# FINAL 2007 AQMP APPENDIX IV-A

DISTRICT’S STATIONARY AND MOBILE SOURCE
CONTROL MEASURES

JUNE 2007

### SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD

Chairman: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D. Speaker of the Assembly Appointee

Vice Chairman: S. ROY WILSON, Ed.D. Supervisor, Fourth District Riverside County Representative

MEMBERS:

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Supervisor, Fifth District Los Angeles County Representative

BILL CAMPBELL Supervisor, Third District Orange County Representative

JANE W. CARNEY Senate Rules Committee Appointee

RONALD O. LOVERIDGE Mayor, City of Riverside Cities Representative, Riverside County

GARY OVITT Supervisor, Fourth District San Bernardino County Representative

JAN PERRY Councilmember, City of Los Angeles Cities Representative, Los Angeles County, Western Region

MIGUEL A. PULIDO Mayor, City of Santa Ana Cities Representative, Orange County

TONIA REYES URANGA Councilmember, City of Long Beach Cities Representative, Los Angeles County, Eastern Region

VACANT Governor’s Appointee

DENNIS YATES Mayor, City of Chino Cities Representative, San Bernardino County

EXECUTIVE OFFICER BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.Env

### CONTRIBUTORS

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env. Executive Officer

Elaine Chang, DrPH Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources

Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources

Joseph Cassmassi Zorik Pirveysian Planning and Rules Manager Environm ental Technology Assessment Manager Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources Science & Technology Advancement

Authors

SCAQMD - Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources Wayne Barcikowski, M.A. – Air Quality Specialist Ed Muehlbacher, P.E. – Program Supervisor Lori Berard, M.S. – Air Quality Specialist Mike Morris – Air Quality Specialist Naveen Berry – Program Supervisor Minh Pham, P.E. – Air Quality Specialist Kelly Brown – Air Quality Specialist Gary Quinn, P.E. - Program Supervisor Edward Eckerle – Program Supervisor Eugene Tezsler – Air Quality Specialist Tracy Goss, P.E. – Program Supervisor Helmy Sultan, Ph.D. – Air Quality Specialist Lee Lockie, M.S. – Director of Area Sources

Contributors

SCAQMD – Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources

Yunnie Chan – Student Intern Patr icia Kwon – Air Quality Specialist David DeBoer – Sr. Staff Specialist Mi ke Laybourn – Air Quality Specialist Heather Farr – Air Quality Specialist Rama n Patel. P.E. – Air Quality Specialist Ali Ghasemi, P.E. – Program Supervisor Pamela Perryman – Air Quality Specialist Marty Kay. P.E. – Program Supervisor Tuyet-Le Pham – Air Quality SpecialistTable of Contents

i 

### Table of Contents

SECTION 1 STATIONARY SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES
Introduction................................................................................................................... .. IV-A-1 Stationary Source Cont rol Measures .............................................................................. IV-A-1 Coatings and So lvents.......................................................................................... IV-A-4 Petroleum Operations and F ugitive VOC Emi ssions .......................................... IV-A-4 Combustion Sour ces ............................................................................................ IV-A-4 PM Sources .......................................................................................................... IV-A-4 Multiple Component Sources .............................................................................. IV-A-4 Compliance Flexibility Programs ........................................................................ IV-A-5 Emission Growth Ma nagement............................................................................ IV-A-5 District’s Mobile Source Control Measures ........................................................ IV-A-5 Evaluation of Control Measures Proposed by Other Districts/States............................. IV-A-6 Rule Effectiveness........................................................................................................... IV -A-6 Format of Control Measures ........................................................................................... IV-A-7 Control Measure Number .................................................................................... IV-A-7 Title ...................................................................................................................... IV-A -8 Summary Table.................................................................................................... IV-A-8 Description of Sour ce Category........................................................................... IV-A-8 Proposed Method of Control................................................................................ IV-A-8 Emissions Reduction............................................................................................ IV-A-9 Rule Complianc e.................................................................................................. IV-A-10 Test Methods ........................................................................................................ IV-A-10 Cost Effectiveness................................................................................................ IV-A-10 Implementing Ag ency.......................................................................................... IV-A-10 References ............................................................................................................ IV-A-10



### GROUP 1 COATINGS AND SOLVENTS
CTS-01 Emission Reductions from Lubricants [ VOC] .........................................IV-A-11 CTS-02 Clean Coatings Certifi cation Program [ VOC]..........................................IV-A-14Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

ii 

### CTS-03 Consumer Product Certifi cation and Emission Reductions from Use of Consumer Products at Institutional and Commercial Facilities [VOC].....................................................................................IV-A-17 CTS-04 Emission Reductions from th e Reduction of VOC Content of Consumer Products not Regulated by the State Board [VOC]..............IV-A-20



### GROUP 2 PETROLEUM OPERATIONS AND FUGITIVE VOC EMISSIONS FUG-01 Improved Leak Detection and Repair [ VOC]........................................IV-A-23 FUG-02 Emission Reductions from Gaso line Transfer and Dispensing Facilities [VOC].....................................................................................IV-A-26 FUG-03 Further Emission Reductions fro m Cutback Asphalts [VOC] ..............IV-A-30 FUG-04 Further Emission Reductions from Pipeline and Storage Tank Degassing [ VOC] ........................................................................IV-A-34



### GROUP 3 COMBUSTION SOURCES
CMB-01 NOx Reduction from Non-RE CLAIM Ovens, Dryers and Furnaces [NOx ]......................................................................................IV-A-37 CMB-02 Further SOx Reduction fo r RECLAIM [SOx ] ......................................IV-A-41 CMB-03 Further NOx Reductions from Space Heaters [NOx]............................IV-A-45 CMB-04 Natural Gas Fuel Specifica tions [All Pollutants]...................................IV-A-48



