a final workshop

for the rule. A final report along with the proposed rule will be submitted to the

Governing Board at a public hearing to consider adoption of the rule.

The District is required by state law to analyze the cost effectiveness prior to

adopting new BARCT rules. The law, however, does not require the District to

establish a specific cost effectiveness threshold value. The District no longer uses

cost effectiveness thresholds to exclude emission controls that could achieve as

much reduction possible from a control measure. Instead, the District uses the

socioeconomic analysis and cost effectiveness analysis to inform the rulemaking

process. This practice has been in effect since early 2001 and has been used in

four rules adopted by the Governing Board during the past year. While cost

effectiveness analysis has a value in comparing potential control techniques against

each other, we believe that cost effectiveness does not adequately represent the

rule's financial impact on businesses and industries. Our rulemaking process

should consider not only the rule's compliance costs, but also the affected industry's

economic standing. This consideration is not possible through cost effectiveness

analysis-it requires socioeconomic analysis. We do not have strict guidelines for

what would be considered acceptable cost impacts because businesses and

industries respond differently to costs. We rely on affected stakeholders to relay

their concerns on excessive costs during the rulemaking process so that our

socioeconomic analysis could account the impacts on the affected businesses and

industries. The District needs to achieve as much emissions reduction as possible
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

21

so we do not feel that we can reject technologically feasible controls solely based on

cost effectiveness.

2. COMMENT: Rules 4701, 4702 Industry recommends staff assemble an Industry

Focus Group as soon as possible so that industry representatives can work together

with staff in evaluating the cost and feasibility of controls as part of this rule making

process – specifically in regards to the proposed revisions to Rule 4306. Industry

also recommends that monthly meetings of the group, along with staff, be scheduled

throughout the rule making process. In the District’s Draft Staff Report (June 18,

2002), page 3 makes reference to an Industry Focus Group, but suggests that the

District should only schedule one meeting with the group. Industry does not feel this

will allow sufficient time to “assist district staff in determining the appropriate method

of gathering information on regulatory compliance costs and business impacts

resulting from compliance with the rules.”

RESPONSE: The purpose of the Focus Group is to assist the District in

determining the affected industries’ and businesses’ compliance costs for the rule

and their likely business responses to the compliance costs as soon as possible in

order to complete the project so that the Governing Board can act on adopting the

rule by the first quarter of 2003 for the District to avoid being sanctioned by EPA.

3. COMMENT: Rules 4701, 4702 Industry believes the District needs to ensure

retrofit rules in the rules establish control levels within which equipment can be

expected to be in continuous compliance during normal operation with an

appropriate compliance margin. Many oil industry operators have units that are

operated intermittently or cyclically loaded. It is critically important that whatever

control levels are ultimately proposed through this process be realistically

achievable in practice on a continuous basis throughout all normal operational

modes (e.g., load swings, changes in firing rates.)

RESPONSE: The proposed limits are based in current control technologies as well

as controls that are technologically feasible. Aside from the ARB RACT/BARCT

Determination, other California air Districts such as Ventura County APCD and

Santa Barbara County APCD have already implemented the same NOx limits that

are being proposed for Rule 4702.

4. COMMENT: Rules 4701 and 4702 Industry requests all written comments be

included within the District’s Staff Report.

RESPONSE: Rules 4701and 4702 District staff will continue to include those

written comments that are meaningful and not duplicative in the staff report.

5. COMMENT: Rules 4701 and 4702 Due to short notice of the public workshops

held during the week of July 15, 2002, there has been inadequate time for oil

industry operators to conduct a thorough cost analysis for the proposed rules. Oil

industry operators will be encouraged to provide cost data to the District and will be

encouraged to be involved in the Industry Focus Group.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

22

RESPONSE: Rules 4701 and 4702 District staff looks forward to receiving such

cost data and constructive involvement in the Focus Group by affected sources and

other interested parties.

6. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Industry incurred significant costs to satisfy Rule 4701

Phase 1 compliance. Capital costs to retrofit eight engines with NSCR catalysts and

air/fuel controllers totaled approximately $147,000. This includes the replacement

costs of the catalysts, but does not include maintenance, tune-up, monitoring,

testing or administrative costs required to maintain compliance with the existing

limits. Now, the District is again proposing to ratchet down to a point of diminishing

returns by further reducing the allowable emission limits. Phase 2 reductions will

not be achievable without another significant cost to industry for minimal emission

reductions. The District’s proposal should be termed “Phase 3”. Realistically, the

first IC engine rule NOx limit was 90 ppmv in 1995 (Phase 1), then was reduced to

50 ppmv in 2000 (Phase 2) and is now being further reduced to the proposed 25

ppmv in this rule change (Phase 3).

RESPONSE: District staff encourages stakeholders to provide cost data and likely

business responses during the socioeconomic focus group meeting.

7. COMMENT: Rules 4701 and 4702 Due to short notice of the public workshops

held during the week of July 15, 2002, there has been inadequate time to conduct a

thorough cost impact analysis for the proposed rules. Industry will submit to the

District additional data being requested from combustion technology companies at a

later date.

RESPONSE: Comment noted.

8. COMMENT: Rules 4701 and 4702 Health and Safety Code Section 40920.6

requires an incremental cost effectiveness evaluation. This very important

information should be published in a staff report for the proposed changes to Rule

4701 and the new Rule 4702 prior to the next workshop. It is also extremely

important that adequate time be allowed for the public to review and comment on

the cost analysis. We would suggest that the rule development process would

benefit greatly from further meetings with other interested stakeholders on this

issue.

RESPONSE: Rules 4701 and 4702 A preliminary absolute cost effectiveness is

shown in Appendix C of the staff report. An incremental cost effectiveness analysis

will be performed later in the rule development process. Stakeholders are

encouraged to provide their cost information to the District as soon as possible so it

could be used in refining the absolute cost effectiveness analysis as well as

incremental cost effectiveness analysis.

9. COMMENT: In the draft staff report, Section III.B.1, the district identifies

“nonselective catalytic reduction” as the likely control technology to be used for rich
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

23

burn, cyclic loaded, field gas fueled ICE. At several ICE workshops that this

operator has attended in the past, numerous emission control technology

manufacturer representatives and technicians have testified that NSCR was not a

viable control technology for this family of ICE, due to unstable exhaust

temperatures and inconsistent fuel gas composition, among other reasons. In my

experience, the few ICE in this family that have been successfully controlled with

NSCR have near ideal operating conditions (i.e., not heavily loaded and near PUC

quality fuel gas). Before the NOx limits for this family of ICE is lowered, tests need

to be performed on a true representative sample of the ICE in the field in Kern

County; not just a few hand picked engines from other air districts.

RESPONSE: The RACT/BARCT Determination clearly documents that rich burn,

cyclic loaded, field gas fueled IC engines can meet the proposed 50 ppmv limit.

Other California air districts have already implemented the same limit. District staff

feels that the proposed limits for engines that are operated in the District can be

met.

10. COMMENT: In Section III.B.2 of the draft staff report, the District contends that, for

rich burn, cyclic loaded, field gas fueled ICE, 50 ppmv NOx is achievable “based on

the limits in other districts and the measured emissions from District sources.” Before

the District imposes emission limits based on test results from other air districts, it is

imperative that the conditions under which these ICE operate are considered. It is my

understanding that, as stated above, there is a very select group of rich burn, cyclic

loaded, field gas fueled ICE meeting these NOx limits. If the District has source test

data showing that these NOx limits are achievable, please make this data available to

affected parties before the next scheduled workshop. Please include all source test

data from this family of ICE. It is my experience that few ICE in this category can

consistently obtain a 50-ppmv NOx limit. Industry strongly suggests that the 300-ppmv

limit be maintained.

RESPONSE: District staff feels that the proposed limits can be met. Source test

data is available for cyclically loaded engines (see source tests for PTO numbers S1737-14-1, S1737-17-1, and S-1738-103-0) that demonstrate NOx levels below 50

ppmv. Interested parties that would like to see the actual source test documents for

these units are advised to submit the appropriate District information request

documents.

11. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Would the permit to operate need to be modified for

emergency engines currently permitted at 200 hours of non-emergency use.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 In order to be exempted as an emergency engine in Rule

4702, such emergency engine would need to be limited to operate no more than

100 hours per year for non-emergency use. The permit to operate would need to be

modified to reflect the 100 hour limit.

12. COMMENT: Rule 4702 How do the proposed requirements coincide with ARB’s

efforts to reduce particulate matter emissions from diesel engines.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

24

RESPONSE: We do not propose to change the limits for diesel engines. ARB’s

project to reduce particulate matter emissions from diesel engines appears to be in

an early stage so it is not possible to determine how the proposed requirements of

Rule 4702 will affect ARB’s project. The ARB website for the project notes that: “A

public workshop will be held at 9:30 AM (PST) on November 19, 2002, to discuss

the possible regulatory approaches to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions

from stationary diesel-fueled engines.” The commenter is referred to the website for

additional information. The website address is:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/dieselrrp.htm

13. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 2.0 requires all engines rated at 50 hp or greater to

comply with the limits of the rule. This is not consistent with the exemption in

section 6.1.2 of Rule 2020 and should be revised accordingly.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 2.0 has been changed to specify that Rule 4702

applies to engines rated greater than 50 hp.

14. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 2.0 Applicability has been changed from engines

“greater than 50 bhp” to engines “50 bhp or greater”. Industry opposes this

proposed change. Since engines 50 bhp or less are exempt from permit under Rule

2020, Section 6.1.3, it is clear the District has no inventory of this new population of

engines and can therefore not determine or estimate the anticipate emissions

reductions from proposing controls on 50 bhp engines. It is Industry’s position that

the Section 2.0 Applicability remain as it appears in the current Rule 4701.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 2.0 has been changed to specify that Rule 4702

applies to engines rated greater than 50 hp.

15. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 2.0 The rule applicability section has been

changed to include ICE rated at 50 BHP (from ICE greater than 50 BHP to ICE 50

BHP or greater). By implementing this change, the District will be subjecting a family

of non-permitted ICE to Rule 4702. Because 50 BHP rated ICE do not require a

permit, it is doubtful that the District has an accurate inventory of these ICE, hence

the emission benefit to be gained by this change is unknown. Before the rule

applicability is changed the District should quantify the number of ICE that will be

captured by this change. Once the emission reduction to be achieved by this

change is quantified, the District and the affected public can decide whether or not it

is feasible to control these ICE, taking into account the lengthy and expensive

permit processing exercise the owners/operators will be subjected to.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 2.0 has been changed to specify that Rule 4702

applies to engines rated greater than 50 hp.

16. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 2.0 The District is proposing to extend control

requirements to include internal combustion engines with a rated horsepower of 50

or greater that requires a permit to operate (PTO.) Under the District’s permit
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

25

exemption rule (Rule 2020), IC engines with a rated brake horsepower (BHP) no

greater than 50, are exempt from permit requirements. Consequently, rule

applicability would not extend to IC engines with a rated BHP equal to 50, until the

District completes rulemaking to reduce the 50 BHP permit exemption threshold.

On the other hand, if the District intends to interpret rule applicability in a manner

other than described above, then Industry objects. During the workshop, several

attendees pointed out that the District’s permit exemption rule and the proposed

control measure appeared to conflict. Attendees were concerned that the proposed

control measure would essentially eliminate the Rule 2020 exemption for 50 BHP

engines. In the past, the District has broadly interpreted Rule 2010 (Permits

Required) to mean that permits must be obtained for the installation of control

equipment. If Rule 4702 control requirements are extended to 50 BHP engines,

then the need to obtain a permit for the installation of the control equipment, would

essentially eliminate the existing permit exemption, without conducting rulemaking

required for amending Rule 2020. Industry objects to any type of rulemaking, which

results in the circumvention of the rule making procedure.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 2.0 has been changed to specify that Rule 4702

applies to engines rated greater than 50 hp.

17. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 3.10 The District is proposing to reduce the

amount of time allowed for conducting maintenance on emergency standby engines

from 200 hours per year to 100 hours per year. Industry believes that the 200 hours

per year currently allowed (Rule 4701) is a reasonable amount of time to allow for

conducting engine maintenance activities. Industry also requests that the apparent

prohibition on the use of the emergency standby engine for supplying power while

maintenance is performed or repairs are made to the primary power supply be

removed. Allowing use of the emergency standby engine for no more than 200

hours per year of maintenance related activities would:

a. Help ensure the readiness of the emergency standby engine, in the event of an

emergency.

b. Reduce overall emissions. Operators would be able to conduct maintenance

activities on the primary power supply, while the emergency standby engine

undergoes intermittent operation, required for ensuring readiness. Allowing the use

of the emergency standby engine while maintenance activities are conducted on the

primary power supply would not result in any additional emissions provided total

maintenance operations do not exceed 200 hours per year.

c. Providing operators with a means of conducting maintenance on the primary

power supply without having to shutdown operations helps to ensure the proper

operation and minimizes emissions.

Industry suggests the proposed definition of an emergency standby engine be

revised as follows:

Any internal combustion engine which operates as a temporary replacement for

primary mechanical or electrical power during an unscheduled outage caused by
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

26

sudden and reasonably unforeseen disasters or events beyond the control of the

operator. An engine shall not be considered to be an emergency standby engine if

it is used for purposes other than: periodic maintenance on the engine or the

primary power supply, periodic readiness testing, readiness testing during or after

repair work, unscheduled outages or to supply power while maintenance is

performed or repairs are made to the primary power supply, and if it is not limited by

permit condition to operate 100 200 hours or less per calendar year for nonemergency purposes as determined by a non-resettable elapsed operating time

meter.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 3.10 District staff feels that the 100 hours allowed

for emergency engines is adequate to ensure proper testing and maintenance.

Operators that need to operate an engine for a greater amount of time can do so by

equipping the engine to meet the requirements of the rule.

18. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 3.10 Do power outages qualify as “events beyond

control of the operator?”

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 3.10 Only if the power outage is due to

circumstances beyond the control of the operator.

19. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 3.15 Lean-Burn Engine and 3.20 Rich-Burn

Engine serve no useful purpose. Industry requests the District justify why < or > 4%

excess oxygen in the exhaust is used as the trigger to categorize the difference

between lean burn or rich burn engines?

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 3.15 and Section 3.20 The 4% level is what has

been and is currently used in many of the air districts in the state.

20. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Please modify the definition of rich and lean

burn engines to eliminate the references to 4% excess oxygen. This definition

falsely categorizes a rich burn engine that has been leaned out to greater than 4%

excess oxygen as a lean burn engine (leaning out has proven to be a successful

means of reducing NOx emissions in certain ICE). If the NOx limit for rich burn,

cyclic loaded, field gas fueled ICE is kept at or near the current 300-ppmv (as

Industry suggests) this definition change will be beneficial to Industry and have no

negative environmental affect.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Additional justification would need to be

provided by the commenter for District staff to consider this comment further.

21. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 3.22 A transportable engine is defined to be: “Any

engine designed to be and capable of being carried or moved from one location to

another and that is operated (emphasis added) at one location for no more than 12

consecutive months. Indications of transportability include but are not limited to,

wheels, skids, carrying handles, dolly, trailer or platform.” In Section 3.22.1 the

District specifies that the time required for removal and installation of transportable
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

27

replacement engines, be counted towards the 12 month limitation for transportable

equipment. However, the Section 3.22 definition of transportable engines applies to

the operation of the engines. Consequently, Industry requests that the section

3.22.1 be revised as follows: Any transportable engine that replaces a transportable

engine at a location will be included in calculating the consecutive time if it performs

the same function as the engine being replaced. In that case, the cumulative time of

both engines shall not includeing the time between the removal of the original unit

and the installation of the replacement unit, would be counted towards the

consecutive time period.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 3.22 The proposed definition of transportable

engine is identical to the existing SIP approved definition in Rule 4701. Changing

the allowable period of time by excluding the installation and removal period would

constitute a SIP relaxation which is not consistent with EPA policy.

22. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Is an engine used to power a self powered

(movable) crane that operates at a single site considered a transportable engine?

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 An engine that is used to power the crane

equipment and is not used to propel or move the vehicle that the crane is

transported on shall be considered a transportable engine if it meets the definition

for “transportable engine” in Section 3.0.

23. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 4.2.2 This section will decrease the hours that

“low use” engines are allowed to run from 1000 to 200 hours per year. As noted in

other industry comments, the emission reductions attributed to this lowered run time

are minimal, since most of these units operate for only short periods of time.

Leaving the hours unchanged give facilities flexibility when operating under

abnormal conditions.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 4.2.2 The aggregated emissions from low use

engines are significant if all low use engines are allowed to run at up to 1000 hours

per year. (Please refer to response to comment #25). Operators would still have full

flexibility to operate their engines provided they do not exceed 200 cumulative hours

of operation per year. Engines that are not exempt and that operate more than 200

hours would need to comply with most of the proposed requirements of the rule.

24. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Are the engines that are operated by

farmers for growing crops subject to the rules.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 No, engines that are operated for growing

crops are exempt per Section 4.0. This exemption would not be amended.

25. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 4.2.2 Low use engines limited by permit

conditions to operate no more than 200 hours per year would be exempt from

control requirements, provided the engines are not part of a distributed power

generation system. Engines, which are rarely used or are operated for only short
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

28

periods of time are not likely to contribute to air quality impacts. Furthermore, the

cost of retrofitting and maintaining emission control systems on equipment, which is

rarely operated is prohibitive and may not be justified by the amount of emission

reductions actually achieved. Consequently, industry requests that the District

retain the current definition of a low use engine or provide an analysis of the

emission reductions expected to be achieved by reducing the allowable operating

hours.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 4.2.2 As noted in Section IV of the staff report,

District staff estimates that approximately 90 engines are permitted as low-use

engines. Assuming that these 90 engines comply with the requirements of

proposed Rule 4702 and have an average operating capacity factor of 10%, District

staff estimates that emissions reductions of 0.45 tons per day will be realized from

these 90 low-use engines.

26. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 4.3.1 The District is proposing to allow up to 100

hours per year of maintenance operation for engines required for emergency

response. The readiness of emergency response equipment would be better

assured by allowing up to 200 hours per year of maintenance operation.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 4.3.1 The commenter did not provide any data as

to why 100 hours per year of maintenance operation would not be adequate for

engines to operate properly as expected during emergency situations. District staff

feels that 100 hours of operation is sufficient to properly maintain engines required

for emergency response.

27. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 4.3.2 The District is proposing to regulate

equipment registered under the California Air Resources Board (CARB) portable

equipment registration program. Air districts are precluded from regulating CARB

registered portable equipment (Note this comment is also applicable to Rule 4701.)

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 4.3.2 Rule 4702 Section 4.3.2 exempts portable

equipment that are subject to Rule 2280 or the Statewide Portable Registration

Program, which includes portable engines registered with ARB.

28. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Industry is concerned that the emission limits proposed in

Rule 4702 are below the level achievable in practice. Industry can support this

concern with actual source test and portable analyzer data for engines that were

retrofitted with Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) and air/fuel controllers to

meet the Rule 4701 (Phase 1) limits. Industry requests the District provide the data

that can substantiate that the proposed limits can be reasonably achieved in

practice with at minimum a 20% compliance margin (e.g., CARB certified source test

results).

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Industry is referred to the ICE RACT/BARCT

Determination for such data.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

29

29. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Retrofit rules should establish control levels within which

equipment can be expected to be in continuous compliance during normal

operation. Industry believes the control levels proposed by the District in the Rule

4702 Phase 2 are not practically or reasonably achievable on a continuous basis.

There is clearly insufficient compliance margin built into the limits to account for

engine load swings, catalyst life, fuel quality variations, or seasonal ambient

temperature changes.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 The proposed limits have already been implemented in

other California air districts and are currently being achieved. District staff does not

see any reason as to why the limits could not be achieved by engines operating in

the District after the appropriate control technologies are installed.

30. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.1 Emission limits for lean burn engines are

overly aggressive. While the water district has met the proposed limits during some

source testing events, these engines are located in specialized structures and

operate at a constant load. These engines operate at a constant load coordinated

with three other pumping plants in order to maintain the flow of water from the valley

to the Tehachapi Valley. These conditions are not typical of many lean-burn

engines.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.1 District staff understands that engines

operated by water districts in other California air districts are meeting the proposed

limits which are consistent with the ARB RACT/BARCT Determination. We do not

see any technological justification why the proposed limits are not achievable.

31. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Table 5.1.1 allows the option to meet a ppmv limit or

demonstrate a % reduction. This is not consistent with Section 6.3.2 that requires

engines with controls to report source tests results in ppmv and % reduction across

the control device. It is Industry’s position that only the ppmv limit should be verified

in source testing.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.3.2 Engines that comply with a % reduction in

Table 5.1.1 would need to have the % reduction verified by source testing.

Operators that comply with a percent reduction limit need to determine emissions in

ppmv so % reduction can be determined. For clarification, Section 6.3.2 would be

amended to specify “For engines that comply with a percent reduction in Table 1, the

percent reduction of NOx emissions shall also be reported.”

32. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.1.1 The District is proposing to reduce NOx

emissions from cyclically loaded rich burn engines from 300 ppmv (15% O2) to 50

ppmv (at 15% O2). Due to the extreme variation in engine load it is doubtful existing

control technology is capable of reliably reducing cyclically loaded engine emissions

below 50 ppmv (15% O2). The District’s proposed control measure would

essentially require all removal of cyclically loaded engines and the electrification of

the pumping unit. Cyclically loaded engines are typically used for pumping wells,

which are remotely located in the areas where electric power is unavailable. Many
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

30

of these wells have low production rates, other wells are owned by small oil

production companies. In either case, the cost of electrification is likely to make the

continued operation of the well uneconomic. Consequently, Industry requests that

the District either retain the current control requirement (300 ppmv 15% O2) or that

the District exempt remotely located wells where power is unavailable and exempt

wells where the cost of electrification would require the shutting in of the oil well.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.1.1 District staff feels that the proposed

requirements can be met. Justification for any less effective requirements would

need to be provided by the commenter for District staff to consider this item further.

33. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.1.2 The District is proposing that compliance

with Section 5.1.1 emission limits be established using a 15 minute averaging

period. As discussed previously, Industry recommends that compliance with rule

4702 emission limits be determined using the average results from three 30-minute

test runs.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.1.2 The 15-consecutive minute block averaging

period is specified in order to correct the deficiency cited by EPA. Note that the 15-

consecutive minute averaging period is consistent with the RACT/BARCT

Determination and is used by several other air districts including South Coast

AQMD and Ventura County APCD.

34. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.0 and Rule 4702 Section 5.1.2 These sections

require that compliance testing be conducted on 15 consecutive minute averages.

CARB Test Method 100 and SJV APCD Policy require that the compliance test be

based on the average of three 30 minute runs with the appropriate instrument

calibrations before and after each run. This section of the rule should be consistent

with the appropriate test method rather than establishing new methods that have not

been adequately evaluated.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.0 and Rule 4702 Section 5.1.2 As noted

above, the15-consecutive minute block averaging period is specified in order to

correct the deficiency cited by EPA.

35. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.0 Revisions included in Section 5.0 now specify

that for internal combustion engines (IC engines), compliance with specified limits

(Table 5.1) be determined using a running 15-minute average. The District has

historically determined compliance with emission limits by averaging the results from

three, 30-minute test runs. Essentially all of the workshop attendees objected to the

revision and questioned the need for revising an approved test method, which has

successfully been used for determining compliance for more than 20 years. The

District’s only explanation for the proposed revision was that the “EPA wanted it.”

Industry requests that The District either delete the new section 5.0 requirements

specifying 15-minute averaging (or a 15-minute running average) or specify that

compliance be determined by averaging the results of three 30-minute test runs

conducted in accordance with The District’s July 18, 2002 source test policy.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

31

Industry believes that the longer averaging interval should be retained. Emissions

measured using a short-term averaging period (15 minutes) can serve as a “spot

check” for ensuring proper engine operation. However, short term averaging

periods should not be used for determining compliance emission limits. Emissions

from IC engines can vary over short periods of time due to changes in load and

operating parameters. Consequently, emission measurements made over longer

averaging intervals are more representative of normal operation and compliance

with required emission limits. The Districts source test policy, which was just

recently work-shopped and was adopted on July 18, 2002 requires that compliance

tests on IC engines be performed by conducting three 30-minute test runs.

Compliance is subsequently determined by averaging the results of three test runs.

The District’s enforcement group has already concluded that compliance can be

successfully established using the average results of three 30-minute test runs. The

District has successfully used the existing test procedure for ensuring compliance

with IC engine emission limits for more than 20 years. Many IC engine permits

specify that engine tests be conducted using three, 30-minute test runs. Neither the

District nor EPA has established any compelling reason to revise the existing test

procedure.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.0 As noted above, the 15-consecutive minute

block averaging period is specified in order to correct the deficiency cited by EPA.

Note that the 15-consecutive minute averaging period is consistent with the

RACT/BARCT Determination and is used by several other air districts including

South Coast AQMD and Ventura County APCD.

.

36. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.0 and Rule 4702 Section 5.1.2 The proposal

would require all emission measurements to be taken over a 15 minute period. This

conflicts with current source testing practice. This section of the rule should be

clarified. Additionally, portable monitoring equipment may not be able to calculate a

rolling 15-minute average.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.0 As noted above, the 15-consecutive minute

block averaging period is specified in order to correct the deficiency cited by EPA.

Note that the 15-consecutive minute averaging period is consistent with the

RACT/BARCT Determination and is used by several other air districts including

South Coast AQMD and Ventura County APCD.

37. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.1.4.2 Industry recommends that the section be

revised as follows: In this situation, the engine’s typical operating parameters,

loading and duty cycle shall be documented and to the extent possible, repeated at

each successive post control source tests to ensure that the engine is meeting the

percent reduction limit. When representative, source sampling prior to the

application of an emission control technology is not available, the APCO may

approve the use of the manufacturer’s uncontrolled emissions information may be

used or the APCO may approve the use of uncontrolled emissions information or

source sampling from a similar, uncontrolled engine.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

32

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.1.4.2 District staff feels that the requirements

as proposed in Rule 4702 provide adequate provisions for the situation and

therefore, no change to the proposed language is necessary.

38. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.1.4.2 To determine the control efficiency of

engines without external controls the District is proposing to utilize the

manufacturer’s uncontrolled emissions information or sampling from a similar

uncontrolled engine. Please verify that for lean burn engines this would be

represented by an uncontrolled rich-burn engine of similar design.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.1.4.2 It is not possible to provide such

verification due to the potential for significant differences from one situation to the

next. Instances such as these would best be handled on a case-by-case basis.

39. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.1.6 The owner or operator of a lean-burn engine

with pre-combustion modifications will not be able to meet this requirement as they

do not have, in many cases, external control devices. This section should be

clarified that is applies only to externally controlled engines.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.1.6 would be modified to specify “The owner of

an internal combustion engine with an external emission control device that uses

percent emission reduction to comply with the emission limits of Section 5.1 shall

provide an accessible inlet and outlet on the external control device for taking emission

samples and as approved by the APCO.”

40. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.3 The requirements for the installation and

operation of a continuous monitoring system are broadly defined. The proposed

language could be interpreted in such a manner that a source operator would be

obligated to install, operate and maintain a continuous monitoring system “that shall

determine and record exhaust gas NOx concentrations corrected to 15% excess

oxygen.” During the workshop, when the District was asked about how they

intended to apply the section 5.3.1 requirements, the District did not directly answer,

but implied that the requirements for the continuous monitoring systems could be

met using the same procedures currently allowed for alternative monitoring, under

district rule 4701. Based on the reading of the proposed requirements, the District’s

response to workshop questions and the currently approved procedures for

alternative monitoring under Rule 4701, Industry understands that the rule 5.3.1

requirement will be applied by the District in such a manner that: (a) The

requirement to install, operate and maintain in calibration, a continuous NOx, CO

and oxygen monitoring system, can be met using equipment other than a

continuous emissions monitoring system or a predictive emissions monitoring

system (PMS). An acceptable (i.e. APCO approvable) alternative, continuous

monitoring system consists of one or more of the same elements specified at 5.3.1.1

through 5.3.1.7. (b) The District does not intend to construe the requirement to

determine and record NOx emissions corrected to 15% excess oxygen, as a

requirement to continuously determine and record NOx concentrations. (c) For
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

33

engines which are already equipped with external control devices and are operating

under an approved alternative monitoring program no further actions are required.

If the District intends to apply Section 5.3.1 requirements for continuous monitoring

systems in a manner, other than that described above, then Industry objects to the

proposed language and requests that the section be revised in order to more clearly

define continuous monitoring system requirements.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.3 Regarding item (a): Section 5.3 specifies that

“The continuous monitoring system may be a continuous emissions monitoring

system, parametric emissions monitoring system (PEMS), or an alternative approved

by the APCO.” Regarding item (b): District staff intends that the frequency that NOx

emissions are determined and recorded will be based on the continuous monitoring

system or alternative used. Regarding item (c): To ensure compliance with the

proposed requirements of Rule 4702, any engines which are already equipped with

external control devices and are operating under an approved alternative monitoring

program will need to have the alternative monitoring system approved again by the

APCO to ensure that the monitoring system could measure the emissions or

parameters reflective of meeting the emissions limits.

41. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.3.1 This section would require all monitoring

systems or alternative monitoring programs to have data gathering and retrieval

capabilities. This requirement seems excessive as many operators will utilize

portable analyzers or other methods not easily connected to data gathering systems

to meet the requirement. Many of the records will be maintained as hand written

records.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.3 does not require electronic data gathering and

retrieval capabilities from all monitoring systems or alternative monitoring programs.

District staff expects that not all data will be in electronic format and some records

will probably be maintained as hand written records.

42. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.3.1 mandates that IC engines be equipped with

continuous emissions monitoring system. Other than the installation of monitoring

stations that could cost upwards of $100,000, there does not seem to be any

reasonably priced system that will economically satisfy this requirement. This

section should be revised to clearly show that alternate monitoring, as allowed in

Section 5.4 of Rule 4701, is incorporated into this rule.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.3 has been changed so that only engines that

are greater than 1000 hp and are permitted to operate more than 2,000 hours per

calendar year are required to be equipped with a continuous monitoring system and

that other engines be equipped with a continuous monitoring system or with an

alternative approved by the APCO. Alternate monitoring systems will cost

significantly less than CEMS

43. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Our company has 14 permitted emergency standby

engines and two portable diesel powered air compressors. Proposed Rule 4702
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

34

Section 5.3.3 would require the installation of non-resettable fuel meters on all

existing engines. The additional cost of adding these non-resettable fuel meters is

currently being estimated. The engines currently have installed non-resettable hour

meters. These hour meters are used to determine compliance with current permit

conditions as well as calculating fuel usage based on manufacturers data regarding

fuel consumption per hour of operation. While Section 5.3.3 does allow an

allowance for alternative methods for determining monthly fuel consumption as long

as the method has been approved by the APCO, the language is not clear as to

whether fuel meters and hour meters are required if the owner or operator decides

to follow an alternative course. In addition, Industry feels that the additional costs of

installing these fuel meters for low use engines, such as emergency standby, does

not justify the additional costs and has no foreseeable net benefit to air quality.

Industry proposes relief from the fuel meter requirement for emergency engines and

low use engines proposing the following language "5.3.3 Install a non-resettable fuel

meter and a non-resettable elapsed operating time meter on any engine except for

those engines subject to section 4.2. Engines subject to Section 4.2 shall install

either an operating fuel meter or operating elapsed time meter provided that

accurate fuel and time data may be obtained by use of either of these units. The

owner or operator of any applicable engine may use an alternative device, method,

or technique for determining fuel consumption in lieu of fuel or elapsed time meter

provided the method has been approved by the APCO. " A followup written letter

will be submitted once the fuel meter costs have been estimated.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.3.7 would be amended to read “In lieu of

installing a nonresettable fuel meter, the owner or operator may use an alternative

device, method, or technique in determining monthly fuel consumption provided that

the alternative is approved by the APCO.“ The objective of this section is to be able

to verify not only the amount of time an engine is operated but also the horsepower

level at which the engine is operated. The alternative course only applies to the fuel

meter and does not change the requirement for the hour meter.

44. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.4.1 and 5.4.2; and Rule 4702 Section 5.3.1,

5.3.2 and 5.3.3 reference APCO approved monitoring systems. Will the District

honor an operator’s existing APCO approved plans, or will these plans have to be

renegotiated?

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.4.1 and 5.4.2; and Rule 4702 Section 5.3, The

plans have to be re-submitted as such plans will have additional or different

requirements.

45. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.4.3 The phrase “Effective on and after three

months after” is confusing. Does the District intend this to mean that a source must

make its first emissions test, using a portable analyzer, on the date the rule is

approved by the board?

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.4.3 The requirements of Section 5.4.3 will

become effective three months after the amendments are adopted and will continue
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

35

to be in effect thereafter. Operators would need to perform the emission monitoring

using a portable analyzer each quarter after the requirements become effective.

46. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.4.3 and Rule 4702 Section 5.3.6 What is the

cost of a portable NOx analyzer?

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.4.3 and Rule 4702 Section 5.3.10 The cost of

a portable NOx analyzer depends on the type, sensitivity, range, and other features.

Some NOx analyzers may cost approximately $10,000.

47. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.4.4 and Rule 4702 Section 5.3.7 require

operators to take corrective action on out-of-compliance ICE within 15 days and to

notify the APCO within 8 hours. What is the purpose of the 8 hour notification

provision; this should be expanded to at least 48 hours. As drafted, an operator

would have to be more concerned with meeting a notification deadline than getting

an engine back in compliance.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.4.4 and Rule 4702 Section 5.3.7 (previous draft

section number) have been deleted.

48. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Sections 6.1.1.9 and 6.1.1.10 Please clarify. Does the

District intend to require continuous in-stack monitoring or continuous source

testing? What would be typical in-stack monitoring specifications for the external

controls and pre-combustion controls?

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Sections 6.1.1.9 and 6.1.1.10 Section 5.3, not Sections

6.1.1.9 and 6.1.1.10, specifies the proposed requirements for continuous

monitoring. Section 6.1.1.9 pertains to stack modifications. For clarification,

Section 6.1.1.9 would be amended to specify “stack modifications to facilitate

continuous in-stack monitoring and to facilitate source testing”. In regards to Section

6.1.1.10, if in-stack monitoring is not to be done, the operator would specify that

information in the emission control plan.

49. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and 4702 Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 Section 6.2.1 states

that engine operating logs be kept “on-site.” Most operating logs are currently

located at the main field offices since storage at the engine site would expose

paperwork to destructive environmental elements. We request that the wording be

changed in both rules, deleting the term “on-site” and inserting “that is readily

available” such that the sections read: “The owner of any engine subject to the

requirements of this rule shall maintain an engine operating log that is readily

available to demonstrate compliance with this rule.” Deletion of the words “on-site”

in Section 6.2.2 will make it consistent with the proposed change to 6.2.1.

RESPONSE: Section 6.2.1 of Rule 4701 and Section 6.2.2 of Rule 4702 would be

modified to require that records be readily available.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

36

50. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.2.3 The record keeping requirements of Section

6.2.3.4 should not be modified by deletion of the ”or.” Some engines are by design

and function obviously exempt from the rule, i.e. engines used to determine motor

vehicle fuel octane and cetane. The additional record keeping requirements are

excessive for these engines and are not necessary to verify the exempt status of the

engine.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.2.3 An operator would need to comply with the

requirements of Section 6.2.3 only for those engines that cannot demonstrate claim

to the exemption when the requirements of Section 6.2.3.1 through 6.2.3.4 are met.

If an operator can demonstrate claim to the exemption for an engine by complying

with the requirements of Section 6.2.3.1 through 6.2.3.4, the operator would not

have to comply with Section 6.2.3.5 for that engine.

51. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.3 Rule 4701 requires compliance every 24

months. EPA has recommended the testing interval of 8760 hours and/or 24

months. We suggest that the word “and” be removed from the statement. It would

then read “testing interval of 8760 hours or 24 months.” This would prevent the

owner of an engine who tested at 8760 hours in month 22 from testing the same

engine again at 24 months. The initial recommendation was founded on the

assumption that the internal combustion engines experience greater wear and tear

than boilers. But, the recommendation should not penalize operators with moderate

use as described in the example above.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.3 As the “testing interval of 8760 hours”

requirement is not in the RACT/BARCT Determination, this requirement is not

proposed in Rule 4701 or Rule 4702. District staff feels that testing every 24

months as contained in the RACT/BARCT Determination is reasonable and

necessary to ensure that an engine is complying with the rule.

52. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.2 Please define “actual peak load” and “typical

duty cycle.”

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.2 “Actual peak load” is the condition when the

engine is operating at its maximum horsepower to perform the function it is

permitted to perform. The maximum horsepower could be limited by the amount of

load that a piece of equipment can receive from the engine. “Typical duty cycle” is

the time that an engine uses to perform an operation through a full process. Section

6.3.2 has been modified to specify “Conduct emissions source testing with the

engine operating either at conditions representative of normal operations or

conditions specified in the permit-to-operate.“

53. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.3.2 requires source testing to be conducted at

the engine’s “actual peak load”. It is Industry’s position that the engine should be

tested at “normal operating conditions”. Forcing a throttle open is a very dangerous

practice and raises serious safety concerns.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

37

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.2 has been modified to specify “Conduct

emissions source testing with the engine operating either at conditions

representative of normal operations or conditions specified in the permit-to-operate.“

54. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Section 6.3.2 requires emissions source

testing to be conducted “at an engine’s actual peak load and under the engine’s

typical duty cycle”. Because an engine’s duty cycle may be different than it’s peak

load we recommend the following: “at an engine’s actual peak load or under the

engine’s typical duty cycle”.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Section 6.3.2 has been modified to specify

“Conduct emissions source testing with the engine operating either at conditions

representative of normal operations or conditions specified in the permit-to-operate.“

55. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Sections 5.4.3 and 6.3.2 and Rule 4702 Sections 5.3.6

and 6.3.2 These sections specify that analyzer readings and source tests be

performed at the engines “actual peak load” and “engine’s typical duty cycle.”

Engines typically experience variable loads and operating conditions such as

pressure restrictions, fuel gas availability and amount of fluid to be moved. As a

result, the engine may not be able to run at peak or typical loads when the analyzer

or source tests are performed. We request that the source testing and analyzer

readings be taken at “an engine’s peak load, under the engine’s typical duty cycle,

or under the maximum load possible at current operating conditions.”

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Sections 5.4.3 and 6.3.2 and Rule 4702 Sections 5.3.10

and 6.3.2 These sections have been changed to specify that analyzer readings and

source tests be taken or performed “..with the engine operating either at conditions

representative of normal operations or conditions specified in the permit-to-operate.“

56. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.3.2 also requires that “For engines using exhaust

controls, NOx shall also be reported as a percent reduction across the control

device”. Section 5.1.1 sets NOx emission limits as either a ppmv limit or a percent

reduction; therefore, Section 6.3.2 should be consistent with the limits set in Section

5.1.1 and require reporting of the percent reduction only when that is the proposed

compliance limit. Those engines that propose to comply with the ppmv limit should

not have to demonstrate a control efficiency.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.3.2 would be amended to specify that “For

engines that comply with a percent reduction in Table 1, the percent reduction of NOx

emissions shall also be reported.” Operators of engines that propose to comply with

the ppmv limit do not have to demonstrate a control efficiency.

57. COMMENT: Rules 4701 and 4702 Section 6.3.2 of the proposed rules requires

NOx emissions to be reported in both ppmv and as a percent reduction across the

control device. Unless otherwise required for a specific type of engine in Table 5.1,

Industry requests that this requirement be modified to allow an operator to test for

either ppmv or percent reduction in order to avoid having to conduct two tests.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

38

RESPONSE: Rules 4701 and 4702 Section 6.3.2 would be amended to specify

that “For engines that comply with a percent reduction..., the percent reduction of

NOx emissions shall also be reported.” Operators that comply with a percent

reduction, may have to conduct two tests to obtain the emissions at the inlet and the

emissions at the outlet. These emissions are then used to calculate the percent

reduction.

58. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.2 specifies operating conditions under which

source tests are to be conducted. The section also requires that for engines using

exhaust controls, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions be reported as a percent

reduction across the control device. As pointed out by the workshop attendees, the

requirement for determining NOx percent reduction should only apply to those

engines for which compliance with Table 5.1 requirements are based on a percent

reduction. Industry requests that Section 6.3.2 be revised as follows: “Conduct

emission source testing at the engine’s actual peak load and under the engines

typical duty cycle. VOC shall be reported as methane. VOC, NOx and CO

concentrations shall be reported in ppmv, corrected to 15% oxygen. For engines

using exhaust gas controls, where compliance with Table 5.1 requirements is

specified as a percent reduction, NOx shall also be reported as a percent reduction

across the control device.”

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.2 See response to comment above.

59. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Section 6.3.2 of both rules requires NOx

emissions to be reported in ppmv and as a percent reduction across the control

device. This would require two tests at double the expense. Please justify this

requirement or modify it to allow testing for either ppmv or percent reduction.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Section 6.3.2 See response to comment

above.

60. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and 4702 Section 6.3.3 Both rules state that “In addition

to other information, the source test protocol shall describe which critical parameters

will be measured and incorporated into the I&M plan.” The term “critical parameters”

is not defined in the rule. We request clarification of the intent and meaning of this

phrase.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and 4702 Section 6.3.3 “Critical parameters” are the

characteristics that can be used in verifying or in determining that an engine is

operating properly and is in compliance with the requirements of the rule. Such

parameters include, but are not limited to, NOx emissions (ppmv), fuel usage,

engine speed (rpm), air/fuel ratio, and exhaust temperature.

61. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.1 Please explain what the District expects the

operator to consider as “typical control equipment parameters.”
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

39

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.1 Control equipment parameters are the

characteristics that can be used in verifying or in determining that a control is

operating properly. Due to the different types of control equipment, what is typical

for one type is not necessarily typical for another type of control equipment. For

example “typical control equipment parameters” for NSCR include, but are not

limited to, exhaust temperatures before and after the catalyst, and oxygen levels.

62. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.2 requires “monthly” emissions checks. This

should be “quarterly” to be consistent with Section 5.3.6, or at least after consistent

monthly compliance is documented.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.2 The monthly emissions checks required in

Section 6.5.2 refer to checking the data from the continuous monitoring system or

it’s alternate. The quarterly emissions checks required in Section 5.3.10 are through

the use of an APCO approved portable NOx analyzer that will help in ensuring that

the CEMS data correctly reflect emissions.

63. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.2 If an operator is performing monthly portable

emissions testing then parametric monitoring should not be required.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.2 As noted above, the monthly emissions

checks required in Section 6.5.2 refer to checking the data from the continuous

monitoring system or it’s alternate. Continuous monitoring, such as parametric

monitoring, is needed to better ensure that engines are operating properly due to

the extreme conditions that engines operate under.

64. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.5 The District needs to clarify the type of

preventative and corrective maintenance procedures that must be prepared and

submitted. Not all preventative and corrective maintenance procedures affect

emissions. Only preventative and corrective maintenance procedures involving

emission control equipment or emissions should be part of the I&M program.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.5 would be amended to read as follows:

“Procedures for preventive and corrective maintenance performed for the purpose of

maintaining an engine in proper operating condition.”

65. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.7 What is meant by “retrieval capabilities”?

How does the District expect to retrieve I&M data? Much of the I&M data will be in

the form of hand written records. It is excessive to expect such data to be in

electronic format.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.7 “Retrieval capabilities” refers to the means

and techniques that can be used to obtain the data that has been collected. How

the District retrieves I&M data will depend on the “retrieval capabilities” of the data

storage system. Such retrieval could be accomplished through means that include,

but are not limited to, electronically or by taking a photocopy of hand written data.

Not all data is expected to be in electronic format.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

40

66. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.8 This requirement implies that the District

would rather an engine operate out of compliance than have the operator proceed

with the appropriate maintenance if such maintenance falls outside the I&M plan.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.8 The District expects the operator to bring

the engine into compliance as soon as possible but at the same time the I&M plan

would need to be changed accordingly to reflect the required action if similar

conditions occur in the future.

67. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 7.4 and Rule 4702 Section 7.1 These sections

state that when an engine becomes subject to the rules’ emission limits through loss

of exemption, it shall demonstrate full compliance on the date the exemption status

is lost. The source testing requirements of the rules specify a thirty-day notification.

In addition, all new and modified units are allowed sixty days after start-up to obtain

a source-test. We recommend changing these sections to require full compliance

within sixty days of loss of exemption.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 7.4 and Rule 4702 Section 7.1 would be

amended to specify that an owner “...shall not operate the subject engine, except as

required for obtaining a new or modified District permit-to-operate for the engine,

until the owner demonstrates full compliance with the requirements of this rule.”

68. COMMENT: Rules 4701 and 4702 The representative testing provisions of both

4701 and 4702 have been eliminated in the current drafts. Industry requests that

these provisions be reinstated. The elimination of these provisions would increase

compliance costs for the operator dramatically. In our opinion, the proposed

addition of the quarterly portable analyzer test requirement should be enough to

satisfy the District that all ICEs are being kept in compliance.

RESPONSE: Rules 4701 and 4702 As noted in the staff report, the existing

representative group testing in Rule 4701 was cited by EPA as a SIP deficiency and

is being proposed for deletion. EPA commented that it “generally does not allow

emission test results from individual engines to represent emissions for a group of

engines (i.e., allowing engines in the group to be exempt from testing requirements)

for purposes of making compliance determinations.”

69. COMMENT: Rules 4701 and 4702 Alternative Emission Control has been deleted

from Draft Rule 4701. The reasons provided for the deletion of this section were

that there has historically been little or no use of this provision and it doesn’t meet

EPA’s Economic Incentive Program rules. Since an Alternative Emission Control

Plan (AECP) requires enforceability on a daily basis by the District, and written

approval of the plan from the APCO prior to implementation, there appears to be no

emission related rationale for the removal of this section. The need to demonstrate

compliance by way of aggregate NOx emissions may be utilized more frequently as

emission limits are reduced. We would like to keep this provision in the rule to

ensure flexibility of aggregate NOx emission compliance.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

41

The potential for Alternative Emission Controls have not fully been examined, and

the need for flexible, enforceable, alternatives will be paramount in the pursuit of

emission reductions. On and off road mobile source emissions and stationary

sources in the form of agricultural engines are both large contributors to emissions

in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Funding for incentive programs to reduce

emissions from mobile and stationary sources has been an on going practice.

These programs are extremely valuable to ensure additional emission reductions.

The following is a recommendation to enhance the value of these programs to

further reduce emissions:

Presently two major government incentive programs offered in the San Joaquin

Valley, the Demand Side Management (DSM) and the Carl Moyer Program. The

DSM program is a state fund that provides incentives for replacement, rebuilding

and overhauling of existing engines. For stationary agricultural diesel engines these

existing programs do not provide incentives to establishing clean fuel infrastructure.

To solve this problem, we recommend a new incentive program designed a cut

infrastructure cost for line extensions. Cutting line extension cost could ensure that

cleaner burning fuels like natural gas become a reality for the majority of gas

engines in the valley.

As an example, the average distance to nearby natural gas pipelines for engines in

the San Joaquin Valley, where gas is presently unavailable is approximately 1⁄2 mile,

plus or minus 1⁄4 mile. Our calculations show that the average cost of line

extensions in the area is approximately $10.75 per linear foot. There are current

programs provided by the gas company that can potentially cut those costs by about

50%. A new program that could provide approximately $5.00 per linear foot would

make the cost almost nothing for those participating in the current gas company

programs and a new infrastructure incentive program. This could help guarantee

that the many of the above-mentioned gas engines would at a minimum have dual

fuel capabilities.

Several hundred engines with the potential to burn natural gas and/or diesel, as

opposed to burning diesel exclusively would help further reduce NOx and

Particulate Emissions (PM) in the San Joaquin Valley. Conversion from diesel to

dual fuel can result in a NOx reduction of 20-40%. This is a significant amount to

improve the air quality for the area. This alternative also maintains a hedge for the

farmer if reliability issues become a concern in fuel supplies. The incentive for clean

fuel infrastructure will greatly enhance the options for the air district to reduce

emissions in the area while keeping costs and operation flexibility for the regulated

community.

RESPONSE: Rules 4701 and 4702 Alternative Emission Control Plan provisions

would be deleted in Rule 4701 as District staff determined that no operators are using

such provisions in Rule 4701 and the compliance deadline has already expired. Due

to requests from Industry, District staff plans to add AECP provisions in the next draft

of Rule 4702 that would contain provisions necessary to gain EPA’s approval.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

42

70. COMMENT: Rule 4702 It is Industry’s position that proposed Rule 4702 should

allow the option of an Alternate Emissions Control Plan (AECP) and also allow

continued representative testing of similar engines. Currently, this company

monitors all engines subject to Rule 4701 on a quarterly schedule and conducts

representative testing on 10% of the total engines annually. These engines are also

subject to ongoing periodic maintenance and tune-ups. It is Industry’s position that

this ongoing monitoring, testing and I&M program are more than sufficient to verify

compliance. It is interesting to note that mobile sources contribute 67% of the total

NOx emissions within the District but is not subject to such a stringent compliance

program as sources within petroleum refineries, which only contribute 0.27% of the

total NOx emissions within the District (this includes internal and external fired

equipment). This disparity may be viewed by some as being biased, inequitable

and arbitrary.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Please refer to response to comment #69.

COMMENTS FROM WORKSHOP HELD DECEMBER 6 and 10, 2002

Rule 4701 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 1) and

Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 2)

EPA - No comments received.

ARB - No comments received.

STAKEHOLDERS

ChevronTexaco

1. COMMENT: ChevronTexaco, as a member of the Western States Petroleum

Association (WSPA), fully supports the trade association’s comments dated

01/09/03.

RESPONSE: Comment noted.

2. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3: Both of these sections indicate

that portable analyzer readings must be taken over a 15 minute period to validate

compliance. Portable analyzers are designed to take readings for short periods of

time (spot checks). Requiring 15 minute readings per unit would result in a great

reduction of unit readings per day, increased maintenance costs for the analyzers,

increased purge time, and an increase in manpower requirements without a net air
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

43

quality benefit. We request that the District reconsider and clarify this testing time

requirement. Our other concerns regarding the 15 minute testing period are

addressed in WSPA’s comments.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3: See response to Comment

number 10 below.

3. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.3.10: This section requires that quarterly

monitoring be performed either under normal operating conditions or as specified in

the permit. Our policy is to shut a unit down if it cannot be operated in accordance

with permit conditions or District rules. Engines are typically located at remote

locations that experience load and fuel fluctuations but still operate within permit

limits. Our technicians maintain an aggressive schedule to perform all required

monitoring and source testing in a timely manner. Despite their efforts to test under

normal operating conditions, the units sometimes cannot be run under normal

parameters during the times at which technicians verify compliance. As a result, we

request that the section be changed to allow measurements “either at conditions

representative of normal operation under existing conditions or conditions specified

in the Permit to Operate”.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.3.10: District staff feels that the proposed rule

requirements of testing “with the engine operating either at conditions representative

of normal operations or conditions specified in the permit-to-operate” provide

sufficient flexibility to operators. District staff feels that testing “under existing

conditions” would not ensure that an engine would be tested under conditions that

are truly representative of normal operating conditions.

4. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 7.6 – Column Heading: ChevronTexaco has

several sources throughout the valley and may want to concentrate retrofits in a

given area due to logistic or operational reasons. We request that the first column

heading in the table be modified to read “Units to be in Compliance at a Stationary

Source or under Single Operator”. Such wording would allow operators to

effectively manage their compliance schedule by offering additional flexibility while

still obtaining the emission reductions at the proposed pace.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 7.6: District staff feels that the compliance

schedule as proposed, in response to stakeholders’ recommendations, already

offers sufficient flexibility to operators and that the proposed requirements could

allow operators to effectively manage their compliance schedule. District staff does

not agree that emission reductions would be obtained at the proposed pace.

Community Medical Centers

5. COMMENT: Rule 4702: As I understand it, Rule 4702 would require emergency

standby generators to be limited to no more than 100 hours per year for nonemergency operation. Currently, 200 hours per year are permitted. This reduction
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

44

has the potential to cause hospitals to become non-compliant by virtue of their

normal testing and maintenance procedures. This is a legitimate concern. Unlike

other industries, California hospitals are required by state law to test their

emergency generators every seven (7) days (Calif. Code of Regulations, Title 17,

Public Health, Sect. 70841, Emergency Lighting and Power). Futhermore, power to

emergency circuits must be automatically restored within 10 seconds after normal

power failure.

We are not aware of another practical and affordable emergency power system that

can meet the ten second requirement other than diesel engines. As a requirement

of our recently obtained ATC permits, we have installed particulate filters (by GT

Exhaust Systems, Inc. and CleanAIR Systems, Inc.) on each of our new Caterpillar

diesel gensets at the Community Regional Medical Center Central Energy Plant,

scheduled to become operational in April 2003. These filters were an unplanned

expense of approximately $550,000, including purchase, installation, structural

support, access platforms, design fees, and building permit fee from the Office of

Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). Due to the size and weight

(4,200 lbs.) of each of these filters, additional foundation and seismically braced

supporting steel were added to the building design as a change order.