### GROUP 4 PM SOURCES
BCM-01 PM Control Devices (Baghouses, Wet Scrubbers, Electrostatic Precipitators, and Other Devices) [PM]............................IV-A-53 BCM-02 PM Emission Hot Spots – Localiz ed Control Programs [PM]..............IV-A-56 BCM-03 Emission Reductions from Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Stoves [PM2 .5]............................................................................IV -A-59 BCM-04 Additional PM Emissi on Reductions from Rule 444 – Open Burning [PM] ...............................................................................IV-A-65 BCM-05 Emission Reductions from Under-Fir ed Charbroilers [PM2.5] ............IV-A-68



### GROUP 5 MULTIPLE COMPONENT SOURCES MCS-01 Facility Modernization [ NOx, VOC, and PM 2.5] .................................IV-A-71Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

iii 

### MCS-02 Urban Heat Island [All Pollutant s] ......................................................... IV-A-77 MCS-03 Energy Efficiency and Cons ervation [All Pollutants] ............................ IV-A-84 MCS-04 Emissions Reduction fro m Green Waste Composting [VOC and PM ]........................................................................................ IV-A-89 MCS-05 Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste [VOC] ..................................................................................................... IV-A-93 MCS-06 Improved Start-up, Shut- down & Turnaround Procedures [All Pollutant s]........................................................................................ IV-A-99 MCS-07 Application of All Feasible Measures [All Pollutants]......................... IV-A-101 MCS-08 Clean Air Act Emission Fees for Major Stationary Sources [VOC and NOx ].................................................................................... IV-A-104



### GROUP 6 COMPLIANCE FLEXIBILITY PROGRAMS FLX-01 Economic Incentive Program s [All Pollutants] .................................... IV-A-107 FLX-02 Petroleum Refinery Pilot Program [VOC, PM 2.5]............................... IV -A-112



### GROUP 7 EMISSION GROWTH MANAGEMENT
EGM-01 Emission Reductions fro m New or Redevelopment Projects [NOx, VOC, and PM2.5] ...................................................... IV-A-115 EGM-02 Emission Budget and Mitigation for General Conformity Projects [All Pollutant s]...................................................................................... IV-A-123 EGM-03 Emissions Mitigation at Federally Permitted Projects [All Pollutant s]...................................................................................... IV-A-126



### GROUP 8 DISTRICT’S MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES MOB-01 Mitigation Fee Program for Federal Sources [NOx] ............................ IV-A-128 MOB-02 Extended Exchange Progr am [All Pollutants]...................................... IV-A-132 MOB-03 Backstop Measures for Indi rect Sources of Emissions from Ports and Port-Related Facilities [NOx, SOx, and PM] ....................... IV-A-135 MOB-04 Emission Reductions from the Carl Moyer Program [NOx and PM ]....................................................................................... IV-A-145 MOB-05 AB 923 Light-Duty Vehicle Hi gh-Emitter Identification Program [VOC, NOx, CO ] .................................................................................. IV-A-148Table of Contents

iv 

### MOB-06 AB 923 Medium-Duty Vehicle Hi gh-Emitter Identification Program [VOC, NOx, CO ] .................................................................................. IV-A-152 MOB-07 Concurrent Reductions fro m Global Warming Strategies [All Pollutant s]...................................................................................... IV-A-156



### SECTION 2 CONTINGENCY MEASURES
Introduction................................................................................................................. IV -A-164 Contingency Meas ures..................................................................................... IV-A-164 Format of Control Measures ....................................................................................... IV-A-165 Control Measure Number ................................................................................ IV-A-165 Summary Tabl e................................................................................................ IV-A-165 Information Contained in Measures................................................................. IV-A-166



### CONTINGENCY CONTROL MEASURES CTY-01 Offsetting the Potential Emissi on Increase Due to the Change in Natural Gas Specificati ons [NOx] ........................................................ IV-A-167 CTY-02 Clean Air Act Emission Fees for Major Stationary Sources [VOC and NOx ].................................................................................... IV-A-169 CTY-03 Banning Pre-Tier 3 Off-Roa d Diesel Engines during High Pollution Days [NOx, VOC , and PM] .................................................. IV-A-172 CTY-04 Accelerated Implementati on of CARB's Mobile Source Control Measures [All Pollutants] ........................................................ IV-A-174

ATTACHMENT A Evaluation of Control Measures Propos ed by Other Districts/States ............ IV-A-176

## SECTION 1 STATIONARY SOURCE CONTROL MEASURESFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-1 

### INTRODUCTION This Appendix describes the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) staff’s proposed stationary a nd mobile source control meas ures to be included in the 2007 AQMP. Control measures presented in this appendi x for PM2.5 are based upon a variety of market incentives and control strate gies that are commercially available and/or technologically feasible in the next several years. This appendix also includes seven mobile source measures that the District is proposing to implement. CARB released its State and federal strategy for the Calif ornia SIP in January 2007 (Appendix IV-B-I). District staff’s recommended policy options to supplement CARB’s control strategy are included in Appendix IV-B-II.



### STATIONARY SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES The Final 2007 AQMP includes 37 short-term control measures for stationary and mobile sources developed by th e District staff that are expected to be implemented within the next several years. Stationa ry source measures c ontained in the 2007 AQMP include the remaining revised and partia lly implemented measures from the 2003 AQMP with 28 additional new control measures.

It should be noted that the emission reduction targets for the proposed control measures (those with quantified reductions) are estab lished based on available or anticipated control methods or technologies. Howeve r, emission reductions associated with implementation of these and other control m easures or rules in excess of the AQMP’s projected reductions can be credited toward the overall emission reduction targets for the proposed control measures in this appendix.

Each of the Control Measures falls into one of seven strategies. Th ese strategies and the corresponding Control Measure ar e presented in Table 1:

TABLE 1
List of District Staff’s Control M easures Categorized by Control Strategy

Facility Modernization
Number Title MCS-01 Facility Modernization [NOx, VOC, and PM2.5] Energy Efficiency/Conservation
Number Title MCS-02 Urban Heat Island [All Pollutants] MCS-03 Energy Efficiency and Conservation [All Pollutants]Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-2 

### TABLE 1 (continued)

Good Management Practices
Number Title FUG-01 Improved Leak Detection and Repair [VOC] FUG-02 Emission Reductions from Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing Facilities [VOC] FUG-04 Further Emission Reductions from Pipeline and Storage Tank Degassing [VOC] BCM-01 PM Control Devices (Baghouses, Wet Scrubbers, Electrostatic Precipitators, and Other Devices) [PM] MCS-04 Emissions Reduction from Green Waste Composting [VOC and PM] MCS-06 Improved Start-up, Shut-down & Turnaround Procedures [All Pollutants] Market Incentives/Compliance Flexibility
Number Title CTS-02 Clean Coatings Certification Program [VOC] CMB-02 Further SOx Reduction for RECLAIM [SOx]

MCS-08 Clean Air Act Emission Fees for Ma jor Stationary Sources [VOC and NOx]
FLX-01 Economic Incentive Programs [All Pollutants] FLX-02 Petroleum Refinery Pilot Program [VOC and PM2.5] Emission Growth Management
Number Title EGM-01 Emission Reductions from New or Redevelopment Projects [NOx, VOC and PM2.5] EGM-02 Emission Budget and Mitigation for General Conformity Projects [All Pollutants] EGM-03 Emissions Mitigation at Federally Permitted Projects [All Pollutants]Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-3 

### TABLE 1 (continued)

Area Source Programs CTS-01 Emission Reductions from Lubricants [VOC]
CTS-03 Consumer Product Certification and Emission Reductions from Use of Consumer Products at Institutional and Commercial Facilities [VOC] CTS-04 Emission Reductions from the Re duction of VOC Content of Consumer Products not Regulated by the State Board [VOC] FUG-03 Further Emission Reductions from Cutback Asphalts [VOC]
CMB-01 NOx Reduction from Non-RECLAIM Ovens, Dryers and Furnaces [NOx] CMB-03 Further NOx Reductions from Space Heaters [NOx]) CMB-04 Natural Gas Fuel Specifications [All Pollutants] BCM-02 PM Emission Hot Spots – Localized Control Programs [PM]
BCM-03 Emission Reductions from Wood Burn ing Fireplaces and Wood Stoves [PM] BCM-04 Additional PM Emission Reductions from Rule 444 – Open Burning [PM] BCM-05 Emission Reductions from Under-Fired Charbroilers [PM]
MCS-05 Emission Reductions fr om Livestock Waste [VOC] MCS-07 Application of All Feasible Measures [All Pollutants]
Mobile Source Control
Number Title MOB-01 Mitigation for Federal Sources [NOx] MOB-02 Extended Exchange Program [All Pollutants] MOB-03 Backstop Measures for Indirect Sour ces of Emissions from Ports and PortRelated Facilities [NOx, SOx, and PM] MOB-04 Emission Reductions from the Carl Moyer Program [NOx and PM] MOB-05 AB 923 Light-Duty Vehicle Program [VOC, NOx, PM] MOB-06 AB 923 Medium-Duty Vehicle Program [NOx, PM] MOB-07 Concurrent Reductions from Global Warming Strategies [All Pollutants]



### Emission reduction associated with the Di strict’s SIP commitment to adopt and implement short-term VOC, PM10, NO x 

### , and SO X 

### emission reductions from sources under the District’s jurisdiction will be prep ared in the next se veral months based on revised emission inventories and public comments on strategies. Once the SIP commitment is accepted, should there be emissi on reduction shortfalls in any given year, the District would identify and adopt other measures to make up the shortfall. Similarly,Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-4 

### if excess emission reductions are achieved in a year, they can be used in that year or carried over to subsequent years if necessary to meet reduction goals.


### Coating and Solvents The category of coatings and solvents is pr imarily targeted at reducing VOC emissions from VOC-containing products such as coatings and solvents. This category includes four control measures that are based on additional emissi on reductions from lubricants, institutional and commercial cons umer products and other misc ellaneous coatings and an introduction of consumer product certification, representi ng an expansion of the current Clean Solvent Certification Program and, limiting the VOC content in consumer products not regulated by the State Board.


### Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Emissions This category pertains primarily to opera tions and materials associated with the petroleum, chemical, and other industries. Within this category, there is one control measure targeting fugitive VOC emissions with improved le ak detection and repair. Other measures include reductions from gasoline transfer and dispensing, p ipeline and storage tank degassing 

### and cutback asphalt facilities.



### Combustion Sources This category includes four me asures targeting stationary combustion equipment. There is one control measure reduc ing NOx from non-RECLAIM ovens , dryers, and furnaces. A second measure targets the reduction of SO x emissions from RECLAIM facilities. In addition, there is one new control me asure that seeks to further reduce NO x 

### emissions from space heaters. The last measure seeks to specify fuel standards for natural gas used in stationary sources as a means of preventing potential increase in NO x 

### emissions.



### PM Sources This category includes three new control measures which would require further reductions from PM control de vices and a localized contro l and enhanced open burning programs. The localized controls would be introduced in high PM areas to ensure PM10 attainment demonstration. There are also tw o control measures that have been carried over from the 2003 AQMP, i.e., PM reducti ons from wood stoves and charbroilers.


### Multiple Component Sources There are a total of eight control measures in this category. The first measure seeks reductions of all criteria pollutants through the modernization of permitted equipment and the application of supercompliant material s. The approach behind this measure is to either replace or retrofit existi ng equipment at the end of a pre-determined life span with today’s BACT and utilize today’s supercompliant materials at a future date. In additionFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-5 

### a new control measure has been introdu ced to promote energy efficiency and conservation.

Two of these control measures are include d in this category that address VOC and ammonia emissions from non-dairy livestock waste and composting operations. Another measure promotes the use of lighter color roofi ng, road materials, or tree planting. Two measures seek to minimize emissions dur ing equipment start up and shut down and reduce emissions by applying the state requirement of all feasible control measures. The last measure would place an emission ch arge for VOC and NOx major stationary

sources. 