Our concern for the 100 hour non-emergency limit is that we have no operational or

maintenance history for the filters. We currently perform weekly testing in less than

the 100 hours per year, but it is highly likely that a longer test time will be required

as the filters must heat up to a high operating temperature in order to ‘regenerate’

and burn the particulate into carbon dioxide and water vapor. It is highly likely that

we will require more than 100 hours just to comply with the state law for weekly

testing.

Because of the regulations above placed upon California hospitals that affect no

other industry, I respectfully request a special exemption to the 100 hour limit and

continue to allow 200 hours of non-emergency operation for hospitals.

It appears that the special needs of hospitals, especially those with emissions

control systems such as catalytic particulate filters, have not been addressed in the

drafting of proposed Rule 4702.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702: As ARB and EPA are currently considering control

measures for diesel engines, the applicability of Rule 4702 has been changed so

that Rule 4702 only applies to spark-ignited internal combustion engines.

Compression-ignited internal combustion engines that are subject to Rule 4701

would continue to be subject to Rule 4701. Rule 4701 allows standby engines 200

hours of non-emergency operation per year and therefore would satisfy the needs of

the hospital situation noted.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

45

Crimson Resource Management

6. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 3.13: “Major NOX Source – Any major source as

defined in Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), with a

potential to emit 50 tons or more per year of NOx.” Rule 2201 defines Major Source

threshold for NOX as 50,000 lbs. If your intent is to use Rule 2201 as your standard,

I suggest removing “with a potential to emit 50 tons or more per year of NOX”. If

your intent is to relax the definition, then you should add the word “and” between the

phrases.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 3.13: District staff intends that the applicability of

proposed Rule 4701 not change as a result of the change in the definition of Major

NOx Source. Proposed Rule 4702 would not reference “Major NOx Source” so the

rule would control subject engines irrespective of an operator’s major source status.

Rule 4701, Section 3.13 would be changed to read as follows: “Major NOx Source:

Any major source as defined in Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source

Review Rule), and with a potential to emit 50 tons or more per year of NOx.”

7. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 3.19: Can you remove the phrase “and not used

in conjunction with any voluntary utility demand reduction program?” Who cares if

industry uses an engine in conjunction with a utility demand reduction program so

long as operation is less than 200 hours.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 3.20: District staff feels that the requirement

provides relief to operators who do not operate their engines for financial gain. It is

consistent with District BACT and offset requirements.

8. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.1.1: Is the correcting of oxygen “on a dry basis”

identified in the specified test methods?

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.1.1: The commenter is referred to the test

methods for such information. Whether “on a dry basis” is specified in the test

method, or not, the limits are to be met as proposed in the rule.

9. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.1.3: The staff report specifies that lowering the

NOx limits on beam-balanced and crank-balanced engines as been accomplished in

other districts. Your previous reports indicate that Ventura County oil producers

converted almost all of the engines to electric when the limits were reduced because

the limits could not be met. The catalyst technology installed on rich burn engines

must be maintained at a high exhaust temperature; cyclic engines cannot meet the

50 ppm limit. No catalyst manufacturer will guarantee control efficiency especially

during start-up operations that may occur with engines that operate periodically. It

is possible to lower the limits to 200 ppm or 250 ppm but not any lower.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.1.3: This issue was addressed in the previous

staff report. NOx emissions measurements on several cyclic loaded engines in the
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

46

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin have shown such engines to meet the 50 ppmv NOx

limit.

10. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.1.4: Is the 15-consecutive-minute rule

consistent with test methods? Does this section mean that portable monitors must

test over 15 minutes? How often do the samples have to be taken over 15 minutes

to be considered a valid test? Are we going to be required to modify our existing

permits to add these conditions? This section sounds extremely onerous and may

be interpreted as forcing CEMS or PEMS units on existing engines.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.1.4: District staff has reconsidered the 15

consecutive-minute averaging issue and has concluded that emissions

measurements should be consistent with the RACT/BARCT Determination. In

addition, other California air districts’ engine rules require 15 minute averaging

periods for emissions measurements. Accordingly, all emissions measurements

shall be averaged over a period of 15 consecutive minutes to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable emission limits of this rule. Section 5.4.4 has been

changed to make the 15-consecutive-minute rule consistent with the testing

requirements of the rule. Existing permits that contain conditions that conflict with

the proposed amendments would need to be modified to add these conditions for

Rule 4701 purposes. Section 5.1.4 and Section 5.4.4 read as follows (the

corresponding sections in Rule 4702 have been changed as needed to reflect these

modified requirements).

5.1.4 All emissions measurements shall be averaged over a period of 15

consecutive minutes to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits

of this rule. If emissions are measured for more than 15 minutes, any 15-

consecutive-minute block average exceeding the applicable emission limits of this

rule shall constitute a violation of this rule.

5.4.4 An APCO approved CEMS shall comply with the requirements of 40 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, 40 CFR Parts 60.7 and 60.13 (except subsection

h), 40 CFR Appendix B (Performance Specifications), 40 CFR Appendix F (Quality

Assurance Procedures), and applicable provisions of Rule 1080 (Stack Monitoring).

11. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.1.5.2: What is the intent of the new verbiage?

Do the operating parameters have to be recorded by District personnel, source

testing companies, or by industry? What if some parameters change? For example

– field gas pressures drop due to production decline therefore loading cannot be

maintained, will retesting be required. Please clarify or remove verbiage.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.1.5.2: The intent of the new language is to

clarify the requirements of the section. The engine owner is responsible that the

requirements of the rule are met.

12. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.1.8: Which reformulated gas are you referring

to? The current reformulated gas or the new reformulated gas? It might be easier
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

47

to specify “vehicle grade, minimum 87 octane gasoline shall be used as fuel for all

gasoline-fired, spark-ignited engines.”

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.1.8: The reformulated gas referenced in

Section 5.1.8 is the gasoline approved and required by the state of California for the

particular date of concern.

13. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 5.4.3: Many companies are already using portable

monitors to verify NOx emissions. Wording should be modified slightly to adjust to

this condition. “Within 3 months of adoption of this rule, and once per quarter

thereafter . . .Section 5.1. Monitoring is not required the same quarter as a source

test is required. All emission readings. . . Permit to Operate. The analyzer shall be

calibrated, maintained, and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s

specifications and recommendations.” Protocol should not be approved by APCO

because the District may limit industry to analyzers the District currently operates;

this would limit competition and new technologies.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 5.4.3: The proposed requirements provide all

operators, including those that do not have portable monitors, three months after

adoption of the amendments to prepare for use of the monitors. The District has no

intentions to limit industry to analyzers the District currently operates or to limit

competition and new technologies.

14. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.1: Is this section required at all since all of the

compliance dates have passed. The intent of this section was for industry planning

and development. Any changes currently developed for engine compliance will

require a permitting action.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.1: This section is required as new permitted

engines would be subject to the requirements of this section.

15. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.2: What happens after rule adoption and we

only have two years of documentation? Will we get an NOV for not having five

years of documentation? The verbiage should allow for “catching up” to the five

years of documentation.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.2: Records kept prior to the effective date of

the five-year proposed amendment must be kept for two years. The five-year record

retention requirement applies to records kept on and after the effective date of the

proposed amendment. Compliance with the rule will be determined accordingly.

16. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.2.1: Can you modify the record keeping

requirements based on the category or engine being operated? Hours of operation

and fuel usage are only necessary for standby and emergency engines. Engines

that are operated 24/7 are not limited by time or fuel use. Please do not add record

keeping requirements if the data is unnecessary; many facilities are burdened

enough already.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

48

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.2.1: Recordkeeping is only required where

necessary to verify compliance. Hours of operation and fuel usage are necessary

for verifying that engines are operated as required and help confirm compliance of

emission levels.

17. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.2.2: The verbiage is redundant to the words in

6.2.1. One of them should go.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.2.2: District staff agrees, the proposed

language of Section 6.2 has been changed to remove the redundant language.

18. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.2.3: This section is mostly redundant to 6.2.1

and the required data can be added to the previous section. If you want to maintain

this section, I recommend “and at the end of each calendar year in a manner and

form approved by the APCO” should be removed. Submitting data to the District is

redundant and having data in a “form approved by the APCO” lends itself to

capriciousness by the District. Can you guarantee that industry will not be required

to modify permits to describe “form approved?”

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.2.3: The requirements of Section 6.2.3 are

specific for certain exempt engines and do not require as much information as

Section 6.2.1. Operators may need to modify their permits pursuant to the District’s

permitting requirements.

19. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.2: Should remove the phrase “or conditions

specified in the permit to operate.” The phrase adds a level of ambiguity that could

create a new District policy that adds requirements not intended in the Rule. The

sentence “VOC shall be reported as methane” should be removed; the sentence

implies that VOC’s include methane and ethane components which is contrary to

the Federal definition of VOC. The rest of the section should be removed because it

is redundant with section 5.0.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.2: The phrase “or conditions specified in the

permit to operate” was added in response to Industry’s specific request. District

staff does not see any added level of ambiguity. The requirement that VOC be

reported as methane is consistent with the RACT/BARCT Determination.

Converting VOC concentration measurements to a methane concentration does not

imply that methane and ethane should be regarded as VOC.

20. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.2: For engines that were using the 10%

provisions, when is source testing required on all of the engines?

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.4 would be added as follows:

6.3.4 The owner of an engine which has been part of a representative test group for

the 24 months prior to (rule amendments adoption date) and has not demonstrated
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

49

compliance with applicable limits in accordance with the test methods in Section 6.4

within 24 months prior to (rule amendments adoption date), shall, effective on and after

(rule amendments adoption date), demonstrate compliance with applicable limits in

accordance with the test methods in Section 6.4. Such compliance shall be

demonstrated within 6 months after (rule amendments adoption date). Thereafter,

such engine shall demonstrate compliance pursuant to the requirements of Section

6.3.1.

21. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.3: This section is redundant to Rule 1081 and

should be removed.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.3: District staff agrees that Section 6.3.3

contains some requirements that are redundant to Rule 1081. Section 6.3.3 has

been modified as follows: “In addition to other information, the source test protocol

shall describe which critical parameters will be measured and how the appropriate

range for these parameters shall be established. The range for these parameters

shall be incorporated into the I&M plan.”

22. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.4: This section is redundant to Rule 1081 and

should be removed.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.4: District staff agrees, Section 6.3.4 (“Submit

all source test reports to the APCO”) has been deleted.

23. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.4.4: EPA Method 25 analyses for NMHC as

methane, but does not exclude ethane compounds; therefore will possibly read as a

false high reading. Method 18 speciates compounds using GC/MS. Please identify

the correct source test or modified test for analyzing non-methane, non-ethane

VOC’s. Recommend, at minimum, adding the following language: “Methane and

Ethane constituents can be deducted from total emissions.”

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.4.4: Section 6.4.4 has been changed to read as

follows: “Volatile organic compounds – EPA Method 25A or 25B, or ARB Method

100.”

24. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 7.1: Is an emission control plan required with each

application for Authority to Construct? Should add wording to make clear either way

you decide.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 7.1: No changes are required as the compliance

date for Section 7.1 is past.

25. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 7.4: I don’t quite understand what is being said

with the new language. If your intent is that the equipment be in compliance with

District permitting rules prior to operation, just say so.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

50

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 7.4: The intent is to specify the requirements that

need to be complied with when an engine becomes subject to the emission limits of

the rule through loss of exemption after the adoption date of the rule amendments.

26. COMMENT: Rule 4702: Rule Titles “Phase I” and “Phase II” sounds a little cheesy.

Perhaps “Phase II” can be renamed “ARB Feasible Control Measures.”

RESPONSE: Comment noted.

27. COMMENT: Rule 4702: The staff report specifies that Rule 4702 “adopt all feasible

control measures.” The rule exempts engines in agricultural operations. If the

District does not consider regulating agricultural engines as “feasible,” you should

indicate why in your staff report instead of remaining silent on the topic.

RESPONSE: District staff believes that most operators are aware that state law

prohibits the District from requiring permits for agricultural engines and that

agricultural engines do not meet the applicability requirements of Rule 4701 and

Rule 4702. Most agricultural engines are diesel-fueled, and will be subject to

upcoming ARB and EPA controls. These engines are being controlled through the

District’s Heavy Duty Incentive Program.

28. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 2.0: Applicability should read identical to the

Applicability Section in Rule 4701. There is no need to add a level of confusion

unnecessarily. At minimum, please modify the phase “rated brake horsepower of 50

or greater” with 50 bhp or greater.” Common convention has the units following a

number.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 2.0: Section 2.0 has been changed to read as

follows: “This rule applies to any spark-ignited internal combustion engine with a

rated brake horsepower greater than 50 horsepower and that requires a Permit-toOperate (PTO).”

29. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 3.10: The phrase “emergency standby engine” is

redundant. Define as an “emergency engine” or a “standby engine.” Previous

comments from the District states, “District staff feels that the 100 hours allowed for

emergency engines is adequate;” however, the District response to EPA

deficiencies identifies 200 hours per year as being consistent with RACT. Please

show the data that lead the District to feel that 100 hours was adequate. Hospitals

are required to test engines weekly; is 100 hours adequate for their needs? The

potential emissions savings by reducing hours of operation on this class of engine

could easily be compensated by regulating only the largest agricultural use engines.

I also recommend removing all other limiting uses because they would not be

enforceable.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 3.9: District staff agrees that the phrase

“emergency standby engine” is somewhat redundant. However, District staff feels

that the phrase is beneficial as it is consistent with the terminology in the
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

51

RACT/BARCT Determination. The District response to EPA deficiencies that

identified 200 hours per year as being consistent with RACT was made in 1998

when the District was in serious non-attainment status. The commenter is referred

to the RACT/BARCT Determination, Ventura County APCD Rule 74-9 (Stationary

Internal Combustion Engines), and San Diego County APCD Rule 69.4 (Stationary

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines - RACT), for the data that led the

District to feel that 100 hours was adequate. See the response to Comment number

5 above regarding the engine testing requirements for hospitals.

30. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 3.11: Is this definition necessary?

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 3.10: District staff feels that the definition is

necessary for clarity.

31. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 3.12: Is this definition necessary?

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 3.11: District staff feels that the definition is

necessary for clarity.

32. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 3.18: Is this definition necessary?

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 3.17: District staff feels that the definition is

necessary for clarity.

33. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 3.23: Is this definition necessary?

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 3.23: District staff feels that the definition is

necessary for clarity.

34. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 4.2.2: The District should remove the verbiage

regarding electrical power generation because it is not enforceable. The 200

hour/year limit is sufficient.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 4.2.2: District staff feels that the requirements of

the rule are enforceable. The verbiage regarding electrical power generation is

consistent with the verbiage in the RACT/BARCT Determination.

35. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 4.3.1: Just say “emergency engine.” Add any

needed words to that definition; do not try to redefine an emergency engine.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 4.3.1: District staff feels that Section 4.3.1 clearly

states the intended requirements.

36. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.1.1: Is the correcting of oxygen “on a dry basis”

identified in the specified test methods?
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

52

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.1: The operator is referred to the test methods

for such information. Whether “on a dry basis” is specified in the test method, or

not, the limits are to be met as proposed in the rule.

37. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.1.4.2: What is the intent of the new verbiage?

Do the operating parameters have to be recorded by District personnel, source

testing companies, or by industry? What if some parameters change? For example

– field gas pressures drop due to production decline therefore loading cannot be

maintained, will retesting be required. Please clarify or remove verbiage.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.3.2: The intent of the new language is to

ensure that the percent reduction of an engine is measured under the same

conditions on a consistent basis. The engine operator is responsible that the

requirements of the rule are met. Testing of such engines shall be under the

engine’s typical operating parameters, loading, and duty cycle as documented.

38. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.1.6: Which reformulated gas are you referring

to? The current reformulated gas or the new reformulated gas? It might be easier

to specify “vehicle grade, minimum 87 octane gasoline shall be used as fuel for all

gasoline-fired, spark-ignited engines.”

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.5: The reformulated gas referenced in Section

5.5 is the gasoline approved and required by the state of California for the particular

date of concern.

39. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.1.1: Operators might not have hours of

operation or amount of fuel consumed from the previous year; can this be removed

or be optional?

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.1.1: Operators that do not have hours of

operation or amount of fuel consumed from the previous year would need to indicate

the lack of such information on the emission control plan.

40. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.3.2: Please explain how VOC will be tested as

methane while concurrently removing non-methane, non-ethane constituents to

meet the federal and District definition of VOC? This language should otherwise be

removed. The rest of the verbiage is redundant with other sections of the rule and

are unnecessary.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.3.2: See response to Comment number 23

above.

41. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.3.3: The section is redundant with Rule 1081

and other sections of this rule and therefore could be removed.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.3.3: District staff agrees that Section 6.3.3

contains some requirements that are redundant to Rule 1081. Section 6.3.3 has
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

53

been modified as follows: “In addition to other information, the source test protocol

shall describe which critical parameters will be measured and how the appropriate

range for these parameters shall be established. The range for these parameters

shall be incorporated into the I&M plan.”

42. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.3.4: The section is redundant with Rule 1081

and other sections of this rule and therefore could be removed.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.3.4: District staff agrees that Section 6.3.4

requirements are redundant to Rule 1081 and has removed Section 6.3.4.

43. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.4.4: EPA Method 25 analyses for NMHC as

methane, but does not exclude ethane compounds; therefore will possibly read as a

false high reading. Method 18 speciates compounds using GC/MS. Please identify

the correct source test or modified test for analyzing non-methane, non-ethane

VOC’s. Recommend, at minimum, adding the following language: “Methane and

Ethane constituents can be deducted from total emissions.”

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.4.4: See response to Comment number 23

above.

44. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5: This section adds onerous paperwork that

does not contribute to air quality. Will the District guarantee that a submitted plan

will be in lieu of required Authority to Construct applications. If the requirements are

going to be on the permit, why make industry put them in a plan also?

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5: To reduce the paperwork for engine

operators, the District will accept an Authority to Construct application as meeting

the I&M plan requirements as long as the ATC application contains the necessary

I&M information. Section 7.4 would be changed to read as follows: “The owner of

an engine subject to the requirements of this rule shall submit an I&M plan to the

APCO by June 1, 2004, or at least 24 months before compliance with the emission

limits in Section 5.1 is required pursuant to Section 7.6, whichever is later. The I&M

plan shall be submitted with the Authority-to-Construct pursuant to complying with

Section 7.6 as applicable. In lieu of submitting an I&M plan, the owner of an engine

may comply with the submittal requirements of the I&M plan by including all

information required in an I&M plan, pursuant to Section 6.5, in the ATC submitted

pursuant to Section 7.3.”

45. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.1: The most reasonable way for industry to

determine engine parameters is to use manufacturer’s recommendations or use

information based on source testing. However, even those source testing

parameters can not be stagnant because of high fluctuations of ambient conditions

like temperature. This requirement will only have two results: 1) industry will write

the procedures and parameters very loosely, trying to compensate for all

possibilities, or 2) unwary industry will paint themselves into an operating parameter

corner that is impossible to maintain. This section should be removed.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

54

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.1: District staff does not agree that the

section should be removed. District staff feels that operators would be better able to

comply with the emission limits of the rule by meeting the requirements of Section

6.5.1.

46. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.2: See 6.5.1 above for comments. Please

modify section to state “emissions will be monitored monthly.”

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.2: See response above. District staff feels

that the requirements are clearly stated as proposed.

47. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.3: See 6.5.1 above for comments.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.3: District staff feels that the proposed

requirements will better ensure the effectiveness of the I&M plan.

48. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.4: This is redundant to Title V deviation

reporting requirements. As the requirements for major sources are reduced more

facilities will be added to the Title V program. There is no need to add more

paperwork for no net benefit.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.4: As Title V facilities are already complying

with the proposed requirement, the requirement will not add any additional effort for

them.

49. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.6: This is redundant. Section 6.5.2 states

monitoring frequency. Procedures should be manufacturer’s documentation. You

are also not considering using third-party testing company’s to do monitoring. How

will a small company know if a third party is using the equipment appropriately?

What if they change companies? What if a company with an analyzer needs to hire

a third party because their unit is being serviced? Will the District require third

parties to be independently certified? This requirement should be removed.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.6: The requirements of Section 6.5.2 are

separate and distinct from the requirements of Section 6.5.6. The engine operator

is responsible that the requirements of the rule are complied with, even when a third

party is contracted.

50. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.7: See 6.5.1 above for comments. The data is

there or it is not.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.7: District staff feels that the proposed

requirements will better ensure an effective I&M plan.

51. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.8: Should be removed. What are the

requirements on the District for timeliness in approving the plan? As industry adapts
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

55

to this rule there will be numerous modifications to a plan – how will industry know

which is valid? Will the District guarantee a reasonable approval period?

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.8: Approval action on plan modifications

would depend on the amount and degree of complexity of the modifications.

Approval action on plan modifications would be processed as expeditiously as

possible. There are simple (revision date for example) techniques of identifying the

plan in effect.

52. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 7.2: Are emission control plans required to be

submitted with an Authority to Construct if the control technology has been

modified? Do new plans have to be submitted when control technology is changed

after compliance dates have passed? Please add the necessary verbiage (this has

been an issue in the interpretation of other rules).

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 7.2: Yes, emission control plans are required to

be submitted with an Authority to Construct if the control technology has been

modified. The intent is that engine operators provide specific information so that the

District can better evaluate the ATC application. Emission control plans are only

required for engines subject to the requirements of this rule and especially the

compliance schedules of Section 7.0 as specified in Section 6.1 and Section 7.2.

Once an engine is in full compliance with the rule and the compliance dates in

Section 7.6 have past, it is no longer necessary to submit an emission control plan.

53. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 7.3: This section is unnecessary. The plan gives

industry and the District the needed push to plan for the addition of control

technology. The verbiage causes extreme problems in the case of a transfer of

ownership; the new owner misses the deadline to add control equipment, but the

existing ATC’s cannot be transferred to the new company. Please remove this

section.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 7.3: District staff feels that the lead times are

necessary to ensure sufficient time is available for getting all the ATC information,

reviewing the ATC and performing the source testing. It is reasonable to expect that

some situations will develop that will pose some difficulties, District staff will handle

unique situations on a case by case basis. District staff feels that it would be too

difficult and counter productive to address all possible situations in the rule.

54. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 7.4: Any I&M plan compliance dates should

correspond exactly to the emission limit compliance schedule, because industry will

not know the details of new control technology until it is installed.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 7.4: District staff feels that it is reasonable to

expect that industry will know the details of new control technology when industry

evaluates such technology prior to purchasing such technology. District staff also

feels that it is preferable that the I&M plan and the ATC be evaluated together. As
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

56

some operators may not need to submit an ATC, Section 7.4 has been changed as

noted in the response to Comment number 44 above.

55. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 7.5: No notification should be required for

removing an engine. This action is contradictory with District practices for noticing

requirements when removing other equipment. This requirement may result in an

issuance of a Notice of Violation for electrifying an engine.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 7.5: Notification is necessary for confirming

compliance with the quantity of engines pursuant to Section 7.6 and for scheduling

of inspections. District staff cannot see where this requirement may result in an

issuance of a Notice of Violation for electrifying an engine.

56. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 7.6: This section does not give industry “credit” for

electrifying or removing an engine from service. If 3 of 10 engines are electrified on

6/1/05, 0% of the engines are in compliance. You need to consider engines that

were operating that have been cancelled. Base the total number of engines based

on permitted on 6/1/04 or an earlier date.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 7.6: District staff feels that Section 7.6 provides a

simple and easy method to determine the number of engines that need to be in

compliance per the schedule. To base the total number of engines based on

engines permitted on 6/1/04 or an earlier date would require operators to keep and

provide much more documentation in order to keep track of engines that have had a

transfer of ownership, been derated, etc. Operators that want “credit” for electrifying

or removing an engine from service are directed to consider applying for ERCs.

Engine Manufacturers Association

57. COMMENT: Rule 4702: As it stands, the SJVUACPD has not proposed feasible or

cost-effective emission control measures for diesel-fueled stationary engines with a

rated brake horsepower of 50 or greater. More specifically, proposed Rule 4702

would establish a NOx emissions limit for diesel-fueled stationary engines of 80

ppmv, which is roughly equivalent to 1.14 g/bhp-hr. Simply stated, this emission

standard is infeasible. Indeed, the corresponding Tier 2 and Tier 3 federal nonroad

engine standards (which are relevant because stationary engines are often derived

form nonroad engines) range from 3.0 to 5.6 g/bhp-hr, which standards are up to 5

times higher than what the SJVUAPCD has proposed.

Apparently, the SJVUAPCD is assuming that the owners and operators of dieselfueled stationary engines will be able to add advanced selective catalytic reduction

(“SCR”) exhaust aftertreatment systems to their engines to meet the 1.14 g/bhp-hr

standard. But the SJVUAPCD has presented no actual emissions study data to

prove that assumption. Moreover, the SJVUAPCD has presented no cost

effectiveness data whatsoever in support of the proposed standard. And, in fact, no

such data exist. The costs of equipping all stationary diesel-fueled engines with
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

57

advanced SCR urea-injection systems, even if technologically feasible for all sizes

and applications of stationary engines (which is doubtful at best), would be

prohibitive. Presumably, that is why the SJVUAPCD’s “preliminary” costeffectiveness analysis (Appendix B to the Staff Report) only addresses rich-burn

and lean-burn spark-ignited engines. But ignoring the cost-prohibitive nature of the

proposed diesel engine standards will not make the issue go away. To the contrary,

it simply highlights and confirms that the SJVUAPCD has proposed unattainable

NOx standards for diesel-fueled stationary engines.

Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, the SJVUAPCD needs to amend proposed

Rule 4702 so that it includes feasible and cost-effective emissions standards for

diesel-fueled engines. Supporting test data and cost analyses also need to be

included. In that regard, EMA recommends that the SJVUAPCD adopt the NOx

emission standard set forth in the OTC Model Regulation adopted in March of 2001.

That standard is 2.3 g/bhp-hr, and better reflects the NOx emission limits that

potentially could be achieved in practice on a relatively cost-effective basis.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702: As other control measures are currently under

development by ARB and EPA for diesel engines, the applicability of Rule 4702 has

been changed so that Rule 4702 only applies to spark-ignited internal combustion

engines. Compression-ignited internal combustion engines would continue to be

subject to Rule 4701.

Federal Aviation Administration

58. COMMENT: Rule 4702: After reviewing Proposed Rule 4702, we would like to

submit the following comments concerning the deletion of the low-use engine

definition. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) currently has an engine

permitted as a low-use engine at the Fresno Yosemite International Airport and the

proposed rule would change the classification of this engine. We would like you to

consider including language in Section 4.0 of Rule 4702 that would put this engine

in the same exemption category as emergency standby engines and engines that

do not operate more than 200 hours per year. We recommend that the language

that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has included in their draft Diesel

Particulate Matter Emissions Reductions regulation be included in Rule 4702. A

copy of the draft regulation is enclosed. The CARB actually included this type of

engine under the definition of “Emergency Use” because it operates in a similar

fashion as a standby engine. Specifically, we recommend the following language be

included under Section 4.0 Exemptions:

4.2.3 An internal combustion engine used to power airport runway approach

lights (ALSF-1 and ALSF-2 systems only) under Category II or III weather

conditions. This engine would be limited to 100 hours or less per calendar year for

periodic maintenance and periodic readiness testing. Operation of the engine other

than for maintenance will be limited to Catergory II and III weather conditions.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

58

The FAA does not expect that this proposed change will result in any significant

increases in Nox emissions. The engine operates for a similar number of hours as

the engines that are exempt in the proposed rule and it operates at a time of year

when Nox emissions are generally lower. The FAA requests that the air district

consider including the proposed change based on the following reasons:

1. This engine does not fit the classification of an emergency standby engine

because it is actually used as prime power when category II and III weather (low

visibility typically due to fog) conditions exist. FAA has specific regulations that

require that the engine power the facility during these weather conditions. Once

the Category II or III conditions have subsided, the facility is returned to the

commercial power source. These conditions exist periodically during the months

of November – March.

2. The engine does not typically operate more than 200 hours per year but the FAA

cannot guarantee that it wouldn’t exceed this limit. Since the operation of the

engine is entirely dependent on weather conditions, it is possible that the

operation of the engine could exceed the 200-hour limit. Since the installation of

the engine in April 2000, the engine has operated a total of 343 hours, which is

well below 200 hours per year. During 2002, the engine was operated 16 hours

for testing and 87 hours for actual weather related conditions.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702: The applicability of Rule 4702 has been changed so that

Rule 4702 would only apply to spark-ignited internal combustion engines.

Compression-ignited internal combustion engines that are subject to Rule 4701

would continue to be subject to Rule 4701. Rule 4701 would continue to allow lowuse compression-ignited internal combustion engines to operate 1000 hours per

year without controls. See response to Comment number 5 above.

Independent Oil Producers Agency

59. COMMENT: Rule 4702, Section 2.0 (Applicability): Please correct Section 2.0. (See

Response to Comment #13). Section 2.0 currently states that the rule applies to

“...any internal combustion engine with a rated brake horsepower of 50 or greater....”

In response to comments on the prior draft of the rule, the District agreed to revise

Section 2.0 to limit rule applicability to internal combustion engines greater than 50

horsepower.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 2.0: Section 2.0 has been changed as noted in

the response to Comment number 28 above.

60. COMMENT: Rule 4702, Definition 3.7 (Disaster): The emergency use of equipment

during catastrophes should be allowed regardless of the cause of the catastrophe.

The definition should be revised as follows:
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

59

Disaster or State of Emergency: A fire, flood, earthquake, explosion or other similar

natural catastrophe.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Definition 3.7: The definition of “disaster” is consistent

with the RACT/BARCT Determination. Operators that want to have engines for

other situations, such as explosions, should consider having such engines permitted

to be exempt under Section 4.2.2. Section 4.2.2 allows an operator to operate such

an engine 200 hours per calendar year for these situations.

61. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Section 5.0 (15 Minute Averaging): Revisions

included in Section 5.0 now specify that for internal combustion engines (IC engines),

comply with specified limits (Table 5.1) based on a 15 minute average. Emissions

measured over a short period of time can serve as a “spot check” for ensuring proper

engine operation. However, short term averaging periods should not be used for

determining compliance with emission limits. Emissions measured over longer

averaging intervals are more representative of normal operation and compliance with

required emission limits.

a. In response to comments the District has stated that the 15 minute averaging period

is required in order to correct deficiencies noted by the EPA. However, the

recommendations actually made by the EPA (67 FR 9212) only require that the

District not allow long term (i.e. greater than 24 hour) averaging.

b. The District has not shown why the existing compliance determination procedures for

determining compliance are inadequate. Many permits specify that compliance with

NOx emission limits be determined using EPA method 7E or require that compliance

be determined based on the average results of three 30 minute test runs. Neither

the District nor EPA has established any reason to revise the existing procedure.

c. The use of BARCT for existing stationary sources is one of the specified (feasible)

control measures. However, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) defines BARCT as

an emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable,

taking into account environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or

category of source. Any combination or control requirements providing equivalent

reductions may be used by a District.

In the California Air Resources Board (CARB) document entitled “Identification of

Performance Standards For Existing Stationary Sources: A Resource Document

(April 1999)” CARB states the following:

“...In developing their plans, each district determines which measures are

necessary to include, as well as the specific details of each included measure. As

guidance (emphasis added) to districts developing stationary source control

measures, the ARB publishes formal RACT/BARCT determinations, developed in

conjunction with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association

(CAPCOA)...
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

60

“...This identification of performance standards is intended to complement the

existing RACT/BARCT process while providing further assistance to districts in

developing or revising control measures for stationary sources within their

jurisdiction...”

“...In addition, we do not intend to require every district to adopt each

performance standard identified; rather, we expect them to evaluate the

appropriateness of the performance standards for implementation in their district.

As mentioned above, this will entail looking at district-specific factors such as

emissions, source characteristics, cost-effectiveness, and technology

availability...”

d. Neither the District nor EPA has established any reason to revise the

procedure for determining compliance. Consequently, IOPA request that the

requirement for determining compliance using a 15 minute-averaging and all

other proposed requirements related to 15 minute averaging be deleted from

the proposed rule. Compliance with the rule requirements should be

determined based on the average results of three thirty minute test runs

conducted in accordance with EPA method 7E or CARB 100 procedures.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Section 5.0: See response to Comment

number 10 above.

62. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.1.1, Table 1 (Cyclically Loaded Engines):

The District is proposing to reduce NOx emissions from cyclically loaded beam

balanced or crank balanced (oil well pump engines) rich burn engines from 300 ppmv

(15% O2) to 50 ppmv (at 15% O2). The information provided in the District Staff report

is structured in such a manner that casual reading could lead one to conclude that the

50 ppmv NOx limit proposed for cyclically loaded engines is required by EPA or CARB

(RACT/BARCT). However, neither the EPA nor the CARB require that cyclically

loaded engines meet a 50 ppmv NOx limit.

a. The Rule 4701 deficiencies identified by the EPA during analysis of Rule 4701 (63

FR 49053, September 14, 1998 and 67 FR 9209, February 28, 2002) do not

include any requirements or recommendations applicable to cyclically loaded

engines.

b. The USEPA Region IX “Technical Support Document, For Proposed Rule Making

For Rule 4701), actually recommends that cyclically loaded engines meet RACT

requirements for rich burn engines or that information be provided showing why the

limits are not applicable. IOPA has several comments on the USEPA technical

support document (TSD) referenced by the District.

i. First, the technical support document (TSD) was not subject to public review and

comment and EPA did not include any such recommendation in notice of limited

approval published by the EPA for Rule 4701 (67 FR 9209). If EPA intended to
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

61

mandate requirements applicable to cyclically loaded oil well pump engines, then

EPA should have identified the deficiency in the February 28, 2002 federal register

and should have provided an opportunity for stakeholder review and comment.

ii. Second, EPA recommendations for RACT are only applicable to engines

operating at major stationary sources. Non-major sources (small operators)

would not be subject to the EPA recommendation.

iii. Third, the recommendation in the EPA technical support document states that

the District can adopt standards for cyclically loaded engines, other than those

required for rich burn engines, upon finding that the control technology is not

reasonable available.

iv. IOPA believes that such a finding has been made by the California Air

Resources Board in the “DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE AVAILABLE

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT CONTROL

TECHNOLOGY FOR STATIONARY SPARK IGNITED IC ENGINES”. In the

document, CARB acknowledges that cyclically loaded beam balanced and

crank balance engines have unique operating characteristics. In the CARB

guideline document (page IV-5) it states the following:

“For beam-balance and crank balanced pumping engines, the

(proposed) NOx limits is 300 ppmv corrected to 15% excess

oxygen”.

c. The District contends that the reductions from cyclically loaded engines can be

achieved by equipping the engines with non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR)

systems and air to fuel ratio controllers. Apparently CARB disagrees. In the CARB

guideline Document it states the following:

“Cyclically-loaded (cyclic) engines including those driving the beambalanced or crank-balanced oil pumps and fueled by oil field gas have

characteristics that may affect the effectiveness of controls. These

characteristics include low exhaust gas temperatures (since the engines

spend significant periods of time at idle) and rapid fluctuation in power

output. The oilfield gas may contain significant amounts of moisture and

sulfur which may lead to formation of sulfuric acid which can damage

catalyst. The energy content of the field gas may vary effecting engine

performance. Because of the difficulties and potential cost of controlling

the emissions from field gas fueled IC engines driving beam balanced and

crank balanced reciprocating oil pumps, the emission limits proposed for

these engines are based on the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Rule

4701. For beam-balance and crank balanced pumping engines, the NOx

limits is 300 ppmv corrected to 15% excess oxygen. It is expected that

this limit for these rich-burn engines will be met by keeping the engines

properly maintained and tuned, and by leaning the air/fuel mixture. We
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

62

recommend that the district require replacement of these engines at the

end of their useful life with prime movers having lower NOx limits.”

d. The District’s proposed control measure would essentially require the removal of

cyclically loaded engines and the electrification of the pumping unit. Cyclically

loaded engines are typically used for pumping wells, which are remotely located in

areas where electric power is unavailable. Many of these wells have low

production rates and are owned by small oil production companies.

Neither the EPA nor the CARB require that these cyclically loaded engines meet limits

proposed by the District. Consequently, IOPA requests that the District retain the

current control requirements (300 ppmv 15% O2), recommended by the CARB for

cyclically loaded beam balance or crank balance engines.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.1.1: The control of these engines was

addressed in the previous Draft Staff Report. Staff reports have also identified what

EPA and CARB require the District to accomplish. As stated previously, there are

cyclic engines in the District that are already meeting the 50 ppmv NOx emission

level. In addition, electrification costs provided by an operator for these sources

demonstrate that electrification can be done on a cost effective basis.

63. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and 4702, Section 5.1.4: The procedures proposed in

Section 5.1.4 specify that alternative monitoring be conducted using 15 minute

averages. The sampling and purge times required for alternative monitoring using 15

minute averages will require more manpower and purchase of additional monitors.

IOPA believes that additional cost imposed on small operators is not supported by any

underlying information provided by the District. IOPA also believes that the additional

time required for conducting “spot checks” will limit the number of emission units

checked during the day and reduce the overall effectiveness of the existing program.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and 4702 Section 5.1.4: See response to Comment

number 10 above.

64. COMMENT: Rule 4702, Section 5.2 (Surplus ERCs); Source operators should be

allowed to bank surplus actual emission reductions in order to help defray the cost of

electrification. Please revise Section 5.1.3 as follows:

5.2 In lieu of compliance with emission limits of Section 5.1 an owner of any internal

combustion engine may elect to permanently remove it from service. NOx emission

reductions achieved by removal of an engine in lieu of compliance with emission

requirements of Section 5.1 shall not be available for emission reduction credit (ERC),

except for those reductions in excess of what would be required by this rule.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.2: The requirements of Section 5.2 have been

removed to help defray the cost of electrification and to provide incentive for operators

to achieve emission reduction on a more timely basis.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

63

65. COMMENT: Rule 4702, Section 5.3 (Continuous Monitoring): Section 5.3 specifies

that internal combustion engines greater than 1,000 horsepower and operated more

than 2,000 hours per year include continuous monitoring. Our comments on this

section are summarized below:

As discussed during the December 6, 2002 workshop (and as allowed by the EPA

Credible Evidence Rule), Section 5.3 should be revised to enable consideration of

other monitoring techniques.

5.3 ...The continuous monitoring system may be a continuous emissions

monitoring system (CEM), a parametric monitoring system (PEMS) or an alternative

continuous monitoring system approved by the APCO. A system other than a

continuous system may be approved by the APCO provided it is sufficiently reliable

and capable of providing timely information for determining compliance.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.3: For better clarity, Section 5.3.1 and Section

5.3.2 have been changed to read as follows:

5.3.1 For each engine with a rated brake horsepower of 1,000 hp or greater and

which is permitted to operate more than 2,000 hours per calendar year, or with an

external emission control device, either install, operate, and maintain continuous

monitoring equipment for NOx, CO, and oxygen, as identified in Rule 1080 (Stack

Monitoring), or install, operate, and maintain APCO-approved alternate monitoring.

The monitoring system may be a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), a

parametric emissions monitoring system (PEMS), or an alternative monitoring system

approved by the APCO. APCO-approved alternate monitoring shall consist of one or

more of the following:

5.3.1.1 periodic NOx and CO emission concentrations,

5.3.1.2 engine exhaust oxygen concentration,

5.3.1.3 air-to-fuel ratio,

5.3.1.4 flow rate of reducing agents added to engine exhaust,

5.3.1.5 catalyst inlet and exhaust temperature,

5.3.1.6 catalyst inlet and exhaust oxygen concentration,

5.3.1.7 other operational characteristics.

5.3.2 For each engine not subject to Section 5.3.1, monitor operational

characteristics recommended by the engine manufacturer or emission control

system supplier, and approved by the APCO.

66. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702, Section 6.3.3 (Source Test Protocol):

Requirements for test protocols (which are prepared by source test contractors) should

be separate from the I&M plan. The District will be able to verify that the engine is

operating in accordance with the I&M plan by reviewing the engine operating log.

Section 6.3 should be revised as follows:
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

64

6.3 Prior to any source test required by this rule, prepare and submit a source test

protocol to the APCO. The source test protocol shall identify critical parameters

included in the I&M plan to be monitored during the source test. In addition to other

information the source test protocol shall describe which critical parameters will be

measured and incorporated into the I&M plan.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Section 6.3.3: For better clarity, Section

6.3.3 has been changed to read as follows: “In addition to other information, the

source test protocol shall describe which critical parameters will be measured and

how the appropriate range for these parameters shall be established. The range

for these parameters shall be incorporated into the I&M plan.”

67. COMMENT: Rule 4702, Section 6.5.8 (Revisions to I&M Plans): The intent of Section

6.5.8 is to specify procedures for revising the I&M plan. However, the section as

written prohibits changes in the operation of the engine, unless prior APCO approval is

obtained. Changes in the operation of the engine may need to be made within

relatively short time periods such as days. Such changes do not afford time for

lengthy APCO review and approval. The section as worded is unworkable. The

section needs to be restructured to more clearly align the requirement with its intended

purpose.

6.5.8 Procedures for revising the I&M plan. Source operators making changes to

critical I&M plan elements must notify the District within 10 days following the change

and must submit an updated I&M plan to the APCO within 30 days of the change. The

date and time of the change shall be recorded in the engine operating log.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.8: For better clarity, Section 6.5.8 has been

changed to read as follows: “Procedures for revising the I&M plan. The I&M plan shall

be updated to reflect any change in operation. The I&M plan shall be updated prior to

any planned change in operation. An engine owner that changes significant I&M plan

elements must notify the District no later than seven days after the change and must

submit an updated I&M plan to the APCO no later than 14 days after the change for

approval. The date and time of the change to the I&M plan shall be recorded in the

engine operating log. For new engines and modifications to existing engines, the I&M

plan shall be submitted to and approved by the APCO prior to issuance of the Permitto-Operate. The owner of an engine may request a change to the I&M plan at any

time.”

Quinn Engine Systems

68. COMMENT: Rule 4702, Section 4.3.1: Hospital Standby Emergency generators need

to run more than 100 hours for maintenance, readiness testing and repair work.

Please keep the level at 200 hours per year for hospitals or at least place a time scale

on this requirement for hospitals so that an attempt can be made to change the

certification requirements.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

65

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 4.3.1: See response to Comment number 5

above.

69. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 4.2: There is a loop in the rule that does not clearly

exempt emergency standby generators. Starting at page 4702-4, paragraph 4.2.

Emergency generators must meet the requirements of Section 6.1. Section 6.1states

the requirements of Section 5.1. Section 5.1 has the emission levels of Table 1.

Please try to understand the small business trying to permit a standby generator and

they get stuck in the above loop. Please review before adoption.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 4.2: An engine operator subject to Section 4.2

would need to specify in their emission control plan that they are exempt from the

emission requirements of Section 5.1 and provide other required emission control

plan information as applicable.

Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District

70. COMMENT: Rule 4702: The proposed rule changes which would require

Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District (TCCWD) to install continuous

emission monitoring systems on the four Waukesha Engines at our Pump Plant

No.1 would create an expenditure of over $384,500 of taxpayer money, with no net

positive effect on the air quality of the SJVAPCD.

TCCWD has demonstrated, by source tests, that we operate under the proposed 65

p.p.m NOx. We test in house, once a month with our own Bacharach ECA450 to

document compliance. When in service pumping water, these engines do not

change load or R.P.M.. They are serviced every 1200 hours and then put back into

service at a set load and R.P.M. In this application, continuous emissions

monitoring will not do anything except add cost to maintain the monitoring system

and cost to report the results.

During tough economic times, California policy makers should analyze exactly what

their proposals would accomplish and at what price before saddling business and

taxpayers with another costly mandate. There is no measurable positive benefit by

adding C.E.M.S.

Cars, trucks, tractors and trains, and mobile sources are the polluters in the

Southern San Joaquin Valley, not well maintained, natural gas fired, lean burn

engines. T.C.C.W.D. opposes the C.E.M.S. requirement.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702: Operators may use an APCO-approved alternate

monitoring system instead of a CEMS. Rule 4702 does not mandate engine

operators to install CEMS. For better clarity, Section 5.3.1 and Section 5.3.2 have

been changed to read as noted in the response to Comment number 65 above.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

66

Western States Petroleum Association

71. COMMENT: Rule 4702, Section 2.0 (Applicability): Please correct Section 2.0. (See

Response to Comment #13) In response to comments on the prior draft of the rule,

the District agreed to revise Section 2.0 to limit rule applicability to internal combustion

engines greater than 50 horsepower. Section 2.0 currently states that the rule applies

to “...any internal combustion engine with a rated brake horsepower of 50 or

greater....”.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 2.0: Section 2.0 has been changed as noted in

the response to Comment number 28 above.

72. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Definition 3.7 (Disaster): The definition of disaster is

ambiguous. The wording seems to imply that disaster must result from a natural

cause. The emergency use of equipment during catastrophes should be allowed

regardless of the cause of the catastrophe. WSPA requests that the definition be

revised as follows:

3.7 Disaster or State of Emergency: A fire, flood, earthquake, explosion or other

similar natural catastrophe.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Definition 3.7: No change is necessary as noted in the

response to Comment number 60 above.

73. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Section 5.0 (15 Minute Averaging): Revisions

included in Section 5.0 now specify that for internal combustion engines (IC engines),

compliance with specified limits (Table 5.1) be determined using a running 15 minute

average. In the WSPA comments submitted on the June 18, 2002 draft version of the

rule, WSPA requested that the District continue to determine compliance using the

average results of three 30 minute test runs.

Emissions measured using a short-term averaging period (15 minutes) can serve as a

“spot check” for ensuring proper engine operation. However, short term averaging

periods should not be used for determining compliance with emission limits. Emission

measurements made over longer averaging intervals are more representative of

normal operation and compliance with required emission limits.

In response to comments the District stated that the 15 minute averaging period was

required in order to correct an EPA deficiency and was consistent with the

RACT/BARCT Guideline. WSPA believes that the District has failed to adequately

address the issues raised in the rulemaking comments. Consequently, pursuant to the

California Health and Safety Code (H&S) Section 40727, WSPA requests that the

District establish the necessity for the proposed revision.

1. In the District’s staff report on page 7, item (f), it states that the EPA recommends

a 15 minute averaging period. Even though EPA may recommend 15 minute

averaging, 15 minute averaging does not appear to be a rule approvability issue.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

67

a. In the August 21, 2001 document published by USEPA Region IX, entitled

“GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CORRECTING COMMON VOC AND OTHER RULE

DEFICIENCIES” EPA states the following:

“Rule compliance periods generally must be consistent with the applicable

NAAQS time frame. Since the ozone NAAQS is based on one-hour levels

recorded over 24-hours, for example VOC requirements (or NOx, emphasis

added) should have daily or shorter compliance periods”.

(USEPA Region IX, “Little Blue Book” For Correcting Rule Deficiencies, August

21, 2001; Compliance Periods and Averaging Times, page 7)

b. EPA has acknowledged that reasonable available control technology (RACT)

requirements and reasonable further progress can be met though regulations using

hourly, daily or in some cases even longer averaging periods. In response to

questions raised by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) the EPA

stated the following (see attached letter).

“Currently, EPA generally considers instantaneous, hourly or daily emission

rate limits to be RACT. If the South Coast can demonstrate that a mass

emission limit averaged over a longer period will produce equivalent reductions

on a daily basis, EPA would allow longer term averaging for RACT

requirements.”

Although EPA may recommend a 15 minute averaging period it is not a mandatory

requirement. EPA guidance states that longer averaging periods are allowable

provided emission reductions are maintained (i.e. enforceable) on a daily basis.

Based on the guidance provided in the USEPA Region IX “Blue Book” and the

guidance provided by EPA to the SCAQMD, WSPA believes that compliance with the

applicable emission limits can be determined using a one-hour average, based on

results of three thirty minute test runs. Continuous compliance with the rule

requirements can be established through periodic monitoring using a hand held

monitor as currently allowed by the existing Rule 4701.

2. The District has not established the necessity for requiring 15 minute averaging

since the District has not quantified any additional emission reductions obtained by the

proposed amendment. If the District believes that the proposed revision is necessary,

then the District should quantify the incremental reductions expected to be obtained by

the proposed revision.

3. The District has not shown why the existing procedure for determining

compliance is inadequate. The District has successfully used the existing test

procedure for ensuring compliance for many years. Many permits specify that

compliance with NOx emission limits be determined using EPA method 7E or require

that compliance be determined based on the average results of three 30 minute test
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

68

runs. Neither the District nor EPA has established any compelling reason to revise the

existing procedure.

4. Even though the proposed change may be consistent with the requirements

contained in the California RACT/BARCT guideline document, the change is not

required to comply with California requirements for BARCT. On page I-1 the guideline

document states the following:

“It is important to note that the determination is a non-regulatory (emphasis

added) guidance document with the purpose of assisting districts in developing

regulations for stationary IC engines.”

The use of BARCT for existing stationary sources is one of the specified (feasible)

control measures. However, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) defines BARCT as an

emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable,

taking into account environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or

category of source.

Any combination or control requirements providing equivalent reductions may be used

by a District. In the California Air Resources Board (CARB) document entitled

“Identification of Performance Standards for Existing Stationary Sources: A Resource

Document (April 1999)” CARB states the following:

“...In developing their plans, each district determines which measures are necessary

to include, as well as the specific details of each included measure. As guidance

(emphasis added) to districts developing stationary source control measures, the ARB

publishes formal RACT/BARCT determinations, developed in conjunction with the

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)...

“...This identification of performance standards is intended to complement the existing

RACT/BARCT process while providing further assistance to districts in developing or

revising control measures for stationary sources within their jurisdiction...”

“...In addition, we do not intend to require every district to adopt each performance

standard identified; rather, we expect them to evaluate the appropriateness of the

performance standards for implementation in their district. As mentioned above, this

will entail looking at district-specific factors such as emissions, source characteristics,

cost-effectiveness, and technology availability...”

The District does not have to require 15 minute averaging to satisfy requirements for

every feasible measure or BARCT. The District has not provided any documentation

showing that they considered District specific factors, such as incremental emission

reductions, improved rule effectiveness or improved enforceability. These issues need

to be addressed in order to establish the necessity of the proposed revision.

5. The specified procedure also conflicts with federal requirements at 40 CFR 60.13

which specify that the 15 minute averaging period is to be averaged with three other
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

69

averaging periods to determine the hourly average emissions. In addition, the

regulation states that a violation does not exist unless a three hour rolling average is

exceeded. Therefore, imposition of a 15 minute average is not necessary.

The overall intent of 60.13 is the development and collection of representative data

that can be utilized to determine compliance on a continuous basis. Periodic

monitoring employing short term averages may be used as an indication of proper

engine performance, but emissions measured over longer averaging periods are more

representative of the engines normal operation under varying conditions.

Neither the District nor EPA has established any compelling reason to revise the

procedure for determining compliance. WSPA believes that the District has failed to

comply with the requirements at H&S Section 40727 which specify that the need for a

proposed amendment be established. Furthermore, WSPA believes that the inclusion

of the 15 minute averaging period is prohibited by H&S Section 39602 which states:

“...the State Implementation Plan shall only include those provisions necessary

to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act”.

Consequently, WSPA requests that the requirement for determining compliance using

a 15 minute-averaging and all other proposed requirements related to 15 minute

averaging be deleted from the proposed rule. As discussed in prior comments, WSPA

believes that compliance with the rule requirements should be determined based on

the average results of three thirty minute test runs conducted in accordance with EPA

method 7E or CARB 100 procedures. Additional comments on other Section 5.0

requirements follow:

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Section 5.0: See response to Comment

number 10 above.

74. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and 4702, Section 5.1.4: As discussed previously, WSPA

requests that all references to requirements for 15 minute averaging be deleted from

the proposed amendments. The procedures proposed in Section 5.1.4 specify that

alternative monitoring be conducted using 15 minute averages. The sampling and

purges times required for alternative monitoring using 15 minute averages will limit the

number of emission units checked during the day and reduce the overall effectiveness

of the existing program.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and 4702, Section 5.1.4: See response to Comment

number 10 above.

75. COMMENT: Rule 4702, Section 5.2 (Surplus ERCs): Section 5.2 prohibits issuance

of emission reduction credits for surplus reductions made available through

electrification of engines subject to rule control requirements. Source operators should

be allowed to bank surplus actual emission reductions in order to help defray the cost

of electrification. Please revise Section 5.1.3 as follows:
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

70

5.2 In lieu of compliance with emission limits of Section 5.1 an owner of any internal

combustion engine may elect to permanently remove it from service. NOx emission

reductions achieved by removal of an engine in lieu of compliance with emission

requirements of Section 5.1 shall not be available for emission reduction credit (ERC),

except for those reductions in excess of what would be required by this rule.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.2: See response to Comment number 64

above.

76. COMMENT: Rule 4702, Section 5.3 (Continuous Monitoring): Section 5.3 specifies

that internal combustion engines greater than 1,000 horsepower and operated more

than 2,000 hours per year include a continuous emissions monitor, a parametric

(predictive) emission monitoring system or an approved alternative continuous

monitoring system. WSPA has the following comments on Section 5.3.

1. Most of the discussion on 15 minute averaging is germane to the proposed

requirement. The District has not established the need for continuous monitoring, has

not quantified any likely emission reductions resulting from continuous monitoring and

has not established a history of non-compliance which would justify the need for

continuous monitoring.