### Compliance Flexibility Programs This category includes a control meas ure carried-over from the 2003 AQMP that enhances regulatory complia nce by providing additional flexibility and compliance options thereby lowering compliance costs and incentivizing early reductions and advancement of clean technologies. A sec ond control measure was mentioned in the 2003 AQMP but not listed as a Cont rol Measure. This measure is a pilot program that could be used by the Petrol eum Refining businesses as a compliance option to achieve their emission reduction oblig ations through either on-s ite or off-site controls.


### Emission Growth Management

There are three control measures within th is category. The first measure addresses emission reductions from new or redevelopmen t projects. District staff convened a working group made up of st akeholders from industry, local governments, and community representatives. Three working gr oup meetings were held and staff prepared the following approach: The District will de velop a rule that sp ecifies applicability criteria for new or redevelopment projects and will involve the se lection of mitigation measures from a menu of technically feasib le mitigation options. The last two new control measures address the General Conform ity projects. The firs t of these measures creates an emissions budget and mitigation program for these projects. The second measure addresses the impacts of federa lly permitted projects on the District.



### District’s Mobile Source Control Measures The District is proposing seve n control measures for mobile sources. One control measure seeks to impose a mitigation fee pr ogram on federal source s such as planes, trains, and ships in order to fund emissi on reduction projects. The second measure promotes accelerated turn-over of in-use small off-road engines (SORE) and other engines such as recreational outboard e ngines through expanded voluntary exchange programs. The third measure introduces back stop measures for indirect sources of emissions from ports and port-related facilities. The fourth measur e proposes to take credit for the emission reductions achieved through past and futu re projects funded under the Carl Moyer Program. The fifth a nd sixth measures identify categories ofFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-6 

### vehicles and augment the current smog ch eck program. The last measure relies on concurrent reductions in criteria pollutants a ssociated with implementation of strategies to reduce global warming gases as specified in Assembly Bill 32.



### EVALUATION OF CONTROL MEASURES PROPOSED BY OTHER DISTRICTS/STATES

In an effort to ensu re that all feasible measures ar e incorporated in the 2007 AQMP, in additional Reasonably Available Control Me asure (RACM) demonstration included in Appendix VI, staff has review and evalua ted control measures proposed by other districts and states for inclus ion into their respective SIPs. Specifically, staff reviewed the following documents:

• 

### Final Draft 8-Hour Ozone Plan for Sa n Joaquin Valley, California (Serious)

• 

### Draft 8-Hour Ozone Plan for Sacramen to Metropolitan, California (Serious)

• 

### Final 2006 1-hour Ozone Pl an for San Francisco Bay Area, California (Moderate)

• 

### Final list of control strategies of No rth Central Texas Council of Governments developed to be used for Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston-Ga lveston-Brazoria, Texas (Moderate)

• 

### Final list of control measures of La ke Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) or Midwest Regional Pla nning Organization (Midwest RPO) developed to be considered by the five st ates in the Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin). In general, the District’s current rules and regulations and control measures proposed in the 2007 AQMP are equivalent to or more st ringent than those de veloped by other air districts. A summary of the control meas ures and the process of developing these control measures in other air districts is provided below and is su mmarized in Table A-1 of Attachment A.



### RULE EFFECTIVENESS The 1990 federal Clean Air Act requires that emi ssions inventories be adjusted to reflect the rule effectiveness. As defined by EPA, rule effectiveness reflects how emission reductions due to implementa tion of a regulatory program are estimated. EPA suggests a default value of 80 percent if emission reductions are estimated based on projected control efficiencies and emission factors. If a higher rule effectiven ess value is used the District needs to demonstrate how thes e emission reductions will be achieved.
As described below under Rule Complia nce and Test Methods, the compliance demonstration for each proposed control meas ure, where the District accounted for emission reductions, identifies the complianc e mechanisms such as recordkeeping,Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-7 

### inspection and maintenance activities, etc., and test methods such as District, ARB, and EPA approved test methods. The District’s on going s ource testing and on-site inspection programs also strengthen the status of compliance verification. In addition, the District conducts workshops, complian ce education programs to inform facility operators on rule requirements and assist th em in performing recordkeeping and self inspections. These compliance tools are designed to ensure rule compliance would be achieved on a continued basis. As a result, the control measures proposed in this appendix with quantifiable emission reductions are based on a rule effectiveness of 100 percent.



### FORMAT OF CONTROL MEASURES

Included in each control measur e description is a title, summary table, description of source category (including ba ckground and regulatory hist ory), proposed method of control, estimated emission reductions, rule co mpliance, test methods, cost effectiveness, and references. The type of informati on that can be found under each of these subheadings is described below.



### Control Measure Number Each control measure is identified by a control measure number such as “CM #2007MCS-04” located at the upper right hand co rner of every page. “CM #” is the abbreviation for the “control measure number” and is immediately followed by the year of the AQMP revision.
The next three-letter designation, “CTS” represents the abbreviation for a source category or specific programs. For example “CTS” is an abbreviation for “Coatings and Solvents.” The following provides a descrip tion of the abbreviati ons for each of the

measures.

• CTS Coatings and Solvents

• CMB Combustion Sources

• FUG Fugitive Emissions

• MCS Multiple Component Sources

• BCM Best Available Control Meas ures for Fugitive Dust Sources

• FLX Compliance Flexibility Programs

• EGM Emission Growth Management

• MOB Mobile Source ProgramsFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-8 

### If the measure is based on a control meas ure from the 2003 AQMP, the former control measure number appears in parentheses af ter the 2007 AQMP number. For example, 2007 AQMP Control Measure CM #2007CMB-04 Natural Gas Fuel Specifications would also have the designation (CM #2003MSC-07).



### Title

The title contains the control measure name and the major pollutant(s) controlled by the measure. Titles that state “Control of Emi ssions from...” indicate that the measure is regulating a new source category, not presently regulated by an existing source- specific District rule. Titles that st ate “Further Emission Reductions of” imply that the measure would result in an amendment to an existing District rule.