2. In the preamble to the Credible Evidence Rule (62 FR 8313), EPA states the

following

“...In addition, 504(b) of the Act grants discretionary authority to the

Administrator to prescribe procedures and methods for monitoring, and

provides that continuous emission monitoring systems need not be required if

alternative methods are available that provide sufficiently reliable and timely

information for determining compliance.”.

As discussed during the December 6, 2002 workshop, WSPA requests that Section

5.3 be more broadly structured in order to enable consideration of other alternative

monitoring techniques. WSPA request that an additional sentence be included in

section 5.3:

5.3 The continuous monitoring system may be a continuous emissions monitoring

system (CEM), a parametric monitoring system (PEMS) or an alternative continuous

monitoring system approved by the APCO. A system other than a continuous system

may be approved by the APCO provided it is sufficiently reliable and capable of

providing timely information for determining compliance.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.3: See response to Comment number 65

above.

77. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702, Section 6.3.2 (Source Test Protocol): These

sections specify that emission measurements be made under normal or permitted
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

71

operating conditions. For an emission unit, normal operating conditions are relative to

existing conditions. Consequently, WSPA request that respective conditions be

revised as follows:

6.3.2 Conduct emission source testing with the engine operating either at

conditions representative of normal operation under existing conditions or conditions

specified in the Permit to Operate...”

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Section 6.3.2: See response to Comment

number 3 above.

78. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702, Section 6.3.3 (Source Test Protocol): Section

6.3 requires that source test protocols include a list of parameters to be measured and

incorporated into the inspection and maintenance (I&M) plan. Requirements for test

protocols (which are prepared by prepared by source test contractors) should be

separate from the I&M plan. The District will be able to verify that the engine is

operating in accordance with the I&M plan by reviewing the engine operating log.

Section 6.3 should be revised as follows:

6.3 Prior to any source test required by this rule, prepare and submit a source test

protocol to the APCO. The source test protocol shall identify critical parameters

included in the I&M plan to be monitored during the source test. In addition to other

information the source test protocol shall describe which critical parameters will be

measured and incorporated into the I&M plan.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Section 6.3.3: See response to Comment

number 66 above.

79. COMMENT: Rule 4702, Section 6.5.8 (Revisions to I&M Plans): The intent of Section

6.5.8 is to specify procedures for revising the I&M plan. However, the section as

written prohibits changes in the operation of the engine, unless prior APCO approval is

obtained. Changes in the operation of the engine may need to be made within

relatively short time periods such as days. Such changes do not afford time for

lengthy APCO review and approval. The section as worded is unworkable. The

section needs to be restructured to more clearly align the requirement with its intended

purpose.

6.5.8 Procedures for revising the I&M plan. Source operators making changes to

critical I&M plan elements must notify the District within 10 days following the

change and must submit an updated I&M plan to the APCO within 30 days of the

change. The date and time of the change shall be recorded in the engine operating

log.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.8: See response to Comment number 67

above.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

72

WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM WORKSHOP HELD MAY 27 and 28, 2003

Rule 4701 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 1) and

Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 2)

General comments pertaining to the Socioeconomic Impact Analysis and responses

prepared by District staff to such general comments are included below. Specific

comments pertaining to the Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Report and responses

prepared by the Socioeconomic consultant to such specific comments are included in an

attachment to the Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Report. The Socioeconomic Impact

Analysis Report is in Appendix C.

EPA - No comments received.

ARB

1. COMMENT: General Currently, both Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 address sparkignited engines. There should be a provision in Rule 4701 to exempt spark-ignited

engines that are subjected to Rule 4702 or a provision in Rule 4701 that requires

spark-ignited engines to meet the more stringent requirements in Rule 4702.

RESPONSE: General Rule 4701 is needed for spark-ignited engines until all

compliance deadlines in new Rule 4702 have passed.

2. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 3.0 For consistency between Rule 4701 and

4702, we suggest the following changes to the definitions.

A. Definition 3.4 for Cyclic Loaded Engine should be consistent in both Phase 1

and Phase 2.

B. No need to define Diesel Engines in 3.6 Phase 2.

C. The following definitions in Phase 2 should be defined in Phase 1;

3.7 Disaster or State of Emergency,

3.8 Distributed Generation,

3.10 Exhaust Controls,

3.11 Flood,

3.21 Stationary Source.

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Definition 3.4, Cyclic Loaded Engine, has been changed

to be consistent in both Rule 4701 and Rule 4702. Although “Diesel Engine” is not

used in Rule 4702, the definition is provided to clarify that diesel engines are

considered to be compression-ignited engines and not spark-ignited engines. The

terms “Disaster,” “State of Emergency,” “Distributed Generation,” and “Exhaust
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

73

Controls” are not used in Rule 4701 so definitions are not needed. The terms

“Flood” and “Stationary Source” are used in Rule 4701 and definitions have been

added to Rule 4701 for better clarity.

3. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 3.0 For consistency between Rule 4701 and

4702, we suggest the following changes to the definitions.

The following definitions in Phase 1 should be defined in Phase 2;

3.7 Dual-Fuel Engine,

3.12 Low Use Engine,

3.13 Major NOx Source.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 3.0 These terms are not used in Rule 4702 so

definitions for them are not needed.

4. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 3.0 For consistency between Rule 4701 and

4702, we suggest the following changes to the definitions.

D. The definition in Phase 1, Section 3.20 – Standby Engines, Section 3.23 -

Waste Derived Gaseous Fuel and Phase 2, Section 3.9 - Emergency Standby

Engine, and Section 3.24 - Waste Gas should be consistent in both Rules.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 3.0 The definitions for the terms “Emergency

Standby Engine” and “Waste Gas” in Rule 4702 are consistent with the ICE

RACT/BARCT Determination. The definitions for “Standby Engines” and “Waste

Derived Gaseous Fuel” have not been changed in Rule 4701 in order to avoid the

possibility of an engine having to comply with more stringent emission limits in Rule

4701 as the result of a definition change. District staff intends that engines that

must comply with more stringent emission limits should do so in Rule 4702.

5. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.6 The provision in Phase 2, Section 5.6.6 that

requires the fuel usage to be monitored should also be inserted into Rule 4701’s

Monitoring Equipment section.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.6 District staff intends that spark-ignited

engines comply with the fuel usage monitoring standards of the RACT/BARCT

Determination in Rule 4702. As noted in the staff report and as the RACT/BARCT

Determination does not address compression-ignited engines, District staff will

address the requirements for diesel fueled internal combustion engines as a

separate project in the future after EPA and ARB have established their emission

standards for diesel fueled engines.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

74

STAKEHOLDERS

Written comments were received from the following organizations:

California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA)

Castle Peak Resources (CPR)

Independent Oil Producers’ Agency (IOPA)

Lindh and Associates (L&A)

Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District (TCCWD)

Vintage Petroleum (VP)

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)

6. COMMENT: On page 16, Table 10 of the Socio-economic Analysis, the costs of

Rule 4702 to the Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Oil Pipelines, Oil Refining and Field

Services Industry, as a percentage of profits is given as 7.4%. A portion of the costs

from Rule 4701 is still being imposed on these same members of industry. Those

costs should have also been included in this table. The CARB RACT/BARCT

Determination does state that cost-effectiveness should be considered when

imposing new rules on Industry. A review of these accumulated costs should be

undertaken to determine if some portions of this rule should not be implemented due

to Cost Effectiveness considerations. (CIPA, IOPA)

RESPONSE: Socioeconomic impact reports are prepared pursuant to the

provisions of AB2061 (Section 40728.5 of the California Health and Safety Code),

which requires an assessment of socioeconomic impacts of proposed air quality

rules. The state legislation authorizing the preparation of socioeconomic impact

reports does not specify that cumulative cost impacts resulting from the previous

rule and the proposed rule are to be addressed in the analysis. District staff

believes that the intent of the state legislation is to treat each rule adoption project

independently; thus requiring its own separate socioeconomic impact analysis.

Previous costs are absorbed by affected businesses over time and become part of

the market transaction for the affected products and services. Therefore, examining

the impact of the proposed rule in the current economic baseline is equivalent to a

cumulative analysis.

7. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 3.5 Engines with a horsepower rating are exempt

from permit. Please explain how a de-rated engine can be limited by permit

condition to 50 horsepower or less if a permit is not required for such engines.

(TCCWD)

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 3.5 There are two conditions for an engine to be

classified as derated and not require a permit: one condition is that the engine be

physically limited to 50 horsepower or less and the other condition is that the engine

manufacturer nameplate be changed by the manufacturer and reflect a rating of 50

horsepower or less. If an engine is physically limited to 50 horsepower or less but

the manufacturer’s rating nameplate is not changed, such engine is not exempt from

permit, since the nameplate rating is the basis for permit exemption.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

75

8. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.0 Several comments have been submitted to

the District contesting the assertion that cyclic loaded ICE can achieve 50 ppmv

NOx (reference Industry’s comments dated 4-1-02 and 7-31-02 and Comments # 9

and # 62 in Appendix A of the May 7, 2003 Staff Report). Excerpts from CARB and

EPA documents, acknowledging that there is no viable control device and that 300

ppmv is the achievable limit, have been presented as evidence. Industry reiterates

its opposition to the proposed 50-ppmv NOx limit. (VPI)

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.0 District staff has addressed these concerns in

previous staff reports and continues to feel that cyclically loaded engines can

comply with the proposed requirements in a cost effective manner.

9. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.0 At the May 28, 2003 workshop on the

Proposed Rule 4702, a consultant presented comments on the rule. The comments

presented were:

1. The Rule as drafted establishes different limits for different classes of engines.

• This provides economic incentive for users to choose the more polluting

alternative.

• The distinctions between the different types of engines are non-existent or

arbitrary.

Industry proposes a single lower limit based on the noted technology. Industry

contends that the emissions limits can and should be the same for all classes of IC

engines, including Diesels. (L&A)

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.0 As noted in the staff report, the proposed

amendments and proposed provisions of draft Rule 4702 have been developed to

correct the deficiencies identified by EPA and to meet the BARCT standards

contained in ARB’s Internal Combustion Engine RACT/BARCT Determination. After

considering the information provided by the commenter, District staff feels that the

referenced technology cannot be considered as an “achieved-in-practice”

technology at this time but may reevaluate as their technology is applied more

broadly.

10. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.1 Industry continues to assert that the proposed

Emission limits for lean burn engines are overly aggressive. The operator has not met

the proposed limits on every engine test and operates these lean burn engines under

highly specialized conditions; i.e. under nearly constant load, using natural gas with

consistent quality, the engines are located within buildings designed to protect the

engines from the elements, and there is approximately one engine mechanic for every

two to three engines. These conditions are not typical of many lean-burn engine

operations. (TCCWD)

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.1 Comment noted.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

76

11. COMMENT: Rule 4701, Section 5.1.4, Section 5.4.3, Section 6.3.2 and Rule 4702,

Section 5.2, Section 5.6.9, Section 6.3.2, Section 8.0 (Note: Several comments,

summarized below for brevity and to minimize redundancy, were received from

several commenters concerning the requirements for 15 consecutive-minute

averaging.) Industry believes that the requirement for 15-minute averaging for

portable NOx Box emissions sampling should be eliminated. Current Rule 4701,

section 5.1.4 clearly specifies that only ICE with continuous emission monitoring

systems (CEMS) are subject to violation for exceeding an applicable emission limit.

Minor emission excursions during periodic portable analyzer monitoring is not

commonly treated as a violation. Industry ICE permits have conditions stipulating

that if a periodic inspection reveals emissions exceeding the limit of the rule, we

have one hour to correct the condition or we must notify the District and schedule a

source test.

In the case of the proposed rule where concentrations are determined using a 15

minute average, both EPA and CARB require that at least three 15 minute test runs

be completed and averaged in order to determine compliance with the rule

requirements. However, Industry believes that compliance determinations should

be made over longer periods of time which are more representative of equipment

operation. EPA also recommends that compliance determinations be based on

emission measurements made over three, 30-minute runs. (CPR, IOPA, TCCWD,

VP, WSPA)

RESPONSE: Rule 4701, Section 5.1.4, Section 5.4.3, Section 6.3.2 and Rule 4702,

Section 5.2, Section 5.6.9, Section 6.3.2, Section 8.0 After discussions with

Industry and EPA, District staff has made changes so that these sections read as

follows:

Rule 4701, Section 5.1.4 and Rule 4702, Section 5.2 “All continuous emission

monitoring systems (CEMS) emissions measurements shall be averaged over a

period of 15 consecutive minutes. Any 15-consecutive-minute block average CEMS

measurement exceeding the applicable emission limits of this rule shall constitute a

violation of this rule.”

Rule 4701, Section 5.4.3 and Rule 4702, Section 5.6.9 “NOx emission readings

taken pursuant to this section shall be averaged over a 15 consecutive-minute

period by either taking a cumulative 15 consecutive-minute sample reading or by

taking at least five (5) readings, evenly spaced out over the 15 consecutive-minute

period.”

Rule 4701, Section 6.3.2 and Rule 4702, Section 6.3.2 “For emissions source

testing performed pursuant to Section 6.3.1 for the purpose of determining compliance

with an applicable standard or numerical limitation, the arithmetic average of three (3)

30-consecutive-minute test runs shall apply. If two (2) of three (3) runs are above an

applicable limit, the test cannot be used to demonstrate compliance with an applicable

limit.”
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

77

12. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.1 Industry understands that the proposed

requirement for Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) has been modified to allow

APCO alternate monitoring. The operator monitors operation of permitted IC

engines at least quarterly using a portable analyzer and monitors the concentration

of oxygen in the exhaust monthly. Additional operational parameters such as water

flow rate and engine RPM are monitored on a weekly basis. Will this system of

monitoring meet the District’s requirement for alternate monitoring proposed in Rule

4702? (TCCWD)

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.1 This comment is outside the rulemaking

process and has been forwarded to the District’s Permit Services Division for

response.

13. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.3 As discussed during the May 27, 2003

workshop, Rule 4702, the word “continuous” should be deleted from Section 5.6.3

requirements in order to ensure consistency with the other monitoring provisions of

the rule. (WSPA)

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.3 has been changed as recommended.

14. COMMENT: Rule 4702, Section 5.6.9 Emission monitoring requirements contained

in Rule 4702 at Section 6.5.2 conflict with monitoring requirements at Section 5.6.9

and Section 6.5.6. Industry understood that it was the District’s intent to require that

emission monitoring using a portable NOx analyzer be conducted quarterly, not

monthly. Please revise Rule 4702 Section 6.5.2 as follows: (WSPA)

RESPONSE: Rule 4702, Section 5.6.9 There is no conflict as Section 6.5.2 does

not pertain to the use of a portable NOx analyzer. However, for clarity, Section

6.5.2 has been amended. The proposed provisions of Section 5.6.9 require the

taking of emission readings with a portable NOx analyzer to be conducted quarterly,

not monthly.

15. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.9 Industry objects to the requirement for

reporting of NOx readings to the APCO. Industry maintains records of all NOx

measurements for at least five years. Such records are available upon request.

(TCCWD)

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.9 There are a very limited number of

situations where operators are required to report NOx readings to the APCO. In

most cases having such records available upon request is sufficient to comply with

Section 5.6.9.

16. COMMENT: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Section 6.2.1 Industry can’t see the benefit

to anyone from the additional recordkeeping requirements. The original statement

in 4701 asked for source testing, monitoring data, and other information deemed

necessary by the APCO. Now we need to include hours of operation, the type and
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

78

quantity of fuel used, and maintenance plus modifications in our logs. Industry

keeps maintenance records along with other information, but additional

recordkeeping requirements require additional staff time. These types of costs are

not included in the Cost Benefit Analysis. (CPR)

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 Section 6.2.1 The District relies on

records to help verify compliance with the requirements of the rules. In general, the

costs of keeping any additional proposed records are assumed to be insignificant

compared to other costs that operators could incur to comply with the proposed

amendments.

17. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.3 What’s the purpose for the last sentence of

this statement? There is no mention of an I&M plan in 4701, anywhere. (CPR,

TCCWD)

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.3 The last sentence was inadvertently

included in Section 6.3.3 and has been deleted.

18. COMMENT: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.3 The definition of critical parameters needs to

be identified prior to finalization of the Rule.

Industry recommends that this requirement be removed from Rule 4701 and 4702

as the term “critical parameters” is not defined or explained. Further, Industry

believes that the establishment of “critical parameters” is misleading, in that the

relationship of engine operating parameters and emissions is not well studied, and

cannot be established by a single source test. (TCCWD)

RESPONSE: Rule 4701 Section 6.3.3 “Critical parameters” were addressed in an

earlier staff report. For convenience, this is the definition that was previously

provided: “Critical parameters” are the characteristics that can be used in verifying

or in determining that an engine is operating properly and is in compliance with the

requirements of the rule. Such parameters include, but are not limited to, NOx

emissions (ppmv), fuel usage, engine speed (rpm), air/fuel ratio, and exhaust

temperature.” District staff feels that such parameters can be useful tools in

ensuring that an engine is operating properly.

19. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5 Sources will require written guidance from the

District prior to submittal of an I&M Plan. Industry objects to the establishment of

policies in place of rule making. (TCCWD)

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5 District staff will provide appropriate

assistance to operators as necessary to complete their I&M Plan.

20. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.1 Clarification from District rule making staff is

required prior to finalization of Rule 4702: The District should define what constitutes

“engine control parameters” and “engine operating parameters”. How do these

parameters correlate with emissions? To determine the range of operating conditions
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

79

and control parameters necessary to stay within permitted limits will require extensive

source testing. (TCCWD)

RESPONSE: “Engine control parameters” and “engine operating parameters are

the characteristics that can be used in verifying or in determining that a

control/engine is operating properly. Due to the different types of control

equipment/engines, what is typical for one type is not necessarily typical for another

type of control equipment/engine. For example “typical control equipment

parameters” for NSCR include, but are not limited to, exhaust temperatures before

and after the catalyst, and oxygen levels. These parameters correlate with

emissions by better ensuring that control equipment/engines are operating properly

and therefore not producing excessive emissions.

21. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.2 Clarification from District rule making staff is

required prior to finalization of Rule 4702: If a source elects to perform monthly

monitoring of NOx, CO and O2 concentration, will the District require monitoring of

engine operating and control parameters? (TCCWD)

RESPONSE: It’s possible that the District will consider a source that performs monthly

monitoring of NOx, CO and O2 concentrations as complying with the monthly

emissions checks requirement of Section 6.5.2, however, such determination will be

made on a case-by-case basis.

22. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.7 states that, “Data collected through the I&M

plan shall have retrieval capabilities as approved by the APCO.” During the May 27,

2003 workshop in response to questions regarding the requirement, the District

assured workshop attendees that they did not intend to require “electronic retrieval

or any type of electronic database or any type of on-line data collection. The District

stated that they just intended that operators maintain required records. In order to

avoid any misunderstanding regarding the requirements, Industry recommends that

the phrase be replaced by the following requirements: “be made readily available for

District inspection upon request.” (WSPA)

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.5.7 Retrieval capabilities will be determined on

a case-by-case basis. Section 6.5.7 does not specify that electronic retrieval or any

type of electronic database or any type of on-line data collection is mandatory for all

operators.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

80

WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT RULE 4701 AND DRAFT RULE 4702

VERSION DATED JULY 17, 2003

Rule 4701 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 1) and

Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 2)

Any general comments pertaining to the Socioeconomic Impact Analysis and responses

prepared by District staff to such general comments are included below. Any specific

comments pertaining to the Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Report and responses

prepared by the Socioeconomic consultant to such specific comments are included in an

attachment to the Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Report. The Socioeconomic Impact

Analysis Report is in Appendix C.

EPA - No comments received.

ARB

1. COMMENT: General Rules 4701 and 4702 should include a definition of

“California Reformulated Gasoline.” The following language is recommended.

“California Reformulated Gasoline – Gasoline meeting California Air Resources

Board requirements for motor vehicle fuel in accordance with California Code of

Regulations, Chapter 5, Article 1, Subarticle 2 - Standards for gasoline sold

beginning March 1, 1996.”

RESPONSE: General Rules 4701 and 4702 The definition for California

Reformulated Gasoline has been added to the rules as recommended.

Stakeholders

Crimson Resource Management

2. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 4.4 only allows engines derated prior to 6/1/04,

but your applicability eliminates engines that don't require a PTO. An engine

derated to less than 50 bhp would not need a permit, and would therefore not need

to comply with this rule. I recommend removing the section.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 As noted in the previous draft staff report, an engine

derated to less than 50 bhp but that has not had the manufacturer’s nameplate

modified would need a permit, and would therefore need to comply with this rule.

3. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.3.2 Please clarify, if previous source tests can

not be documented as uncontrolled, may the APCO accept manufacturer's data, or

would a new uncontrolled source test be completed?
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

81

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.3.2 specifies that “When representative source

sampling prior to the application of an emissions control technology or technique is not

available, the APCO may approve the use of a manufacturer’s uncontrolled emissions

information or source sampling from a similar, uncontrolled engine.” These situations

are handled on a case-by-case basis.

4. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.3 refers to alternative monitoring that is

previously mentioned only in Section 5.6.1; therefore, this section should reference

5.6.1.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.3 Any operator that operates an alternative

monitoring system will need to comply with the proposed requirements of Section

5.6.3. No changes to Section 5.6.3 are needed.

5. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.6 would be more clear if there was a section that

spoke to engines not identified in Section 5.6.1.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.6 Section 5.6.2 addresses those engines.

6. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.3 specifies that the operator is responsible to

demonstrate monitoring acceptability. This requirement implies that the operator

must "reinvent the wheel" each time an alternative monitoring system is requested.

I request language that allows for "good engineering practices" or "historically

acceptable data practices."

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.3 District staff feels that the proposed

requirements are reasonable and that the permitting staff currently use “good

engineering practices” in requiring and evaluating alternative monitoring. Previously

approved monitoring examples are available on the District website.

7. COMMENT: Rule 4702 I don't have a clue as to what you are trying to say with

Section 5.6.5. Is this for CEMS, PEMS, or do operators have to computerize all of

our maintenance logs for proper data gathering?

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.5 This issue has been addressed in a

previous draft staff report.

8. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.6 - Why do we need both the fuel meter and

time meter. Each measurement device may be needed to demonstrate compliance

based on the operators monitoring requirements.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.6 The meters are needed to help verify

compliance with the rule.

9. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.9 requires engines with CEMS and PEMS to

also do this monitoring. Has CARB or EPA completed appropriate testing

methodologies for portable monitors? Are there any State or EPA "certified"
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

82

monitors that have demonstrated accuracy and precision? This requirement should

not be included in the rule.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 5.6.9 District staff is not aware whether CARB or

EPA have completed appropriate testing methodologies for portable monitors, the

commenter is referred to those agencies for such information. District staff is not

aware whether there are any State or EPA "certified" monitors that have

demonstrated accuracy and precision, the commenter is referred to those agencies

for such information.

10. COMMENT: Rule 4702 In Section 6.3.2 VOC's are required to be reported as

methane. How are methanes and ethanes removed from the total VOC

concentration if all VOC's are tested as methane? As written, the testing will unfairly

punish those facilities with methane and ethane in their gas streams. I recommend

specifying a test method that eliminates these compounds from the VOC total.

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 6.3.2 This concern is addressed by Section 6.4

which specifies that “Compliance with the requirements of Section 5.0 shall be

determined in accordance with the following test procedures or any other method

approved by EPA and the APCO.” Operators can submit a test method that is not

listed that suits their situation for approvable. Such submittals will be considered on

a case-by-case basis.

11. COMMENT: Rule 4702 Section 7.0 does not consider companies that purchase

engines after the June 1, 2004 compliance date and prior to full implementation of

the rule. Could you add a section that states that "any operator that transfer's

ownership of an existing engine prior to the final compliance date shall submit all

required control plans within six months of the transfer of ownership."

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 Section 7.0 In order to handle this type of situation, the

following language has been added to Section 7.2: “The owner of an engine which

is subject to the requirements of this rule and which is acquired after June 1, 2004

shall submit to the APCO an emission control plan pursuant to Section 6.1 with the

ATC application for the engine.”
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

83

APPENDIX B

Cost Effectiveness Analysis for

Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines– Phase 2)

August 21, 2003
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

84

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS and

INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

Rule 4702 Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 2

I. SUMMARY

District staff has performed a cost effectiveness analysis and incremental cost

effectiveness analysis for the proposed provisions of new Rule 4702 (Internal

Combustion Engines – Phase 2) as required by the California Health and Safety Code.

New Rule 4702 is being developed to specify Best Available Retrofit Control Technology

(BARCT) emission limits and all feasible measures for permitted spark-ignited internal

combustion engines in the District. Cost effectiveness is the total annualized cost, in

dollars, of the potential control option divided by emission reduction potential, in tons, of

the potential control option.

Five general cases were analyzed for cost effectiveness and for incremental cost

effectiveness. The five general cases analyzed for cost effectiveness were:

1. upgrade an existing non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) control system for a rich

burn engine;

2. install a NSCR system for a rich burn engine;

3. install a NSCR system for a cyclic rich burn engine;

4. upgrade an existing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) control system for a lean burn,

engine; and

5. install a SCR system for a lean burn engine.

The five general cases above were analyzed for incremental cost effectiveness where the

existing engine was replaced with an electric motor. All cases for the cost effectiveness

analysis and incremental cost effectiveness analysis were analyzed at two different

operating capacity factors: 25% (2190 hours/year) and 75% (6570 hours/year).

In general, the cost effectiveness analysis indicated that the larger engines with the

higher capacity factor had the lower cost effectiveness. The smaller engines with the

lower capacity factor had the higher cost effectiveness. District staff feels that the annual

compliance costs are reasonable for the five cases analyzed. Although a few of the

results indicated a high cost effectiveness, such results are due to the low emission

reductions and not from high annual costs. The results of the analyses are at the end of

this appendix.

II. REQUIREMENTS OF THE ANALYSES

Pursuant to Section 40920.6 of the California Health and Safety Code, prior to adopting

rules or regulations to meet the requirement for BARCT or for a feasible measure, the

District is required to review the information developed to assess the cost effectiveness of
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

85

the potential control option and to calculate the incremental cost effectiveness for the

potential control option. Cost effectiveness is the total annualized cost, in dollars, of the

potential control option divided by emission reduction potential, in tons, of the potential

control option.

The incremental cost effectiveness is the difference in the dollar costs divided by the

difference in the emission reduction potentials between each progressively more

stringent control option as compared to the next less expensive control option.

III. COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

A. Cost Effectiveness Calculation

The cost effectiveness analysis was performed by calculating the difference (NOx

emissions reduced per year) between the estimated current annual NOx emissions from

engines complying with Rule 4701 and the estimated potential annual NOx emissions

from engines complying with proposed Rule 4702. Installed equipment capital costs and

operating and maintenance costs were estimated. Total annual costs were then

calculated. The cost effectiveness was calculated by dividing total annual costs by the

tons of NOx emissions reduced per year.

The annual current and annual potential NOx emissions were calculated using the

following equation:

B. NOx = (ppmv / K) x hp x 24 hr/day x 365 day/year x C x 1 lb/454 gram / 2,000

lb/ton

Where:

NOx = NOx emissions in tons per year

ppmv = NOx emissions in parts per million corrected to 15% oxygen

K = ppmv to gram/bhp/hr correction factor and

C = Capacity Factor correction value.

The value for K was taken from the EPA Alternative Techniques Document – NOx

emissions from Stationary Reciprocating IC engines, page 4-11. For NOx, corrected to

15% oxygen, these factors are:

Rich Burn: 1 g/bhp/hr = 67 ppmv

Lean Burn: 1 g/bhp/hr = 73 ppmv

B. Assumptions for the Cost Effectiveness Calculation

The more significant assumptions made in the Cost Effectiveness analysis are listed

below.

1. The engines that will upgrade existing controls are operating at the current NOx

limits in Rule 4701: 50 ppmv for Rich Burn and 75 ppmv for Lean Burn. The
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

86

engines that will install controls are operating at the following NOx limits: 640 ppmv

for Rich Burn, 300 ppmv for Cyclic Rich Burn, and 740 ppmv for Lean Burn.

2. The engines will operate at the proposed NOx limits in Rule 4702: 25 ppmv for Rich

Burn, 50 ppmv for Cyclic Rich Burn, and 65 ppmv for Lean Burn.

3. The engines operate on natural gas.

4. An engine controlled with an existing NSCR system or SCR system can meet the

proposed limit by changing the catalyst element with a more effective material.

5. Equipment has a ten-year life and annual interest rates are 10%.

6. Operators with existing NSCR and SCR control systems already have compliant

emissions monitoring systems.

C. Results of the Cost Effectiveness Calculation

The results of the cost effectiveness calculations are contained in Tables 1 through 5 at

the end of this appendix.

IV. INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

A. Incremental Cost Effectiveness Calculation

To calculate the incremental cost effectiveness, the difference in the annual costs was

divided by the difference in the emission reduction potentials between the more stringent

control option as compared to the next less expensive control option. The next more

stringent control option is to replace the engine with an electric motor. The next less

expensive control option is the upgrading or installation of an emission control system.

The difference (NOx emissions reduced per year) between the estimated annual NOx

emissions from engines complying by using the next more stringent control option

(electrification) and the estimated annual NOx emissions from engines complying by

using the next less expensive control option (emission control system) was calculated.

Installed equipment capital costs and operating and maintenance costs were estimated to

determine total annual costs for both options. The difference (total annual costs)

between the total annual costs for both options was then calculated. The incremental

cost effectiveness was calculated by dividing the difference of the total annual costs by

the difference of the NOx emissions reduced per year.

The annual NOx emissions and emission reductions were calculated using the equation

in Section III. A above. The amount of electrical power required to operate a motor was

calculated as follows:

KW = hp x 0.7457 kw/hp / Motor Efficiency
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

87

Where:

KW = Electrical power in kilowatts

hp = Horsepower of the motor

Motor Efficiency = Efficiency of the motor

The annual cost of operating an electric motor was calculated as follows:

Cost/Year = hrs/yr x Cost/KwH x KW

Where:

Cost/Year = Annual operating costs of the motor

hrs/yr = Number of hours per year that the motor is operated

Cost/KwH = Cost of kilowatt hour of electric power

KW = Electrical power in kilowatts

B. Assumptions for the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Calculation

The more significant assumptions made in the Incremental Cost Effectiveness analysis

are listed below.

1. The engines that will be replaced with an electric motor are operating at the current

NOx limits in Rule 4701: 640 ppmv or 50 ppmv for Rich Burn, 740 ppmv or 75 ppmv

for Lean Burn, and 300 ppmv for Cyclic Rich Burn.

2. There are no NOx emissions from electric motors.

3. Costs of connecting to the electric power grid are insignificant.

4. Per the RACT/BARCT Determination, maintenance costs are unknown and were

not included in the calculations.

5. Equipment has a ten-year life and annual interest rates are 10%.

C. Results of the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Calculation

The results of the incremental cost effectiveness calculations are contained in Tables 6

through 10 at the end of this appendix.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 

R

88

Table 1 RULE 4702 COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISRich Burn ICE Upgrade Existing NSCR Control

Power

Output

(HP)

Capacity

Factor

Current

NOx Limit

(ppmv)A

Annual

Current NOx

Emissions

(tons/yr)B

Proposed

NOx Limit

(ppmv)C

Annual

Potential NOx

Emissions

(tons/yr)D

Emission

Reduction

(tons/yr)E

Installed

Control

Equipment

Cost ($)F

Annualized

Equipment

Cost ($)G

Annual

O&M Cost

($)H

Total

Annual

Cost ($

50 0.25 50 0.09 25 0.04 0.04 3,375 549 102 651 

200 0.25 50 0.36 25 0.18 0.18 4,625 752 102 854 500 0.25 50 0.90 25 0.45 0.45 5,125 834 102 936 

1000 0.25 50 1.80 25 0.90 0.90 7,625 1,241 102 1,343 1500 0.25 50 2.70 25 1.35 1.35 11,750 1,912 102 2,014 

50 0.75 50 0.27 25 0.13 0.13 3,375 549 102 651 

200 0.75 50 1.08 25 0.54 0.54 4,625 752 102 854 500 0.75 50 2.70 25 1.35 1.35 5,125 834 102 936 

1000 0.75 50 5.40 25 2.70 2.70 7,625 1,241 102 1,343 1500 0.75 50 8.10 25 4.05 4.05 11,750 1,912 102 2,014 

A Current NOx Limit from Rule 4701, Table 3.B Annual Current NOx Emissions = Rated Output x Capacity Factor x Current NOx LimitC Proposed NOx Limit from draft Rule 4702.D Annual Potential NOx Emissions = Rated Output x Capacity Factor x Proposed NOx LimitE Emissions Reduction = Annual Current NOx Emissions - Annual Potential NOx EmissionsF The basis for the cost of the control system is the RACT/BARCT Determination.G Annualized Equipment Cost was calculated based on a ten-year life and 10% interest. The annual cost factor H Annual O&M Costs were based on information from the RACT/BARCT Determination and the Annualized EquI Cost Effectiveness = Total Annual Cost / Emission Reduction
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 

R

89

Table 2 RULE 4702 COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISRich Burn ICE Install NSCR Control

Power

Output

(HP)

Capacity

Factor

Current

NOx Limit

(ppmv)A

Annual

Current NOx

Emissions

(tons/yr)B

Proposed

NOx Limit

(ppmv)C

Annual

Potential NOx

Emissions

(tons/yr)D

Emission

Reduction

(tons/yr)E

Installed

Control

Equipment

Cost ($)F

Annualized

Equipment

Cost ($)G

Annual

O&M Cost

($)H

Total

Annual

Cost ($)

50 0.25 640 1.15 25 0.04 1.11 13,500 2,196 7,119 9,315 

200 0.25 640 4.61 25 0.18 4.43 18,500 3,010 7,819 10,829 500 0.25 640 11.52 25 0.45 11.07 20,500 3,335 8,819 12,154 

1000 0.25 640 23.04 25 0.90 22.14 30,500 4,962 11,319 16,281 1500 0.25 640 34.56 25 1.35 33.21 47,000 7,647 18,919 26,566 

50 0.75 640 3.46 25 0.13 3.32 13,500 2,196 7,199 9,395 

200 0.75 640 13.82 25 0.54 13.28 18,500 3,010 7,819 10,829 500 0.75 640 34.56 25 1.35 33.21 20,500 3,335 8,819 12,154 

1000 0.75 640 69.12 25 2.70 66.42 30,500 4,962 11,319 16,281 1500 0.75 640 103.68 25 4.05 99.63 47,000 7,647 18,919 26,566 

A Current NOx Limit from Rule 4701, Table 1.B Annual Current NOx Emissions = Rated Output x Capacity Factor x Current NOx LimitC Proposed NOx Limit from draft Rule 4702.D Annual Potential NOx Emissions = Rated Output x Capacity Factor x Proposed NOx LimitE Emissions Reduction = Annual Current NOx Emissions - Annual Potential NOx EmissionsF The basis for the cost of the control system is the RACT/BARCT Determination.G Annualized Equipment Cost was calculated based on a ten-year life and 10% interest. The annual cost factor H Annual O&M Costs were based on information from the RACT/BARCT Determination and the Annualized EquI Cost Effectiveness = Total Annual Cost / Emission Reduction
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 

R

90

Table 3 RULE 4702 COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISCyclic Rich Burn ICE Install NSCR Control

Power

Output

(HP)

Capacity

Factor

Current

NOx Limit

(ppmv)A

Annual

Current NOx

Emissions

(tons/yr)B

Proposed

NOx Limit

(ppmv)C

Annual

Potential NOx

Emissions

(tons/yr)D

Emission

Reduction

(tons/yr)E

Installed

Control

Equipment

Cost ($)F

Annualized

Equipment

Cost ($)G

Annual

O&M Cost

($)H

Total

Annual

Cost ($

50 0.25 300 0.54 50 0.09 0.45 13,500 2,196 7,119 9,315 

200 0.25 300 2.16 50 0.36 1.80 18,500 3,010 7,819 10,829 500 0.25 300 5.40 50 0.90 4.50 20,500 3,335 8,819 12,154 

1000 0.25 300 10.80 50 1.80 9.00 30,500 4,962 11,319 16,281 2500 0.25 300 27.00 50 4.50 22.50 47,000 7,647 18,919 26,566 

50 0.75 300 1.62 50 0.27 1.35 13,500 2,196 7,119 9,315 

200 0.75 300 6.48 50 1.08 5.40 18,500 3,010 7,819 10,829 500 0.75 300 16.20 50 2.70 13.50 20,500 3,335 8,819 12,154 

1000 0.75 300 32.40 50 5.40 27.00 30,500 4,962 11,319 16,281 2500 0.75 300 81.00 50 13.50 67.50 47,000 7,647 18,919 26,566 

A Current NOx Limit from Rule 4701, Table 3.B Annual Current NOx Emissions = Rated Output x Capacity Factor x Current NOx LimitC Proposed NOx Limit from draft Rule 4702.D Annual Potential NOx Emissions = Rated Output x Capacity Factor x Proposed NOx LimitE Emissions Reduction = Annual Current NOx Emissions - Annual Potential NOx EmissionsF The basis for the cost of the control system is the RACT/BARCT Determination.G Annualized Equipment Cost were calculated based on a ten-year life and 10% interest. The annual cost factoH Annual O&M Cost were based on information from the RACT/BARCT Determination and the Annualized EquiI Cost Effectiveness = Total Annual Cost / Emission Reduction
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 

R

91

Table 4 RULE 4702 COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISLean Burn ICE Upgrade Existing SCR System

Power

Output

(HP)

Capacity

Factor

Current NOx

Limit (ppmv)A

Annual

Current NOx

Emissions

(tons/yr)B

Proposed

NOx Limit

(ppmv)C

Annual

Potential NOx

Emissions

(tons/yr)D

Emission

Reduction

(tons/yr)E

Installed

Control

Equipment

Cost ($)F

Annualized

Equipment

Cost ($)G

Annual

O&M Cost

($)H

To

Ann

Cos

50 0.25 75 0.12 65 0.11 0.02 4,500 732 102 83

200 0.25 75 0.50 65 0.43 0.07 4,500 732 102 83

500 0.25 75 1.24 65 1.07 0.17 6,000 976 102 10

1000 0.25 75 2.48 65 2.15 0.33 14,900 2,424 102 25

1500 0.25 75 3.72 65 3.22 0.50 18,500 3,010 102 31

50 0.75 75 0.37 65 0.32 0.05 4,500 732 102 83

200 0.75 75 1.49 65 1.29 0.20 4,500 732 102 83500 0.75 75 3.72 65 3.22 0.50 6,000 976 102 1,0

1000 0.75 75 7.43 65 6.44 0.99 14,900 2,424 102 2,51500 0.75 75 11.15 65 9.66 1.49 18,500 3,010 102 3,1

A Current NOx Limit from Rule 4701, Table 3.B Annual Current NOx Emissions = Rated Output x Capacity Factor x Current NOx Limit C Proposed NOx Limit from draft Rule 4702. D Annual Potential NOx Emissions = Rated Output x Capacity Factor x Proposed NOx Limit E Emissions Reduction = Annual Current NOx Emissions - Annual Potential NOx EmissionsF It was assumed that the control system already exists and that the lower NOx limits could be met by upgrading the existin

basis for the cost of the control system is the RACT/BARCT Determination. G Annualized Equipment Cost was calculated based on a ten-year life and 10% interest. The annual cost factor is 0.1627. H Annual O&M Costs were based on information from the RACT/BARCT Determination and the Annualized Equipment Cos

I Cost Effectiveness = Total Annual Cost / Emission Reduction
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 

R

92

Table 5 RULE 4702 COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISLean Burn ICE Install SCR System

Power

Output

(HP)

Capacity

Factor

Current

NOx Limit

(ppmv)A

Annual

Current NOx

Emissions

(tons/yr)B

Proposed

NOx Limit

(ppmv)C

Annual

Potential NOx

Emissions

(tons/yr)D

Emission

Reduction

(tons/yr)E

Installed

Control

Equipment

Cost ($)F

Annualized

Equipment

Cost ($)G

Annual

O&M Cost

($)H

To

Ann

Cos

50 0.25 740 1.22 65 0.11 1.12 45,000 7,322 20,102 27,4

200 0.25 740 4.89 65 0.43 4.46 45,000 7,322 26,102 33,4500 0.25 740 12.22 65 1.07 11.15 60,000 9,762 35,102 44,8

1000 0.25 740 24.45 65 2.15 22.30 149,000 24,242 78,102 102,1500 0.25 740 36.67 65 3.22 33.45 185,000 30,100 117,102 147,

50 0.75 740 3.67 65 0.32 3.35 45,000 7,322 20,102 27,4

200 0.75 740 14.67 65 1.29 13.38 45,000 7,322 26,102 33,4500 0.75 740 36.67 65 3.22 33.45 60,000 9,762 35,102 44,8

1000 0.75 740 73.35 65 6.44 66.91 149,000 24,242 78,102 102,1500 0.75 740 110.02 65 9.66 100.36 185,000 30,100 117,102 147,

A Current NOx Limit from Rule 4701, Table 1.B Annual Current NOx Emissions = Rated Output x Capacity Factor x Current NOx LimitC Proposed NOx Limit from draft Rule 4702.D Annual Potential NOx Emissions = Rated Output x Capacity Factor x Proposed NOx LimitE Emissions Reduction = Annual Current NOx Emissions - Annual Potential NOx EmissionsF The basis for the cost of the control system is the RACT/BARCT Determination.G Annualized Equipment Cost was calculated based on a ten-year life and 10% interest. The annual cost factor H Annual O&M Costs were based on information from the RACT/BARCT Determination and the Annualized EquI Cost Effectiveness = Total Annual Cost / Emission Reduction
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 

R

93

Table 6 RULE 4702 INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISRich Burn ICE - Upgrade NSCR vs Electrification

Power OutputCapacity FaCurrent NOx Lim

(ppmv)A

Elect. Motor EmissioReduction (tons/yr)

NSCR EmissionReduction (tons/yr

Difference in EmisReduction (tons/yr

Elect. Motor Total Cost ($)

NSCR Total AnnCost ($)

DiffeCost 

50 0.25 50 0.09 0.04 0.04 12,520 651 

200 0.25 50 0.36 0.18 0.18 40,138 854 500 0.25 50 0.90 0.45 0.45 93,114 936 

1000 0.25 50 1.80 0.90 0.90 189,433 1,343 

50 0.75 50 0.27 0.13 0.13 28,578 651 

200 0.75 50 1.08 0.54 0.54 104,373 854 500 0.75 50 2.70 1.35 1.35 253,701 936 

1000 0.75 50 5.40 2.70 2.70 510,606 1,343 

A Current NOx Limit from Rule 4701, Table 3.B Emission Reduction based on a proposed NOx limit of 25 ppmv from draft Rule 4702.C Difference in Emission Reduction = Elect Motor Emission Reduction - NSCR Emission ReductionD Difference in Total Annual Cost = Elect Motor Total Annual Cost - NSCR Total Annual CostE Incremental Cost Effectiveness = Difference in Total Annual Cost / Difference in Emission Reduction
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 

R

94

Table 7 RULE 4702 INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISRich Burn ICE - Install NSCR vs Electrification

Power

Output (HP)

Capacity

Factor

Current NOx

Limit (ppmv)A

Elect. Motor

Emission Reduction

(tons/yr)

NSCR Emission

Reduction (tons/yr)B

Difference in

Emission Reduction

(tons/yr)C

Elect. Motor

Total Annual

Cost ($)

NSCR Total

Annual Cost ($)

50 0.25 640 1.15 1.11 0.04 12,520 9,315 

200 0.25 640 4.61 4.43 0.18 40,138 10,829 500 0.25 640 11.52 11.07 0.45 93,114 12,154 

1000 0.25 640 23.04 22.14 0.90 189,433 16,281 

50 0.75 640 3.46 3.32 0.13 28,578 9,315 

200 0.75 640 13.82 13.28 0.54 104,373 10,829 500 0.75 640 34.56 33.21 1.35 253,701 12,154 

1000 0.75 640 69.12 66.42 2.70 510,606 16,281 

A Current NOx Limit from Rule 4701, Table 1.B Emission Reduction based on a proposed NOx limit of 25 ppmv from draft Rule 4702.C Difference in Emission Reduction = Elect Motor Emission Reduction - NSCR Emission ReductionD Difference in Total Annual Cost = Elect Motor Total Annual Cost - NSCR Total Annual CostE Incremental Cost Effectiveness = Difference in Total Annual Cost / Difference in Emission Reduction
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 

R

95

Table 8 RULE 4702 INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISCyclic Rich Burn ICE - Install NSCR vs Electrification

Power

Output (HP)

Capacity

Factor

Current NOx

Limit (ppmv)A

Elect. Motor

Emission Reduction

(tons/yr)

NSCR Emission

Reduction (tons/yr)B

Difference in

Emission Reduction

(tons/yr)C

Elect. Motor

Total Annual

Cost ($)

NSCR Total

Annual Cost ($)

50 0.25 300 0.54 0.45 0.09 12,520 9,315 

200 0.25 300 2.16 1.80 0.36 40,138 10,829 500 0.25 300 5.40 4.50 0.90 93,114 12,154 

1000 0.25 300 10.80 9.00 1.80 189,433 16,281 

50 0.75 300 1.62 1.35 0.27 28,578 9,315 

200 0.75 300 6.48 5.40 1.08 104,373 10,829 500 0.75 300 16.20 13.50 2.70 253,701 12,154 

1000 0.75 300 32.40 27.00 5.40 510,606 16,281 

A Current NOx Limit from Rule 4701, Table 3.B Emission Reduction based on a proposed NOx limit of 50 ppmv from draft Rule 4702.C Difference in Emission Reduction = Elect Motor Emission Reduction - NSCR Emission ReductionD Difference in Total Annual Cost = Elect Motor Total Annual Cost - NSCR Total Annual CostE Incremental Cost Effectiveness = Difference in Total Annual Cost / Difference in Emission Reduction
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 

R

96

Table 9 RULE 4702 INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISLean Burn ICE - Upgrade SCR vs Electrification

Power

Output (HP)

Capacity

Factor

Current NOx

Limit (ppmv)A

Elect. Motor

Emission Reduction

(tons/yr)

SCR Emission

Reduction (tons/yr)B

Difference in

Emission Reduction

(tons/yr)C

Elect. Motor Total

Annual Cost ($)

SCR Total

Annual Cost

($)

50 0.25 75 0.12 0.02 0.11 12,520 834 

200 0.25 75 0.50 0.07 0.43 40,138 834 500 0.25 75 1.24 0.17 1.07 93,114 1,078 

1000 0.25 75 2.48 0.33 2.15 189,433 2,526 

50 0.75 75 0.37 0.05 0.32 28,578 834 

200 0.75 75 1.49 0.20 1.29 104,373 834 500 0.75 75 3.72 0.50 3.22 253,701 1,078 

1000 0.75 75 7.43 0.99 6.44 510,606 2,526 

A Current NOx Limit from Rule 4701, Table 3.B Emission Reduction based on a proposed NOx limit of 65 ppmv from draft Rule 4702.C Difference in Emission Reduction = Elect Motor Emission Reduction - SCR Emission ReductionD Difference in Total Annual Cost = Elect Motor Total Annual Cost - SCR Total Annual CostE Incremental Cost Effectiveness = Difference in Total Annual Cost / Difference in Emission Reduction
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 

R

97

Table 10 RULE 4702 INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISLean Burn ICE - Install SCR vs Electrification

Power

Output (HP)

Capacity

Factor

Current NOx

Limit (ppmv)A

Elect. Motor

Emission Reduction

(tons/yr)

SCR Emission

Reduction (tons/yr)B

Difference in

Emission Reduction

(tons/yr)C

Elect. Motor

Total Annual

Cost ($)

SCR Total

Annual Cost

($)

Diffe

An

50 0.25 740 1.22 1.12 0.11 12,520 27,424 

200 0.25 740 4.89 4.46 0.43 40,138 33,424 500 0.25 740 12.22 11.15 1.07 93,114 44,864 

1000 0.25 740 24.45 22.30 2.15 189,433 102,344 

50 0.75 740 3.67 3.35 0.32 28,578 27,424 

200 0.75 740 14.67 13.38 1.29 104,373 33,424 500 0.75 740 36.67 33.45 3.22 253,701 44,864 

1000 0.75 740 73.35 66.91 6.44 510,606 102,344 

A Current NOx Limit from Rule 4701, Table 1.B Emission Reduction based on a proposed NOx limit of 65 ppmv from draft Rule 4702.C Difference in Emission Reduction = Elect Motor Emission Reduction - SCR Emission ReductionD Difference in Total Annual Cost = Elect Motor Total Annual Cost - SCR Total Annual CostE Incremental Cost Effectiveness = Difference in Total Annual Cost / Difference in Emission Reduction
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

98

APPENDIX C

Socioeconomic Impact Analysis

Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 2)

July 17, 2003
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

99

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

DRAFT RULE 4702:

INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES – PHASE 2

3 JULY 2003

Prepared for

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue

Fresno, CA 93726

Prepared by

Applied Development Economics, Inc.

2029 University Avenue • Berkeley, California 94704 • (510) 548-5912

1029 J Street, Suite 310 • Sacramento, California 95814 • (916) 441-0323

www.adeusa.com
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

100

CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary.................................................................... 102

2. Introduction ................................................................................ 104

3. Description of Proposed Rules................................................ 105

4. Methodology ............................................................................... 106

5. Industries Affected by Rule 4702............................................. 107

5.1 Regional Economic Trends.................................................... 107

5.2 Description of Affected Industries........................................ 108

5. 3 Economic Characteristics of Affected Establishments..... 109

5.4 Size of Industry by Employment........................................... 112

6. Socioeconomic Impacts............................................................. 114

6.1 Compliance Cost Estimates.................................................... 114

6.2 Business Response To Compliance Costs............................ 114

6.3 Impact Analysis......................................................................... 114

6.4 Job Creation Attributable To Draft Rule 4702.................... 116

Attachment 1: Specific Public Comments And Responses To

Draft Rule 4702 ......................................................................... 118

Attachment 2: List of Sic Codes Affected by Draft Rule 4702

...................................................................................................... 120

FIGURE 1

Map of the San Joaquin Valley Unified

Air Pollution Control District ..................................................... 5

TABLES

Table 1 Population Growth: San Joaquin Valley Region, 1990

- 2000............................................................................................... 8

Table 2 Employment Profile of The San Joaquin Valley

Region 1995 - 2000 ....................................................................... 9

Table 3 Employment Trends: Industries Affected by Draft

Rule 4702...................................................................................... 10

Table 4 Number of San Joaquin Valley Industries Affected by

Rule 4702 General Categories of Industries Affected by

Proposed Rule Changes.............................................................. 12
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

101

Table 5 Comparison of Affected San Joaquin Valley

Industries Versus

Region and State.......................................................................... 13

Table 6 Comparison of Employment In Affected San Joaquin

Valley Industries Versus Region and State .............................. 13

Table 7 Measure of Productivity: Sales-Shipments per

Employee...................................................................................... 14

Table 8 Distribution of Industries Affected by Rule 4702 by

Size

of Establishment ......................................................................... 15

Table 9 Annual Compliance Cost .................................................. 16

Table 10 Socioeconomic Impacts of Rule 4702........................... 18

Table 11 Worst Case Scenario: Employment Impacts of Rule

4702............................................................................................... 19

Table 12 Employment Impacts of Rule 4702............................... 21
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

102

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of Draft Rule 4702 is to limit oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon

monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from internal

combustion engines (ICE), and to help the San Joaquin Valley region in meeting

federal and state health-based ozone standards. Draft Rule 4702 would apply to

internal combustion engines (ICE) with a rated brake horsepower of 50 or greater.

Draft Rule 4702 has the potential of affecting 114 establishments in a broad set of

industries. To satisfy the intent of the draft rule changes, establishments will need to

purchase equipment and incur operational costs that would result in annual

expenditures of $6.7 million. This aggregate expenditure includes capital costs,

which are annualized over a ten-year period at 10 percent interest. This cost

represents an estimated 6.2 percent of profits for affected industries, with some

business categories experiencing higher cost impacts than others.

The analysis shows that the 114 establishments employ an estimated 4,863

workers. These industries generate an estimated $2.4 billion in sales and $199.8

million in wages. One-third of all workers (1,669) affected by Draft Rule 4702 are

in crude oil and gas industrial category. The bulk of employees affected by the

draft rule are in the “Other Industrial Category.” Comprised of a wide variety of

industries, such as warehousing, trucking, industrial sand production, farm supplies

and business services, to name a few industries, the “Other Industrial Category”

employs an estimated 1,950 workers, or 41 percent of all workers in industries

affected by Draft Rule 4702.

In the worst case scenario, the analysis shows that implementation of Draft Rule

4702 could result in the loss of at most seven jobs. The loss of seven jobs will

induce the loss of another seven jobs through regional economic multiplier effects,

for a total loss of 14 jobs in the worst case scenario. The analysis concludes that

the cost of rule compliance could result in small rate increases for some water and

sewer customers. There is also the potential for some very small profit loss. Neither

of these impacts would have significant economic effects within the District.