### Summary Table

Each measure contains a table that summari zes the measure and is designed to identify the key components of the contro l measure. The table contains a brief explanation of the source category, control met hod, emission reductions, control costs, and implementing
agency. 

### Description of Source Category This section provides an overall description of the source cat egory and the intent of the control measure. The source category is presented in two se ctions, background and regulatory history. The ba ckground has basic information about the control measure such as the number of sources in the Basin, descripti on of emission sources, and pollutants.
The regulatory history contains information regarding existi ng regulatory control of the source category such as applicab le District rules or regulati ons and if the source category was identified in the 1999 or prior AQMPs.


### Proposed Method of Control The purpose of this section is to identify potential control options an emission source can use to achieve emission reductions. If an e xpected performance for a control option is provided, it is intended for informational pur poses only and s hould not be interpreted as the targeted overall control effi ciency for the proposed contro l measure. To the extent feasible, the overall control efficiency for a control measure should take into account achievable controls in the field by various s ubcategories within the control measure. A more detailed type of this an alysis is typically conducted during rulemaking, not in the planning stage. It has been the District's long standing policy not to exclude any control technology and to intentionally identified as many control op tions as possible to spur further technology development.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-9 

### In addition to the proposed cont rol methods discussed in each control measure, affected sources may have the option of partially satisfying the emission reduction requirements of each control measure with compliance fl exibility programs curren tly available, or those that will become available in the future from the on-goi ng implementation of control measure CM #2007FLX- 01. Examples of comp liance flexibility programs currently available include Rule 2020 – RECLAIM Reserve and the pilot credit generation rules under Regulati on XVI – Mobile Source O ffset Programs. Future enhancements to Regulation XVI may include additional oppor tunities to generate and use credits from mobile sources which could advance the utilization of these credit rules and other compliance flexibility pr ograms similar to regulation XVI.



### Emissions Reduction

The emission reductions are estimates based on the baseline inventories prepared for the 2007 AQMP and are provided in the Control Me asure Summary Table. The emissions data are based on the annual average inventor y for all five criteria pollutants. The planning inventory adjusts the emissions by taking into consideration a source category’s seasonal variations. The emissions affecting ozone concentration (i.e., VOC and NO x 

### ) are presented under the Summer Planning I nventory. The emissions section of the summary table includes the 2002, 2014, and 2023 inventory. The 2014 and 2023 emission projections reflect implementation of District adopted rules. Based on the expected reductions associated with implem enting the control measure, emission data are calculated for 2014 and 2023 assuming the im plementation of the control measure in the absence of other competing control measures.
The emission reductions listed in the summary table represent the current best estimates, which are subject to change during rule de velopment. As demons trated in previous rulemaking, the District is always seek ing maximum emission re ductions when proven technically feasible and cost-effective. For emission accounting purposes, a weighted average control efficiency is calculated base d on the targeted controls. The concept of weighted average acknowledges the fact that a control measure or rule consists of several subcategories, and the emission re duction potential for each subcategory is a function of proposed emissi on limitation and the associat ed emission inventory. Therefore, the use of control efficiency to estimate emission reductions does not represent a commitment by the District to require emission reductions uniformly across source categories. In addition, due to th e current structure of emission inventory reporting system, a control measure may partia lly affect an inventory source category (e.g., certain size of equipment or certain level material usage). In this case, an impact factor is incorporated into the calculation of a control efficiency to account for the fraction of inventory affected. During the ru le development, the most current inventory will be used. However, for tracking rate -of-progress on the SI P emission reduction commitment, the approved AQMP inventory will be used. More specifically, emissionFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-10 

### reductions due to mandatory or voluntary, but enforceable, actions will be credited under SIP obligations.


### Rule Compliance This section was designed to satisfy requi rements in the 1990 Clea n Air Act in which EPA has indicated that it is ne cessary to have a discussion of rule compliance with each control measure. This section discusses the recordkeeping and monitoring requirements envisioned for the control measure. In general the District would continue to verify rule compliance through site inspections and submittal of compliance plans.



### Test Methods In addition to requiring recordkeeping and m onitoring requirements, EPA has stated that “An enforceable regulation must also contai n test procedures in order to determine whether sources are in compliance.” This section of the cont rol measure write-up identifies appropriate approved District, ARB, and EPA source test methods.



### Cost Effectiveness The Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method is us ed to calculate the cost-effectiveness of each control measure. As control measur es undergo the rule making process, more detailed control costs will be developed.

The cost effectiveness values contained here in, may overestimate actual levels because of a number of affected factors. As add itional information on costs and more accurate numbers of affected facilities becomes availabl e, the cost effectiveness will be revised and analyzed in the socioeconomic assessment report of the 2007 AQMP.


### Implementing Agency This section identifies the agency(ies) responsibility for implementing the control measure. Also included in this section is a description of any jurisdictional issues that may affect the control measure’s implementation.



### References This section identifies directly cited refere nces, or those references used for general background information.

## GROUP 1 Coatings and SolventsFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTS-01

IV-A-11 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM LUBRICANTS [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : I NDUSTRIAL L UBRICANTS

CONTROL METHODS : P HASE I: R EFINE E MISSIONS I NVENTORY I DENTIFY L OW -E MITTING A LTERNATIVES AND E NCOURAGE I NDUSTRIES TO S WITCH FROM H IGH VOC C ONTENT L UBRICANTS TO A LTERNATIVE S OLVENTS

P HASE II: R ULE D EVELOPMENT TO L IMIT E MISSIONS AT
THE S OURCE AND / OR L IMIT VOC C ONTENT AT P OINT OF S ALE /U SE

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 5.2 6.0 6.4 VOC R EDUCTION 1.9 2.0 VOC R EMAINING 4.1 4.4

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 5.2 6.0 6.4 VOC R EDUCTION 1.9 2.0 VOC R EMAINING 4.1 4.4

C ONTROL C OST : $1,000 TO 5,000 PER TON VOC REDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The proposed control measure seeks to reduce VOC emissions from the use of lubricants which are utilized by a variety of different industries and new facility processes.


### Background

A control measure was included in the 2003 AQMP to reduce VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial coatings and solvent operations. The total estimated annual average emissions from these sources, without mitiga tion, were 13.9 tons per day in 2006 and 15.2 tons per day by 2010.

This 2007 AQMP control measure would seek to reduce VOC emissions from industrial lubricants, a category under solvent operati ons, over a defined implementation period. Lubricants include products such as coolants in manufacturing processes; stamping fluids; vanishing oils; and cutting, forming, and honing oils , and are used by various companies in the South Coast Air Basin including, but not limited t o, machine shops, auto rebuilders, and autoFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTS-01

IV-A-12 parts manufacturers. Many lubricants and their additives, such as rust and corrosion inhibitors, are at least 50 percent VOC solvents and are be lieved to emit a significant amount of VOCs. In addition, mineral spirits and kerosene used to dilute lubricants contain traces of benzene, toluene, and xylene, which are all classified as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) by the EPA and Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) by the state of California. Benzene is established as a human carcinogen and toluene and xylene, respec tively, have been proven to cause central nervous system damage and birth defects. `


### Regulatory History As stated in the previous section, lubrican ts are categorized under miscellaneous solvent operations. They are currently subject to Rule 442, “Usage of Solvents,” which reduces VOC emissions from VOC-containing materials that ar e not subject to VOC limits in any Regulation XI rule. Currently, there are no regulations or em issions restrictions specifically concerned with industrial lubricants in place at the local, state, or federal levels.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL There would be two potential implementation phase s, enacted in an order that would bring about reductions in the most expedient manner. The first phase woul d involve refining the emissions inventory and identifying low-emitting alternatives to existing high-VOC lubricants and encouraging industries currently using high-VOC content products to voluntarily switch over to less-polluting ones. The second phase would involve developing a rule that would further reduce source emissions by either placing an overall emissions limit by source, or by limiting VOC content in lubricant formulations at the point of sale and/or use. This reduction is based on the fact that a smaller fraction of a ll industrial lubricants are virtually 100 percent VOC. Implementation of this control measur e would target a minimum overall VOC reduction of 35 percent or 1.9 tons per day by year 2014.

There are important points that should be noted when discussing these phases. First, there are low- and non-emitting alternatives to petroleum-based lubricants available on the market, including synthetics, semi-synthetics, and vegetabl e oils. Thus, feasible reduction requirements could apply to the end user, as well as be imposed at the point of sale. A second notable point is that different types of machinery require differe nt lubricant formulations. It should be made certain that the technological feasibility and cost im pact of all alternatives to specific lubricant materials be assessed. Further consideration must also be given to possible toxic constituents in any reformulation or other alternatives.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Feasible emission reductions from currently ava ilable alternative products are estimated to be 2.0 tpd in the year 2023.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Rule compliance would be achieved with co mpliance requirements under Regulation XI - Source Specific Rules. Recordkeeping and mon itoring requirements would be similar to Rule 109.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTS-01

IV-A-13 

### TEST METHODS The applicable testing methods are uncertain at this time and would require further analysis during the rulemaking process.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control meas ure ranges between $1,000 per ton of VOC reduced to $5,000 based on the annualized cost comparisons conducted by the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance in their report entitled “A ssessment, Development and Demonstration of Alternatives to VOC-Emitting Lubricants, Vanishi ng Oils and Rust Inhibitors”. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost imp act associated with implementing this control measure and will provide specific cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has authority to regulate VOC em issions from industrial coating and solvent operations, under which industrial lubricants are categorized.



### REFERENCES EPA Proposal Submittal. “Alternatives to VOC Emitting Lubricants and Rust Inhibitors” 2004.

Institute for Research and Technical Assistan ce. “Assessment, Development and Demonstration of Alternatives to VOC-Emitting Lubricants, Va nishing Oils and Rust Inhibitors”, August 2006.Final 2007 AQMP Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTS-02

IV-A-14 

### CLEAN COATINGS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : C OATING M ATERIALS

C ONTROL M ETHODS : S TEP I: D EVELOPMENT OF C ERTIFICATION P ROGRAM
FOR C OATINGS WITH L OW -, U LTRA L OW -, OR Z ERO

VOC C ONTENT

S TEP II: A LLOW FOR R EDUCTION OF E MISSION F EES TO M ANUFACTURERS OF C OATINGS WITH L OW -VOC C ONTENT

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY TBD TBD TBD VOC R EDUCTION TBD TBD VOC R EMAINING TBD TBD

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY TBD TBD TBD VOC R EDUCTION TBD TBD VOC R EMAINING TBD TBD

C ONTROL C OST : T O B E D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Although industrial coatings have been subject to controls for many years, they remain a significant source of VOC emissions. This cont rol measure would seek to implement a VOC content certification program for lower VOC coati ngs, similar to that for Clean Air Solvents, which would influence industrial and other consum ers’ purchase decisions toward products with lower emissions. Manufacturers would then be en couraged to lower their VOC content, thus possibly reducing emissions beyond what trad itional control rules would mandate. VOC emissions can cause adverse health impacts, such as headaches, nausea, allergic reactions, and other health problems in humans if inhaled. They also contribute to the formation of ozone and PM2.5, which can affect pulmonary functions and limit visibility.Final 2007 AQMP Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTS-02

IV-A-15 

### Regulatory History Previously, under Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Oper ations, Clean Air Solvent certificates were issued to manufacturers, distributors, or any person for materials that met the criteria for a Clean Air Solvent. Key to that certification is that, among other criteria, the solvent contains no more than 25 grams of VOC per liter of material and the certification is valid for five years.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL
First, a certification criteria would be establishe d for distinguishing products that are considered supercompliant (i.e. low-, ultra low-, or zer o-VOC content levels), from other compliant products. Secondly, a certification process would be established for those products meeting the “Clean Air Coating” criteria. Certified pr oducts would be allowed to use the District certification and promote the products as being “environmental friendly.”