The analysis also shows that an estimated five (5) jobs will be directly created as a

result of Draft Rule 4702. Businesses in the region that sell and service equipment

required by the SJVUAPCD should experience an increase in demand for their

products, as a result of the draft rule. To fulfill this demand, these businesses may

have to increase their respective workforce.

This report is a revision to the original draft report, which was submitted to the

SJVUAPCD on April 8, 2003. The SJVUAPCD provided an opportunity for

stakeholders, including businesses and trade associations affected by Draft Rule

4702, to review, ask questions about and comment on the socioeconomic impact

analysis. This report includes suggestions and comments made by stakeholders

who attended SJVUAPCD-facilitated workshops on the original socioeconomic

impact report, as well as suggestions and comments transmitted by phone, fax or

e-mail. This report also includes responses to the comments and questions (see
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

103

Attachment 1).
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

104

2. INTRODUCTION

This report describes the socio-economic impacts of Draft Rule 4702, which is

intended to assist the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) in attaining the federal

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) standard for ozone. The purpose of

Draft Rule 4702 is to limit NOx, CO, and VOC emissions from internal combustion

engines (ICE). Following this introduction, the report summarizes Draft Rule 4702 and

describes the methodology for the analysis. After this, the report describes the

economic characteristics of businesses and industries affected by the draft rule. The

fifth section analyzes the socio-economic impacts of Draft Rule 4702. The analysis of

this report is based on the draft version of Rule 4702, dated November 21, 2002. The

report is prepared pursuant to the provisions of AB2051 (Section 40728.5 of the

California Health and Safety Code), which requires an assessment of socioeconomic

impacts of proposed air quality rules.

The findings in this report can assist San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control

District (SJVUAPCD) staff in understanding the socioeconomic impacts of Draft Rule

4702, and can assist staff in preparing a refined version of the rule. A final draft rule

and staff report will be published prior to a public hearing to consider adoption of the

rules by the District Governing Board. District staff intends to submit the amendments

to the District Governing Board in the second quarter of 2003 to ensure that the EPA

has sufficient time to review and approve Rule 4702 before the expiration of the

October 1, 2003 sanction deadline.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

105

3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RULES

The purpose of Draft Rule 4702 is to limit oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide

(CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from internal combustion

engines (ICE), and to help the San Joaquin Valley region in meeting federal and state

health-based ozone standards. Draft Rule 4702 would apply to internal combustion

engines (ICE) with a rated brake horsepower of 50 or greater. The rule contains

requirements for NOx, VOC and CO emission limits, periodic source testing,

monitoring requirements, and record keeping.

In December 2001, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) was re-classified from a

serious to severe non-attainment for the health-based one-hour National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. The reclassification was due to the SJVAB’s

failure to achieve attainment of the standards by the federally-mandated deadline of

November 15, 1999. The new deadline for attainment of the standards is November

15, 2005.

Because of the severe non-attainment reclassification, the SJVUAPCD is required to

implement measures as expeditiously as practical in order to attain the NAAQS by

reducing ozone-forming emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of

nitrogen (NOx). The California Clean Air Act also requires non-attainment areas to

adopt all feasible control measures for stationary source air pollution. Draft Rule 4702

will reduce NOx emissions.

The likely control technology to meet the proposed emission limits for rich-burn

engines not cyclically loaded using fuels other than waste gases will be Nonselective

Catalytic Reduction (NCR) with air\fuel ratio controllers. For engines using waste

gases, the use of pre-stratified charge controls are likely to be used to promote limits.

The likely control technology to meet the proposed emission limits for rich-burn

engines cyclically loaded using field gas fuels will be NCR. For four-stroke sparkignited lean-burn engines and two-stroke spark-ignited engines rated at 100 hp or

more, the likely control technique would be to retrofit the engines with low-emission

combustion controls. Other control techniques may be used to supplement these

retrofits, such as ignition system modifications and engine de-rating. For engines that

do not have low-emission combustion modification kits available, Selective Catalytic

Reduction (SCR) may be used to achieve the proposed limits. District staff calculated

compliance cost of Draft 4702 for engines greater than 50 HP.

District staff estimates total NOx emissions reduction of approximately 2.47 tons per

day if the engines subject to the draft rule comply with the NOx requirements of Draft

Rule 4702.

FIGURE 1

Map of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

(SJVUAPCD)
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

106

4. METHODOLOGY

The socioeconomic analysis involves the use of information provided directly by

affected businesses as well as secondary data used to describe the industries

affected by the draft rule. The approach is briefly described below.

The District staff developed the draft rule during 2002 beginning with the publication of

a Preliminary Staff Report in March 2002. A scoping meeting was held in late March

2002 and a workshop was held in July. In early December 2002, the District held a

focus group meeting, which included industry representatives and the District’s

socioeconomic consultant, ADE, Inc., to discuss the estimated costs associated with

rule compliance and the likely business response anticipated by the affected

businesses.

At the focus group meeting, business representatives were asked to submit

information about the costs of compliance to the rule in January 2003. The District

staff reviewed this information and other data and prepared a comprehensive estimate

of costs for each industry group affected by the rule.

ADE began the analysis by preparing a statistical description of the affected industries

that includes estimates of the number of jobs, the sales levels, the typical profit ratios

and other economic indicators for each industry group. ADE also reviewed and

summarized the verbal and written information provided by the businesses at the

focus group meeting, particularly the discussion of what control technologies would be

employed and what business responses were most likely to address the cost impacts

of the draft rule.

Regarding the economic description of the affected businesses, it was necessary for

ADE to estimate jobs and sales level since specific information from the actual

affected businesses is not available. For the most part, the estimating techniques used

for this analysis assume that the affected businesses are average sized firms in their

respective industries. The analysis presents data on the size distribution of firms for

each affected industry group.

In order to evaluate the significance of the compliance cost impacts, ADE obtained

typical industry ratios of profit per dollar of sales for each industry group. The

socioeconomic analysis shows what proportion of profit the compliance costs

represent.

Based on assumed thresholds of significance, ADE discusses in the report whether

the affected business are likely to reduce jobs as a means of recouping the cost of

rule compliance, or as a result of reducing business operations. To the extent that

such jobs losses appear likely, the indirect multiplier effects of the jobs losses are

estimated using a regional IMPLAN input-output model.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

107

5. INDUSTRIES AFFECTED BY RULE 4702

5.1 regional economic trends

The San Joaquin Valley region experienced tremendous growth during the 1990s.

Many came to this area because of affordable housing. As a result, population

increased significantly. The eight-county region as a whole increased by 20 percent,

from 2.7 million in 1990 to 3.3 million individuals in 2000. While the state of California

increased by 14 percent, all the counties in the region experienced faster rates of

growth and two counties doubled the state’s growth rate, as Table 1 shows. While by

many standards Madera County continues to be a small county– at 123,109 residents

according to Census 2000–it still experienced a 40 percent growth in population during

the last decade. Kings County grew by 28 percent.

TABLE 1

Population Growth: San Joaquin Valley Region

1990 - 2000

California

San Joaquin

Valley Region Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced

San

Joaquin Stanislaus Tulare

1990 29,760,021 2,742,000 667,490 543,477 101,469 88,090 178,403 480,628 370,522 311,921

2000 33,871,648 3,302,792 799,407 661,645 129,461 123,109 210,554 563,598 446,997 368,021

Change 4,111,627 560,792 131,917 118,168 27,992 35,019 32,151 82,970 76,475 56,100

% Change 14% 20% 20% 22% 28% 40% 18% 17% 21% 18%

Source: US Census, 1990 and 2000

The region also experienced new developments in its economy that were consistent

with the dramatic shifts in population. While traditionally an agriculture-based

economy, areas of economic growth occurred in parts of the economy associated with

population. The service sector is the largest employing sector in the region, at 25.2

percent of all private sector jobs, or 245,277. In 1995, services represented 23 percent

of all jobs. Slowly, this sector is separating itself from the other major sector,

agriculture, which today is a close second to services. Five years ago, these two

sectors were in a virtual tie in terms of their respective share of private sector jobs.

TABLE 2

Employment Profile Of The San Joaquin Valley Region

1995 - 2000

1995

Employment

2000

Employment

2000

Distribution Change

Percent

Change

Total 863,801 972,872 100% 109,071 13%

Agriculture 194,876 208,232 21.4% 13,356 7%

Mining 11,599 9,717 1.0% -1,882 -16%

Construction 40,483 57,204 5.9% 16,721 41%

Manufacturing 112,227 120,202 12.4% 7,975 7%

Transportation And Public Utilities 45,110 50,295 5.2% 5,185 11%

Wholesale Trade 44,313 47,269 4.9% 2,956 7%
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

108

Retail Trade 176,458 193,031 19.8% 16,573 9%

Finance, Insurance, And Real Estate 39,039 41,584 4.3% 2,545 7%

Services 199,227 245,277 25.2% 46,050 23%

Total non classifiable 465 63 0.0% -402 -86%

Source: Minnesota Implan Group, Inc.

In keeping with the increased population, the construction sector in the region

increased by 41 percent during the five year 1995-2000 period, growing from 40,483 to

57,204 jobs. Retail typically grows in parallel with population. Indeed, this sector grew

by nine percent between 1995 and 2000, which, if extrapolated over a ten year period

from 1990 to 2000, translates into 18 percent growth, which is similar to population

growth over the same time period.

Table 3 below identifies economic trends for those industries in the District that are

affected by Draft Rule 4702, and it provides a comparison between two points in time,

1995 and 2000. Overall, these industries experienced jobs increases in the range of 12

percent for the five-year period. However, the sanitary-sewerage-refuse industry and

construction services experienced significant declines, as Table 3 shows.

TABLE 3

Employment Trends: Industries Affected By Draft Rule 4702

 1995 - 2000

1995

Employment

2000

Employment Change

Percent

Change

Crude Oil, N.G., Oil Pipelines, Oil Refining, and Field Services 14,847 12,489 -2,358 -16%

Water Supply and Irrigation 511 601 90 18%

General Government, Prisons, & National Security 8,898 8,581 -317 -4%

Sanitary, Sewerage, & Refuse 1,916 1,309 -607 -32%

Construction Services and Concrete 1,295 642 -653 -50%

Agriculture and Food Processing 52,243 61,562 9,319 18%

Manufacturing 2,065 2,964 899 44%

Other Industries 45,997 55,369 9,372 20%

 Total 127,772 143,517 15,745 12%

Source: Minnesota Implan Group, Inc. \ State of California, EDD-LMID \ Applied Development Economics

5.2 description of Affected industries

Draft Rule 4702 affects a broad set of industries that can be categorized under eight

general categories. For the purposes of analysis, this report organizes data by these

categories. Data for the industries below are for the eight-county San Joaquin Valley

region, which consists of Fresno, part of Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin,

Stanislaus, and Tulare counties (see Figure 1 above). Below is a general description

of the industrial categories.

There are three types of industries within oil and gas category. This category includes

producers of natural gas and petroleum (SIC 1311 and SIC 1321), oil refineries (SIC

2911) and transmitters of these raw materials (SIC 4612, SIC 4923, SIC 4924, and SIC

4925). All of these industries use a variety of engines to extract and store oil and
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

109 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

natural gas from the ground, as well as to refine and distribute the product.

The food production category can be broken down into two sub-categories. There are

five industries (at the four-digit SIC level) related to agriculture and livestock

production. The vast majority of industries in this general category relate to food

processing.

There are three public or quasi-public categories. Government consists of transit

regulators (SIC 9621), state correctional facilities (SIC 9223) and government, not

elsewhere classified (n.e.c.) (SIC 9199). There are two other quasi-public categories

represented by water and sewage utilities.

Other industrial categories include manufacturing, construction, and others services.

5. 3 Economic Characteristics of Affected Establishments

In analyzing the industries affected by Draft Rule 4702, the report relies heavily on data

on establishments, employment, wages, value-added1

 and sales collected in the 1997

Economic Census of the US Bureau of the Census. The Bureau of the Census surveys

businesses every five years, in the second and seventh year of the decade, and issues

its findings two to three years afterwards. Thus, the 1997 Economic Census is the most

current available source of information on value-added and sales. With data from

private-sector vendors such as the Minnesota Implan Group (MIG) and from the

Census’ annual County Business Patterns, we are able to identify establishment,

employment and wage data for specific industries as of 2000. Using the 1997

Economic Census, County Business Patterns and MIG together, we estimate valueadded and sales for industries in the year 2000, in addition to identifying employment

and establishment trends.2

Table 4 identifies the economic characteristics of the industries affected by Draft Rule

4702. This table shows that these industries are estimated to employ 4,863 workers.

These affected industry groups are comprised of 114 establishments, and these

establishments retain 506 engine units that are the focus of Draft Rule 4702. Table 4

also shows the economic importance of the affected industries to the San Joaquin

Valley region. The 114 establishments have an estimated aggregate payroll of $199.7

million, and estimated sales of $2.4 billion. Business categories such as general

government do not make sales or shipments but are estimated to employ 251 workers.

As Table 4 shows, the 114 affected establishments produce an estimated $647 million

in value-added.

 

1 Value-added measures the difference between sales and cost of inputs (i.e. materials and labor). It is a measure of

productivity.

2 This report uses the term “establishments” and “businesses” in the same way.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

110 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

TABLE 4

Number of San Joaquin Valley Industries Affected By Rule 4702

General Categories of Industries Affected by Proposed Rule Changes

Engine

Units

EstablishmentsEmployment Wages Value-added Sales

Crude Oil, N.G., Oil Pipelines, Oil Refining, and Field Services 364 42 1,669 $69,982,606 $276,472,357 $1,342,761,429

Water Supply and Irrigation 40 11 70 $2,870,522 $18,836,968

General Government, Prisons, & National Security 13 8 251 $10,898,792

Sanitary, Sewerage, & Refuse 14 9 90 $3,448,084 $12,086,327 $27,743,267

Construction Services and Concrete 10 8 126 $5,929,573 $18,500,307 $31,481,305

Agriculture and Food Processing 16 7 405 $15,618,168 $91,803,331 $282,438,777

Manufacturing 17 12 303 $12,695,106 $59,591,788 $141,365,400

Other 32 17 1,950 $78,341,794 $188,611,938 $516,963,176

Total 505 114 4,863 $199,784,646 $647,066,048 $2,361,590,321

Sources: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District / US Bureau of the Census, Economic Census, ‘97 / Minnesota IMPLAN Group 1997 and 2000 / ADE, Inc.

As Table 5 shows, the affected businesses represent a small percentage of all

establishments within their respective industries. For example, there are 196

establishments in the industries that comprise the crude oil and natural gas category,

and of these establishments, there are only 42 establishments (or 21 percent) with

engine units that are subject to draft Rule 4702. There are 92 water supply and

irrigation establishments in the region, and, of these, 11 are subject to the rule change

(12 percent). There are 2,492 agricultural establishments in the eight-county region,

and of these, only seven–or less than one percent–are subject to the Rule 4702.

Altogether, the 114 businesses represent two percent of all business in the District in

industries with similar SIC classification as those covered by Draft Rule 4702. In other

words, the vast majority of businesses that share the SIC codes with those affected by

the draft rule are either exempt from the rule or do not have the type of engines that

subjects them to this rule. About 80 percent of the engines in the SJVUAPCD database

are exempt from the Draft Rule 4702.

TABLE 5

Comparison of Affected San Joaquin Valley Industries Versus Region and State

General Categories

No. of Affected

Businesses

No. of SJV

Businesses

Per General

Industry

Group

No. of

Businesses

 in State Per

General

Industry Group

Affected

Businesses As

% of

All SJV

Businesses (N

= 77,436)

Affected

Businesses As

% of All SJV

Businesses Per

Industry

Affected SJV

Industries As

% of Same

Industries

In State

Crude Oil, N.G., Oil Pipelines, Oil Refining, and Field Services 42 196 823 0.1% 21% 5%

Water Supply and Irrigation 11 92 537 0.01% 12% 2%

General Government, Prisons, & National Security 8 309 3,711 0.01% 3% 0.2%

Sanitary, Sewerage, & Refuse 9 87 788 0.01% 10% 1%

Construction Services and Concrete 8 66 454 0.01% 12% 2%

Agriculture and Food Processing 7 2,492 5,006 0.01% 0.3% 0.1%
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

111 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

Manufacturing 12 131 2,403 0.02% 9% 0.5%

Other 17 2,109 20,590 0.02% 1% 0.1%

TOTALS 114 5,481 34,312 0.1% 2% 0.3%

Sources: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District / US Bureau of the Census, Economic Census / US Bureau of the Census, County Business

Patterns / US Bureau of the Census, ZIP Code Business Patterns / Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. / ADE, Inc.

In terms of employment, establishments affected by the draft rule represent a small

percentage of employment in the region in the same industries (see Table 6). All

industries within the eight categories employ 4,863 workers, and this figure represents

three percent of all workers in the region in industries similar to those comprising the

eight categories.

TABLE 6

Comparison of Employment In Affected San Joaquin Valley Industries Versus Region and State

General Categories

Employment

By Affected

Businesses

Employment

SJV Businesses

Per General

Industry Group

Employment

By Businesses

in State Per

General

Industry

Group

Affected

Employment

As % of All SJV

Employment (N

= 943,773)

Affected

Employment

As % of All

SJV

Employment

Per Industry

Affected

SJV Industries

As % of Same

Industries In

State

Crude Oil, N.G., Oil Pipelines, Oil Refining, and Field Services 1,669 12,489 42,627 0.2% 13% 4%

Water Supply and Irrigation 70 601 5,536 0.01% 12% 1%

General Government, Prisons, & National Security 251 8,581 111,038 0.03% 3% 0.2%

Sanitary, Sewerage, & Refuse 90 1,309 22,433 0.01% 7% 0.4%

Construction Services and Concrete 126 642 6,865 0.01% 20% 2%

Agriculture and Food Processing 405 61,562 130,128 0.04% 1% 0.3%

Manufacturing 303 2,964 51,196 0.03% 10% 1%

Other 1,950 55,369 634,927 0.2% 4% 0.3%

TOTALS 4,863 143,517 1,004,750 0.5% 3% 0.5%

Sources: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District / US Bureau of the Census, Economic Census / US Bureau of the Census,

County Business Patterns / US Bureau of the Census, ZIP Code Business Patterns / Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. / ADE, Inc.

As Table 7 shows, affected businesses in the SJVUAPCD region are, for the most part,

more productive than their counterparts in the State. For example, affected

establishments in the crude oil-natural gas business category have sales that, on

average, are worth $804,628 per employee, while the statewide rate for like industries

is $422,860. In other words, crude oil-natural gas establishments are almost twice as

productive as their counterparts elsewhere in the State. Affected businesses in the

crude oil-natural gas, water supply-irrigation, agriculture, manufacturing, sanitation, and

construction services categories also sell more per employee than their counterparts

throughout California. As Table 8 shows, the affected businesses also are more

productive than many of their counterparts in the nation as a whole, except for crude

oil-natural gas.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 200

112 Final Draft Staff

Rule 4701 and Ru

TABLE 7

Measure of Productivity: Sales-Shipments per Employee

Affected

Industries California

United

States

Crude Oil, N.G., Oil Pipelines, Oil Refining, and Field Services $804,628 $422,860 $844,777

Water Supply and Irrigation $269,230 $250,529 $159,447

General Government, Prisons, & National Security

Sanitary, Sewerage, & Refuse $309,091 $150,623 $166,619

Construction Services and Concrete $249,233 $186,370 $173,090

Agriculture and Food Processing $698,014 $289,343 $308,930

Manufacturing $450,342 $259,245 $156,513

Other $265,106 $136,275 $106,368

Sources: US Bureau of the Census, Economic Census, 1997 / Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., 1997

and 2000 / ADE, Inc.

5.4 Size of Industry By Employment

In estimating the impact of compliance costs on industries and businesses, one

concern is whether smaller businesses will be disproportionately affected. More than

50 percent of all businesses in California and the United States employ less than four

people, and almost 80 percent employ less than 10. Table 8 distributes affected

industries by number of employees per establishment. Data for the table come from

County Business Patterns, which is published by the US Bureau of the Census.

County Business Patterns does not provide specific information on governmental

services. As a result, the general government, prisons and national security industry

category is not included below.

As a group, San Joaquin Valley industries affected by Rule 4702 tend to be slightly

larger than state and national industries as a whole. Employers with more than 250

workers represent 0.7 percent of all establishments in all industries in California and

the United States. In contrast, slightly over one percent (1.4 percent) of affected

industries employ at least 250 people. In large part, this is driven by establishments in

the oil and natural gas industry category, of which two percent employ more than 250

people. Agriculture is also a major employer.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

113 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

TABLE 8

Distribution Of Industries Affected By Rule 4702 By Size Of Establishment

Employment Size Categories

1 thru 4 5 thru 9 10 thru 19 20-49 50-99 100-249

250

or more

Crude Oil, N.G., Oil Pipelines, Oil Refining, and Field Services 36% 15% 24% 13% 6% 5% 2%

Water Supply and Irrigation 70% 20% 5% 2% 3% 0.0% 0.0%

Sanitary, Sewerage, & Refuse 45% 20% 17% 15% 3% 0.0% 0.0%

Construction Services and Concrete 20% 12% 30% 25% 10% 4% 0.0%

Agriculture and Food Processing 56% 18% 12% 8% 3% 2% 1%

Manufacturing 50% 18% 13% 10% 3% 5% 0.0%

Other 53% 23% 14% 6% 1% 2% 2%

Affected Industry Average 52.9% 20.7% 13.9% 7.1% 2.1% 2.0% 1.4%

California (all industries) 54.0% 18.5% 12.6% 9.1% 3.2% 1.8% 0.7%

US (all industries) 53.9% 19.3% 12.7% 8.7% 3.0% 1.8% 0.7%

Source: United States Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns 1997

Affected manufacturing industries have a greater share of establishments in the

middle-range category relative to the state and nation. Thirteen percent of all affected

manufacturers employ between 20 and 99 workers, and another 5 percent employ

between 100 and 249 workers. Approximately fourteen percent of all establishments in

California and the United States employ between 20 and 249 workers. Construction

services, and sanitary, sewage and refuse industries are also significant middle-range

employers.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

114 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

6. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

6.1 COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES

The District cost estimates are based in part on data provided by the affected industries

and in part on independent analysis of control equipment manufacturers and studies by

the EPA. The District’s cost of compliance analysis indicates that, overall, engine

operators would experience annual costs of approximately $6.7 million. Table 9 provides a

breakdown of the estimated costs, as borne by the different business categories.

TABLE 9

Annual Compliance Cost

Cost Analysis

Crude Oil, N.G., Oil Pipelines, Oil Refining, and Field Services $4,430,708

Water Supply and Irrigation $429,858

General Government, Prisons, & National Security $264,816

Sanitary, Sewerage, & Refuse $242,661

Construction Services and Concrete $235,738

Agriculture and Food Processing $140,986

Manufacturing $397,999

Other $589,234

$6,732,000

Source: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

6.2 BUSINESS RESPONSE TO COMPLIANCE COSTS

Businesses may respond in a variety of ways when faced with new regulatory costs.

These responses may range from simply absorbing the costs and accepting a lower rate

of return to shutting down the business operation altogether. Businesses may also seek to

pass the costs on to their customers in the form of higher prices or they may renew efforts

to increase productivity and reduce costs elsewhere in their operation in order to recoup

the regulatory costs and maintain profit levels. These options were discussed with the

businesses that participated in the focus group session in early April 2003.

Most of the businesses said they would attempt to absorb the costs if they are not

substantial. There may be some possibility of passing costs on to customers to the extent

that other firms in California are experiencing similar air pollution control costs, but the

industry also faces competition from out of state producers that limits the price flexibility of

the marketplace. Firms expressed the opinion that if efforts to pass on the costs or absorb

them are not successful, particularly if certain plant operations are burdened with very high

costs, then steps would be taken to move those operations and the associated jobs offshore.

6.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS

Using the cost estimates developed by SJVUAPCD, Applied Development Economics

calculated the socioeconomic impacts of Draft Rule 4702. In calculating impacts of Draft

Rule 4702 on industry profits, ADE used industry return on sales ratios identified by Dun
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

115 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

and Bradstreet, which annually issues a report called “Industry Norms and Key Business

Ratios.” These ratios are specific to industries at the four-digit SIC level. Applied

Development Economics calculated the average return on sale ratio for specific industries.

These averages are based on industry ratios over a five-year period stretching from 1996

to 2000.

Table 10 summarizes the estimated socioeconomic impacts of this rule. Affected

industries will incur an aggregate cost of $6.7 million as a result of Draft Rule 4702. This

cost represents an estimated 6.2 percent of profits, with some business categories (such

as water supply and irrigation industries, sanitary, sewage and refuse industries, and

construction services industries) experiencing higher cost impacts. Oil and gas related

industries bear the largest annual costs – at $4.4 million – and these costs represent an

estimated 7.4 percent of profits.

TABLE 10

Socio-Economic Impacts of Rule 4702

Sales

(000's)

Estimated

Profits

(000's)

Compliance

Costs

(000's)

Costs as

Percent

of Sales

Costs as

 Percent

 of Profits

Crude Oil, N.G., Oil Pipelines, Oil Refining, and Field Services $1,342,761 $60,023 $4,431 0.3% 7.4%

Water Supply and Irrigation $18,837 $2,014 $430 2.3% 21.3%

General Government, Prisons, & National Security NA NA $265 NA NA

Sanitary, Sewerage, & Refuse $27,743 $1,998 $243 0.9% 12.1%

Construction Services and Concrete $31,481 $1,168 $236 0.7% 20.2%

Agriculture and Food Processing $282,439 $6,642 $141 0.0% 2.1%

Manufacturing $141,365 $5,228 $398 0.3% 7.6%

Other $516,963 $31,884 $589 0.1% 1.8%

Total $2,361,590 $108,958 $6,732 0.3% 6.2%

Source: Applied Development Economics

Based on the limited input at the industry focus group meeting, several business

responses can be expected. In the petroleum industry, the costs will generally be

absorbed in lower profits as indicated in Table 10. Some wells may become uneconomic

and be shut down; however, overall the 7.4 percent reduction in profit levels would not be

considered significant. A greater potential impact exists for utilities such as water suppliers,

wastewater and refuse collection and disposal. However, for these kinds of businesses

there is more opportunity to pass increased costs on to customers, since they serve local

markets. The column in Table 10 that shows the compliance costs as a percent of sales is

a relevant indicator of the level of price increase needed to recoup the costs. At most,

price levels for water purveyors would need to rise 2.3 percent to meet the estimated

costs, while rates for sanitary, sewerage and refuse services need rise less than one

percent. Again, it is unlikely that such increases would create significant economic

impacts.