Should the District produce fee related programs for VOC products, consideration will be given to promote super compliant products.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION This voluntary certification program's objectiv e is to positively influence industrial, commercial, and consumer behavior in sel ecting ultra-low volatile organic compound (VOC) coatings and foster the marketing of ultra-low polluting technologies in an overall effort to reduce VOC emissions. Any VOC reductions due to promoting the use of ultra-low VOC coatings will be quantified via future SIP revisions.



### RULE COMPLIANCE

This control measure would seek to amend a pplicable rules in Regulations II and XI to incorporate a Clean Air Coating Certification Progr am, similar to that for clean air solvents, as well as be considered in any future regulator y development. The District will explore the feasibility of voluntary and mandatory program s through amendments to Regulation XI and other rules. Conceptually, mandatory versus vol untary participation in the certification program is directly related to the District requiring all architectural coating products to be certified in order to be sold and applied within the District.

Essentially, if the program is voluntary, those co atings that are certified could benefit by not being subject to emission fees whereas non-certif ied products would pay a fee. Conversely, if it were mandatory, every coating manufacturer woul d need to certify their products. The fees could be assessed on a sliding scale with super compliant products, requiring little or no emission fees. The method of control would also include public education, outreach, and various marketing elements to help incentivi ze manufacturers and create consumer awareness and demand.



### TEST METHODS EPA Method 24 and SCAMQD Method 304 are rigorous test methods that provide accurate and reliable results when measuring the volatile orga nic content (VOC) of many coatings, but there is inherent variability when employing Method 24 to analyze the VOC content of low-VOCFinal 2007 AQMP Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTS-02

IV-A-16 waterborne coatings. The District has been working with the EPA, ARB, ASTM as well as members of academia and industry to develop an improved test method for the analysis of low VOC coatings. ASTM Method D 6886 Speciation of the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Low VOC Content Waterborne Air-Dry Coati ngs by Gas Chromatography yields far greater precision than EPA Method 24 for low VOC waterborne coatings.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

Cost-effectiveness has not been determined for this measure.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

Both the CARB and the District have the aut hority to regulate consumer products emissions.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTS-03

IV-A-17



### CONSUMER PRODUCT CERTIFICATION AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM USE OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS AT INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : C ONSUMER P RODUCTS

C ONTROL M ETHODS : S TEP I: D EVELOPMENT OF C ERTIFICATION P ROGRAM FOR C ONSUMER P RODUCTS

.

S TEP II: P ROMOTING U SE OF C ONSUMER P RODUCTS (U LTRA L OW

- OR Z ERO -VOC P RODUCTS ) AT H IGH V OLUME C OMMERCIAL AND I NSTITUTIONAL F ACILITIES

.

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 23.1 21.0 20.5 VOC R EDUCTION 2.1 2.2 VOC R EMAINING 18.9 18.3

C ONTROL C OST : S EE C OST E FFECTIVENESS S ECTION I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : ARB AND AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Consumer products are defined under the Calif ornia Health and Safety Code (HSC) as chemically formulated products used by institu tional and household consumers. They include products such as detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; di sinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products. Paint products, and furniture or architectural coatings are not included. The California Air Resources Board (A RB) further defines institutional cleaning as the cleaning of building or facility component s including, but not limite d to, floors, ceilings, walls, windows, doors, stairs, bathrooms, furnishings , and exterior surfaces of office equipment. Many of these commonly used consumer products have high-VOC contents and are the focus of ARBs efforts in the reduction of smog in Califor nia. In the year 2005, the contribution of VOCs from Consumer Products used in California was estimated at 245 tons per day or about 110 tons per day for the South Coast Air Quality Management (District). The inventory claim for this measure is an estimate of emissions from those consumer products used at institutional and commercial facilities.

This control measure would seek to reduce VOC s from consumer products used at commercial and institutional facilities by and through the us e of marketing strategies and regulatoryFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTS-03

IV-A-18 mandates. VOC emissions can cause adverse health impacts, such as headaches, nausea, allergic reactions, and other health problems in humans if inhaled. They also contribute to the formation of ozone and PM10, which can affect pulmonary functions and limit visibility.

This control measure would seek to devel op new rules or programs to establish a VOC certification program, and to incentivize high vol ume users toward super compliant products resulting in overall reductions in VOCs. Staff re search has shown that there are low-and zeroVOC commercial and institutional products availabl e that are below current and proposed limits in ARBs Consumer Products Regulation. For ex ample, a local supplier of environmentally friendly cleaning products, Natural Solutions , has over twenty products available for commercial and institutional use ranging from 0 to 4% by weight of VOCs prior to dilution. Similar products under the current and future limits of ARBs Consumer Product Regulation range from 1% to 4% as applied, implying typically higher VOC ranges prior to dilution creating an even larger comparative differential.


### Regulatory History
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has the authority to regulate consumer products under Section 41712 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). Local Air Pollution Control Districts may restrict the use of consum er products at stationary and area sources of emissions, to limit the overall contribution of VOCs attributable to the formation of smog, may regulate consumer products that are not already regulated by ARB, and potentially may limit the use of consumer products at institutional and commercial sources.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Commercial and institutional consumer products used at facilities conducting business within the District would be targeted under this contro l measure, which would be implemented in two steps through specific rule development.

First, a certification program would be estab lished to distinguish products that are super compliant containing ultra low- or zero-VOC cont ent levels, otherwise referred to as “green” products, from products with higher-VOC content.