One industry group that may experience more significant impact is the construction

services industry, which operates on very thin profit margins. The compliance costs are

estimated at only 0.7 percent of sales for these businesses but this represents more than

20 percent of profits. These businesses are also likely to attempt to recoup the costs in
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

116 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

higher prices, since relatively small price increases would be required. However, this may

have some effect on the competitiveness of the affected businesses.

Although the affected industries have not indicated that job reductions are a likely

response to the compliance costs for this rule, a hypothetical analysis of potential job

losses has been conducted as a worst case scenario for the socioeconomic analysis.

If the affected industries are able to incorporate a productivity measure and thus recover

labor costs, these three industries could at most lose an estimated total of seven jobs as a

result of Draft Rule 4702 (Table 11). The estimated job loss is a small fraction (0.14

percent) of total employment (4,863 jobs) of all industries affected by Rule 4702. The

estimated number of jobs lost by water supply and irrigation industry category is equivalent

to a six percent reduction of this industry’s workforce. The sanitary, sewerage and refuse

industrial category could lose an estimated 1 percent of its workforce as a result of Draft

Rule 4702. Similarly, construction services category could lose an estimated 2 percent of

its workforce as a result of the draft rule.

TABLE 11

Worst Case Scenario: Employment Impacts of Rule 4702

Total

 Profit

Compliance

Cost

Percent

of Profit

Above

Threshold

Average Wages

and Benefits

Per Employee

Potential

Number of

Jobs Lost:

Worst Case

Scenario

Percentage

Change

Water Supply and Irrigation $2,014,385 $429,858 22.3% 12.3% $53,336 4 -6%

Sanitary, Sewerage, & Refuse $1,997,897 $242,661 12.9% 2.9% $49,940 1 -1%

Construction Services & Concrete $1,168,463 $235,738 23.0% 13.0% $61,027 2 -2%

Source: Applied Development Economics

This potential loss of jobs represents the worst case scenario. For example, water supply

and irrigation can keep the four employees it is at risk of losing by increasing water rates

by 2.3 percent. Likewise with the sanitary, sewerage and refuse industrial category, which

could keep the one employee it is at risk of losing by raising rates by 0.9 percent.

Moreover, job attrition through retirement and a corresponding set of measures to

enhance the productivity of remaining employees could preclude actually terminating

anyone.

If job reductions do occur through attrition or termination, eliminating the seven positions

will have ripple affects through the regional economy. The loss of income associated with

the direct loss of seven positions will induce the loss of another seven jobs.3

 These jobs

are primarily in local serving industries such as retail and personal services.

The previous section profiled affected industries in terms of their respective employment

patterns. Based on this discussion, it is determined that small businesses are not

disproportionately affected by Draft Rule 4702.

6.4 job creation attributable to draft rule 4702

Using the cost estimates developed by SJVUAPCD and the IMPLAN Input-Output Model,

Applied Development Economics calculated the socioeconomic impacts of Draft Rule

4702. The previous section analyzed socioeconomic impacts in terms of possible job

 

3 Multiplier effects are estimated using the IMPLAN Input-Output model for the eight county District region.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

117 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

losses attributable to Draft Rule 4702. This section analyzes socioeconomic impacts in

terms of potential jobs created as a result of Draft Rule 4702.

According to the District staff, there are three businesses represented in the District that

manufacture, ship, and service equipment used by industries subject to Draft Rule 4702.

Businesses within these industries should experience an increase in demand for their

products, as a result of the draft rule. None of the manufacturing of control equipment

occurs within the District, but these businesses have sales and installation operations in

the District and also do monitoring services on the equipment. The volume of increased

demand could require some additional job creation as shown in Table 12.

TABLE 12

Aggregate Job Creation Impacts of Draft Rule 4702

Jobs Created

Directly By

Draft Rule

Jobs Created

Indirectly By

Draft Rule

Induced

Jobs

Created By

Draft Rule

Total Job

Creation

All Establishments That Sell and

Service Required Equipment Per

Draft Rule 4702 3 1 15

Source: Applied Development Economics

As Table 12 shows, Draft Rule 4702 should directly create three (3) jobs within industries

that sell and service air quality equipment. In addition, industries that sell and service

equipment will, in turn, purchase goods and services from their network of suppliers. As a

result, Draft Rule 4702 should also indirectly create one (1) additional job as a result of

these transactions. Moreover, the employees who occupy the jobs that are directly and

indirectly created as a result of the draft rule will, in turn, generate new demand for

personal and household items, which, in turn, should induce the creation of an additional

job.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

118 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

ATTACHMENT 1: SPECIFIC PUBLIC COMMENTS AND

RESPONSES TO DRAFT RULE 4702

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC reports

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District provided an opportunity for

stakeholders, including businesses and trade associations affected by Draft Rule 4702, to

review, ask questions about and make comments on the socioeconomic impact analysis.

Below are specific comments pertaining to the socioeconomic impact analysis report.

Included are responses prepared by the Applied Development Economics, the

socioeconomic consultant, to the specific comments. General comments pertaining to the

socioeconomic impact analysis and responses prepared by District staff to such general

comments are included in Appendix A.

C. 

D. Specific Comments on the 4702 Socioeconomic Analysis Report

1. IOPA—Are the profit measures used in the analysis before tax or after tax?

RESPONSE

The profit measures come from a publication of Dun and Bradstreet, called “Industry

Norms and Key Business Ratios.” This work provides financial norm and business ratio

data developed from actual company income statements and balance sheets. The

information is arranged by SIC code, with a short industry title, and an indication of the

number of companies in each industry sample. The profit measures are after-tax

measures.

2. IOPA—The employment trends show growth in the oil industry when many businesses

are actually cutting back. Specifically, the Socio-economic Analysis prepared by Applied

Development Economics, Inc. for Draft Rule 4702 indicates on page 8, Table 3 that

employment for Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Oil Pipelines, Oil Refining and Field Services has

increased by 4,642, or a 59% increase since 1995. In light of the numerous down-sizings

and mergers in the Oil Industry, we would like to know how these numbers were

generated. We do not think that they are correct.

RESPONSE

We have reviewed the employment data and made corrections where necessary. In the

original analysis, we estimated that the oil industries affected by Draft Rule 4702 employed

7,846 workers in 1995. In reviewing the estimate, we determined that employment

estimate for certain oil and oil-related industries were regrettably omitted. Moreover, in

reviewing 1995 employment data for SIC 2911 (oil refining) and SIC 4925 (MMLP

distribution), we determined that the original employment estimates were too low and

made appropriate corrections. As a result, the aggregate 1995 employment figure for oil

industries (also known as “Crude Oil, NG, Propane, Oil Pipeline Industries”) affected by

Draft Rule 4702 is estimated at 14,847. Thus, between 1995 and 2000, employment in

“Crude Oil, NG, Propane, Oil Pipeline Industries” declined by 16 percent between 1995

and 2000, or by 2,358 workers. These corrections have been made in Table 3 of the
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

119 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

socioeconomic report.

3. Agriculture/Food Industry—What detailed SIC codes are used in the socioeconomic

study to define the affected industries?

RESPONSE

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District maintains a database of

companies in the region and their respective SIC codes. In order to perform the

socioeconomic analysis, ADE obtained from the District a list of SIC codes of businesses

in industries that would be affected by Draft Rule 4702. Attachment 2 lists the SIC codes

of industries affected by Draft Rules 4702.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

120 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

ATTACHMENT 2: LIST OF SIC CODES AFFECTED BY

DRAFT RULE 4702

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District maintains a database of

companies in the region and their respective SIC codes. In order to perform the

socioeconomic analysis, ADE obtained from the District a list of SIC codes of businesses

in industries that would be affected by Draft Rule 4702. Below is the list of SIC codes of

businesses in industries affected by the draft rule.

DRAFT RULE 4702

SIC Description

Crude Oil, N.G., Oil Pipelines, Oil Refining, and Field Services

1311 Crude petroleum and natural gas

1321 Natural gas liquids

1389 Oil and gas field services, nec

2911 Petroleum refining

4612 Crude petroleum pipelines

4923 Natural gas transmission and distribution

4924 Natural gas distribution

4925 Petroleum gas production and distribution

Agricultural Industries

0172 Grapes

0723 Crop preparation services for market, except cotton

ginning

0724 Cotton ginning

2033 Canned fruits and vegetables

2048 Prepared feeds, nec

2084 Wines, brandy, and brandy spirits

2099 Food preparations, nec

Manufacturing Industries

2411 Logging

2421 Sawmills and planing mills, general

2873 Nitrogenous fertilizers

2951 Asphalt paving mixtures and blocks

3295 Minerals, ground or treated

3471 Plating and polishing

3499 Fabricated metal products, nec

3732 Boat building and repairing

3999 Manufacturing industries, nec

General Government, Prisons, & National Security

9199 General government nec

9223 Correctional facilities

9532 Community Development

9621 Transit regulatory agency, inclu air traffic control

Other Industries

1446 Industrial sand

4111 Local and suburban transit
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

121 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

4213 Trucking, except local

4222 Refrigerated warehousing and storage

4911 Electric services

5013 Motor vehicle supplies and new parts

5171 Petroleum bulk stations & terminals

5191 Farm supplies

5541 Gasoline service stations

6519 Lessors of real property, nec

7532 Top & body repair & paint shops

7699 Repair services, nec

7999 Amusement and recreation, nec

8062 General medical and surgical hospitals

8221 Colleges, universities and professional schools

Water Supply and Irrigation

4941 Water supply

4971 Irrigation systems

Construction Services and Concrete

1442 Construction sand and gravel

3273 Ready-mixed concrete
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

122 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

APPENDIX D

Rule Consistency Analysis for

Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 2)

July 17, 2003
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

123 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

RULE CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

RULE 4702 (INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES – PHASE 2)

I. REQUIREMENTS OF ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Section 40727.2 of the California Health and Safety Code, prior to adopting,

amending, or repealing a rule or regulation, the District is required to perform a written

analysis that identifies and compares the air pollution control elements of the proposed

rule with the corresponding elements of other existing or proposed District and United

States Environmental Protection Agency rules, regulations, and guidelines that apply to

the same source category. The rule elements that were analyzed are emission limits,

control efficiency, operating parameters and work practices, monitoring and testing, and

recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

II. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

A. District Rules

New Rule 4702 limits the NOx, CO, and VOC emissions from the use of spark-ignited

internal combustion engines with a rated brake horsepower greater than 50

horsepower. No other District rules, existing or proposed, subject the source categories

to the same requirements of Rule 4702. Internal combustion engines subject to Rule

4702 could also be subject to other District rules including Rule 2201 (New and Modified

Stationary Source Review), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), and Rule 4201(Particulate Matter

Concentration).

B. EPA Standards, Rules, and Regulations

There are no federal Control Technique Guidelines (CTG), National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations, or Lowest Achievable Emission

Rate (LAER) regulations for the control of NOx, CO, and VOC emissions from the use

of spark-ignited internal combustion engines. There are no approved federal Maximum

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulations although they are in development

with a tentative adoption date of November 2003.

C. EPA Policy and Guidelines

Except for recordkeeping policy and Economic Incentive Program policy, there are no

EPA Policy and Guidelines pertaining to limiting NOx, CO, and VOC emissions from the

use of spark-ignited internal combustion engines. The proposed recordkeeping

requirements of Rule 4702 include the five-year record retention period to comply with
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

124 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

EPA recordkeeping policy requirements. The proposed Alternative Emission Control

Plan (AECP) requirements of Rule 4702 include the 10 percent emission reduction

benefit to comply with EPA Economic Incentive Program policy requirements.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

125 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

APPENDIX E

Environmental Analysis for

Rule 4701 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 1) and

Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines– Phase 2)

July 17, 2003
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

126 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

INITIAL STUDY

A. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Rule 4701 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 1) and

Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 2)

2. Lead Agency Name and Address

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District)

1990 E. Gettysburg Ave.

Fresno, CA 93726

3. Contact Person:

CEQA: Mr. Hector R. Guerra

(559) 230-5800

Rule: Mr. Saul Gamez

(559) 230-5800

4. Project Location:

The rules apply 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 and Address:

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

1990 E. Gettysburg Ave.

Fresno, CA 93726

6. Description of Project:

This Initial Study is based on draft Rule 4701 and draft Rule 4702 dated May 7, 2003.

The proposed amendments to Rule 4701 are intended to correct the rule deficiencies

identified on February 28, 2002, by the United State Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) in order to make the rule fully approvable for inclusion in the State

Implementation Plan (SIP). Unless the rule deficiencies are corrected and the rule is

fully approved for inclusion in the SIP by October 1, 2003, EPA will impose sanctions in
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

127 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

the San Joaquin Valley consisting of increased offset requirements for major sources

and revocation of federal funding for highways. New Rule 4702 is intended to

implement Reasonably Available Control Measures as required by the federal Clean

Air Act. Further, the California Clean Air Act, as well as the District’s 2002 and 2005

Rate of Progress Plan, require the implementation of all feasible control measures to

reduce the emissions of VOC and NOx in order to achieve attainment of the federal

and state health-based ozone standards. This rulemaking project to amend Rule 4701

and to develop Rule 4702 is intended to reduce the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx)

and carbon monoxide (CO) pursuant to the District’s ozone and particulate matter

attainment strategies.

Rule 4701 applies to sources that operate permitted internal combustion engines with

a brake horsepower greater than 50 horsepower. Rule 4702 would apply to sources

that operate permitted spark-ignited internal combustion engines with a brake

horsepower greater than 50 horsepower. For the engines subject to Rule 4702,

District staff proposed emission limits based on control technologies that have been

achieved in practice as well as controls that are technologically feasible for retrofit to

existing units.

The likely control technology to meet the proposed Rule 4702 emission limits for

rich-burn engines not cyclically loaded using fuels other than waste gases will be

nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR) with air/fuel ratio controllers. For engines

using waste gases, the use of prestratified charge controls are likely to be used to

meet the proposed limits. The likely control technology to meet the proposed

emission limits for rich-burn engines cyclically loaded using field gas fuels will be

nonselective catalytic reduction. For four-stroke spark-ignited lean-burn engines and

two-stroke spark-ignited engines rated at 100 hp or more, the likely control technique

would be to retrofit the engines with low-emission combustion controls. Other

control techniques may be used to supplement these retrofits, such as ignition

system modifications and engine derating. For engines that do not have lowemission combustion modification kits available, selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

may be used to achieve the proposed limits.

The tiered implementation schedule (June 1, 2005, June 1, 2006, and June 1, 2007)

for the proposed controls has been designed to achieve the maximum reductions yet

provide a reasonable amount of time to design and install the required controls. The

emission limits for each implementation schedule are the same.

The District’s 2005 NOx emissions from internal combustion engines are estimated

at 20 tons per day. District staff expects implementation of Rule 4702 to reduce

NOx emissions by 1.76 tons per day. No emission reduction is expected from the

amendments to Rule 4701.

7. Other Agencies Whose Approvals Is Required and Permits Needed:

No other agencies have discretionary authority over this project.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

128 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

8. Project Compatibility with Existing Zones and Plans:

Adoption of this plan will not affect any land use zones or plans.

9. Name of Person Who Prepared Initial Study:

Hector R. Guerra

Senior Environmental Planner

B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the

proposed project, involving at least one impact that is a “Less Than Significant

Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

 

Land Use and Planning Population and Housing

Geophysical Water

Air Quality Transportation/Circulation

Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources

Hazards Noise

Public Services Utilities and Service Systems

Aesthetics Cultural Resources

Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance

C. DETERMINATION

I certify that this document reflects the independent judgment of the District.

__X _I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on

the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

_____ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the

environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL 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
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

129 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

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: / signed/_______________________ Date: June 10, 2003_________

Printed name: Hector R. Guerra_______________________

Title: Senior Air Quality Planner_______________________
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

130 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

RULE 4701 (INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES – PHASE1)

RULE 4702 (INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES – PHASE 2)

D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST

Explanations of some answers on the checkoff list are located in Section E.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Unless

Mitigated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

I. Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result

in or expose people to potential impacts

involving:

a) Fault rupture? X

b) Seismic ground shaking? X

c) Seismic ground failure, including

liquefaction?

X

d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X

e) Landslides or mudflows? X

f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable

soil conditions from excavation, grading, or

fill?

X

g) Subsidence of the land? X

h) Expansive soils? X

i) Unique geologic or physical features? X

II. Air Quality. Would the proposal:

a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute

to an existing or projected air quality

violation?

X

b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X

c) Alter air movement, moisture, or

temperature, or cause any change in

climate?

X

d) Create objectionable odors? X

III. Water. Would the proposal result in:

a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage

patterns, or the rate and amount of surface

runoff?

X

b) Exposure of people or property to water

related hazards such as flooding? X

c) Discharge into surface water, or other

alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,

temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?

X

d) Changes in the amount of surface water in

any water body? X

e) Changes in currents, or the course or

direction of water movements? X
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

131 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Unless

Mitigated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

f) Change in the quantity of ground waters,

either through direct additions or withdrawals,

or through interception of an aquifer by cuts

or excavations, or through substantial loss of

groundwater recharge capability?

X

g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground

waters? X

h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X

i) Substantial reduction in the amount of water

otherwise available for public water supplies? X

IV.Biological Resources Would the proposal result

in impacts to:

a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or

their habitats (including but not limited to

plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?

 X

b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage

trees)? X

c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,

oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? X

d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and

vernal pool)? X

e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X

V. Noise. Would the proposal result in:

a) Increases in existing noise levels? X

b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X

VI. Land Use and Planning. Would the proposal:

a) Conflict with general plan designation or

zoning? X

b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans

or policies adopted by agencies with

jurisdiction over the project?

 X

c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the

vicinity? X

d) Affect agricultural resources or operations

(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or

impacts from incompatible land uses)?

 X

e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of

an established community (including a lowincome or minority community)?

 X

VII. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the

proposal:

a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation

plans? X

b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful

and inefficient manner? X
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

132 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Unless

Mitigated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

c) Result in the loss of availability of a known

mineral resource that would be of future

value to the region and the residents of the

State?

 X

VIII. Hazards. Would the proposal involve:

a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of

hazardous substances (including, but not

limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or

radiation)?

X

b) Possible interference with an emergency

response plan or an emergency evacuation

plan?

X

c) The creation of any health hazard or potential

health hazard? X

d) Exposure of people to existing sources of

potential health hazards? X

e) Increased fire hazard in areas with

flammable brush, grass, or trees? X

IX. Population and Housing. Would the proposal:

a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local

population projections? X

b) Induce substantial growth in an area either

directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in

an undeveloped area or extension of major

infrastructure)?

X

c) Displace existing housing, especially

affordable housing? X

X. Transportation/Circulation. Would the

proposal result in:

a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X

b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,

sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or

incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

X

c) Inadequate emergency access or access to

nearby uses? X

d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or offsite? X

e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or

bicyclists? X

f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting

alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,

bicycle racks)?

X

g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X

XI. Public Services. Would the proposal have an

effect upon, or result in a need for new or

altered governmental services in any of the

following areas:

a) Fire protection? X

b) Police protection? X
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

133 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Unless

Mitigated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

c) Schools? X

d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X

e) Maintenance of public facilities, including

roads?

X

f) Other governmental services? X

XII. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the

proposal result in need for new systems or

supplies or substantial alterations to the

following utilities:

a) Power or natural gas? X

b) Communication systems? X

c) Local or regional water treatment or

distribution facilities? X

d) Sewer or septic tanks? X

e) Storm water drainage? X

f) Solid waste and disposal? X

g) Local or regional water supplies? X

XIII. Aesthetics. Would the proposal:

a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X

b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic

effect? X

c) Create light or glare? X

XIV. Recreation. Would the proposal:

a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or

regional parks or other recreational facilities? X

b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X

XV. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal:

a) Disturb paleontological resources? X

b) Disturb archaeological resources? X

c) Affect historical resources?

d) Have the potential to cause a physical

change which would affect unique cultural

values?

X

e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses

within the potential impact area? X
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

134 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Unless

Mitigated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.

a) Potential to degrade: Does the project

have the potential to degrade the quality of

the environment, substantially reduce the

habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a

fish or wildlife population to drop below self

sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a

plant or animal community, reduce the

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?

X

b) Short-term: Does the project have the

potential to achieve short-term, to the

disadvantage of long-term, environmental

goals? (A short-term impact on the

environment is one which occurs in a

relatively, brief, definitive period of time.

Long-term impacts will endure well into the

future.)

X

c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts

which 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.)

X

d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have

environmental effects which will cause

substantial adverse effects on human beings,

either directly or indirectly?

X
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

135 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST COMMENTS

I. Geologic Problems

The proposed provisions of Rule 4702 may require some facilities to alter their

existing facilities to accommodate additional emission control equipment. There

are no provisions in the proposed rules that would call for a significant disruption

or over-covering of soil, changes in topography or surface relief features, the

erosion of beach sand, or a change in existing siltation rates. The proposed

project will not increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards.

II. Air Quality

The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment

area and a serious PM10 nonattainment area for the health-based air quality

standards established by the federal Clean Air Act. The San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District is considering downgrading the ozone

classification to extreme nonattainment. The serious PM10 classification and the

extreme ozone classification are the worst possible categories. NOx is a

precursor to both ozone and PM10. 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

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) control systems for some units that could not

achieve the emission limits in the rule by installing other controls. The amount of

ammonia emissions is assumed to be a small fraction of the amount of NOx

which is controlled and that the large, net, positive air quality benefit outweighs

the small increase in fugitive ammonia emissions.

III. Water

The operation of non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) and SCR would not

require the use of water. Therefore, there is no expected negative impact on

existing water resources or the need to explore new water resources as a result

of adopting the proposed project in the San Joaquin Valley.

IV. Biological Impacts

The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect existing plant or animal

species or communities, unique or endangered plant or animal species, or

agricultural crops. No additional significant adverse impacts to biological

resources are expected to result from the proposed project because proposed

rules are expected to affect existing facilities in industrial or commercial areas

where biological resources are already disturbed. Further, improvements in air

quality expected from the proposed rules are expected to provide health benefits

to plant and animal species as well as to the human residents of the District.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

136 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

V. Noise

The retrofitting of existing engines with NSR or SCR systems is not expected to

result in significant noise impacts. The engines operate mainly in industrial

settings where noise levels are already high. Existing engines typically generate

a certain amount of noise and any increase in noise associated with the

installation of add-on control equipment is expected to be negligible.

VI. Land Use and Planning

There are no provisions in the proposed rules that would affect land use plans,

policies, or regulations. It is also expected that the proposed rules will not affect

infrastructure development or require changes to existing zone designations

because the proposed provisions primarily regulate equipment at existing

facilities. Local governments determine land use and other planning

considerations, and no land use or planning requirements will be altered by

amending the NOx emission limits from engines. Therefore, present or planned

land uses in the region will not be affected as a result of the proposed rules.

VII. Energy and Mineral Resources

The operation of NSCR and SCR systems will require electrical power for

electronics and control motors. Additionally, some operators may opt to replace

their existing engines with electric motors. The power consumption of these

control systems and replacement motors is not expected to have any significant

impact on existing power resources.

VIII. Hazards

It is anticipated that for some engines, the operators may need to install and

operate SCR control systems to comply with the proposed emission limits. SCR

is known to cause an increase in ammonia emissions, or ammonia slip, under

some circumstances. The levels of ammonia emissions from potential ammonia

slip are not expected to reach hazardous levels, as ammonia emissions can be

reduced by properly operating and maintaining the equipment.

Ammonia transportation vessels, handling equipment, and storage tanks must

comply with state and local safety regulations that minimize the potential for

accidental release. Some SCR systems can also use non-hazardous urea or

aqueous ammonia injection to achieve the proposed emission limits without

anhydrous ammonia.

Certain catalysts may contain hazardous materials that must be properly

disposed of at the end of their useful life. Existing waste disposal regulations are

considered to be adequate to prevent a significant impact from occurring.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

137 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

IX. Population and Housing

There are no provisions in the proposed rules that would result in the creation of

any industry that would effect population growth, or directly or indirectly induce

the construction of single- or multiple-family units. No population relocation or

growth inducement is expected from implementation of the amended rules.

X. Transportation and Circulation

The proposed rules will not increase the number of businesses operating engines

in the District. Further, the proposed rules will not cause a substantial increase in

the number of transport trips to deliver ammonia because it is anticipated that

only a few additional existing engines would use SCR. The delivery of

anhydrous ammonia throughout the Valley for SCR systems is already occurring

at some existing facilities which currently use ammonia injection systems.

Deliveries are also made to agricultural sources which use ammonia as a soil

amendment.

XI. Public Services

The proposed provisions of new Rule 4702 are expected to result in the

increased use of ammonia as a catalytic reagent. Ammonia is a colorless gas

with a pungent suffocating odor and is corrosive to the skin, eyes, and lungs.

Prolonged contact at concentrations greater than 300 ppm can cause permanent

injury or death. Fortunately, ammonia has a low odor threshold (20 ppm), so

most people will seek relief at much lower concentrations. Ammonia does not

meet the DOT definition of a Flammable Gas but is flammable at concentrations

of 15% to 28% by volume in air. Because of state-mandated safety requirements

in the transportation and handling of ammonia, the District does not anticipate an

adverse impact to fire department services.

XII. Utilities and Service Systems

The operation of NSCR and SCR systems require electrical power for electronics

and control motors. The power consumption of these additional control systems

is not expected have any significant impact on existing power resources.

XIII. Aesthetics

The proposed rules are not expected to adversely affect or change land use in

the District. The proposed rules will not require any changes in the physical

environment that would obstruct any scenic vistas or views of interest to the

public. The proposed rules would not create aesthetically offensive sites visible

to the public. No significant adverse aesthetic or recreation impacts are

expected from the proposed rule provisions.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

138 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

XIV. Recreation

It is expected that recreational facilities and resources in the District will not be

affected adversely. These conclusions are based on the fact that any physical

changes would occur at existing industrial or commercial sites. No significant

adverse aesthetic or recreation impacts are expected from the proposed rule

provisions.

XV. Cultural Resources

As previously noted, any effects from implementing the proposed rules will occur

at existing facilities in commercial/industrial areas. As a result, significant

impacts to cultural resources are not expected because the proposed rules will

not require the destruction of existing buildings or sites with prehistoric, historic,

archaeological, religious, or ethnic significance. The proposed rule provisions

are, therefore, not anticipated to result in any activities or promote any programs,

which could have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources within the

District.

XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance

a. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the

environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a

fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to

eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the 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. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the

disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.

c. The project does not have impacts, which are individually limited, but

cumulatively considerable.

d. The project does not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial

adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

139 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702

III. EXHIBIT 1

MAP OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4701 and Rule 4702 August 21, 2003

140 Final Draft Staff Report:

Rule 4701 and Rule 4702