Second, following implementation of the certif ication program, a usage limitation (or a prohibition of use) or other control method would be adopted for consumer products to facilitate the use of ultra low- or zero-VOC products at high volume commercial and institutional facilities to the extent that the District is able to under State law, or the District will request ARB to adopt such a rule.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Emission reductions from commercially available consumer products are expected to be about 2.1 tpd by the year 2014 and 2.2 tpd by 2023. Reductions achieved through this measure will contribute to ARB's SIP commitment for this source category.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTS-03

IV-A-19 

### RULE COMPLIANCE Step I: New labeling program for manufacturers or distributors with criteria developed under a public process.

Step II: Create a usage limitation or a prohibition of use, or the District will request ARB to adopt such a rule.



### TEST METHODS United States Environmental Protection Agen cy (USEPA) Reference Method 24 (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A). The exempt compounds' content shall be determined by the District Method 303 (Determination Exempt Compounds) contained in the District "Laboratory Methods of Analysis for Enforcement Samples" manual; or,

District Method 304 [Determination of Vola tile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Various Materials] contained in the District "Laborator y Methods of Analysis for Enforcement Samples" manual.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS No increase in cost is expected from this control measure. The California Department of General Services’ “Green Building Initiative” concludes that, “Environmentally preferred cleaners are generally competitively priced. This includes the purchase price of the product, the cost of meeting regulations for worker safety a nd environmental rules, and the costs of disposal for leftover product.”



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY Step I to be implemented by the District with Step II under ARB and/or District regulatory authority.Final 2007 AQMP Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTS-04

IV-A-20 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM THE REDUCTION OF VOC CONTENT OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS NOT REGULATED BY THE STATE BOARD [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : C ONSUMER P RODUCTS

C ONTROL M ETHODS : L IMITATION OF VOC C ONTENT FOR S ELECTED C ONSUMER P RODUCTS
THAT ARE P RIMARILY U SED BY I NSTITUTIONAL AND I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITIES AND ARE C URRENTLY U NREGULATED BY THE C ALIFORNIA A IR R ESOURCES B OARD

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 6.3 7.3 7.6 VOC R EDUCTION 5.8 6.0 VOC R EMAINING 1.5 1.6

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 6.3 7.3 7.6 VOC R EDUCTION 5.8 6.0 VOC R EMAINING 1.5 1.6

C ONTROL C OST : $3,000 TO 5,000 PER T ON VOC R EDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD/CARB 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background The California Health and Safety Code (HSC) defines a “Consumer product” as a chemically formulated product used by household and institu tional consumers. HSC 41712 (f) prohibits air quality districts from adopting regulations pertai ning to a consumer product that is different from any regulation adopted by the state board. Several consumer product categories, including Lacquer Thinners and Paint Thinners, are unre gulated by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The two categories have significant em issions within the South Coast Air Basin. According to ARB, between 54% and 97% of th e above mentioned product categories are used by institutional and industrial facilities.

This control measure would seek to reduce VOCs from lacquer thinners and paint thinners sold as consumer products by establishing a VOC content limit for each of those categories.Final 2007 AQMP Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTS-04

IV-A-21 

### Regulatory History

ARB has the authority to regulate consumer products under Section 41712 of the HSC. Local Air Pollution Control Districts may restrict the us e of consumer products at stationary and area sources of emissions to limit the overall contribu tion of VOCs attributable to the formation of smog, regulate consumer products that are not already regulated by ARB, and potentially limit the use of consumer products at institutional, industrial and commercial sources.

Most lacquer thinners and paint thinners distributed and sold as consumer products are pure solvents with a very high VOC content. Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations and associated technology assessments conducted to s upport the rule, revealed the viability of lower VOC products that are currently in use by many industrial and commercial operations. This low VOC product technology can easily be adapted to meet consumer application needs.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Products used at facilities conducting business with in the district would be targeted under the control measure and would be implemented through specific rule development. Similar to Rule 1174 – Control of Volatile Organic Compound Em issions from the Ignition of Barbecue Charcoal, the rule would apply to suppliers, distributors and retailers of paint thinners and lacquer thinners. It would limit the VOC cont ent of products sold to consumers, including institutional and industrial facilities.



### EMISSION REDUCTION The expected emission reduction would be based on the final VOC content limit allowed for paint thinners and lacquer thinners. The primary uses are thinning and cleaning of coatings and adhesives. Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Oper ations, has a VOC content limit of 100 g/l for similar cleaning activities. If such a limit were adopted, the expected emission reduction would be 5.8 tons per day in 2014 and 6.0 tons per day by 2023. Any emission reductions resulting from the implementation of this control measur e will be credited towards the District’s SIP obligation provided ARB does not develop a similar regulation. Any remaining excess reductions will then contribute to fulfilling ARB’s SIP commitment.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Create a VOC content limit for suppliers, distributor s and retailers of paint thinners and lacquer thinners.



### TEST METHODS United States Environmental Protection Agen cy (USEPA) Reference Method 24 (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A). The exempt compounds content shall be determined by the District Method 303 (Determination Exempt Compounds) contained in the District “Laboratory Methods of Analysis fo r Enforcement Samples” manual; or District Method 304 [Determination of Volatile Organi c Compounds (VOC) in Various Material] contained in the District “Laboratory Methods of Analysis for Enforcement Samples” manual.Final 2007 AQMP Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTS-04

IV-A-22 

### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control meas ure ranges between $3,000 per ton of VOC reduced to $5,000 based on the cost differential between existing solvent-based thinners and low-VOC thinners and clean-up solvents used to comply with other District regulations. The District staff will continue to analyze the potential cost imp act associated with implementing this control measure and will provide specific cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
The District has the authority to implement this measure



### .

## GROUP 2 Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC EmissionsFinal 2007 AQMP Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-01

IV-A-23 

### IMPROVED LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR
[VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

SOURCE CATEGORY: F UGITIVE E MISSION S OURCES

CONTROL METHODS: P HASE I: P ILOT P ROGRAM

– O PTICAL G AS I MAGING (S MART LDAR)

P HASE II: F ULL I MPLEMENTATION OF S MART LDAR P ROGRAMS
EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY) NOT DETERMINED
CONTROL COST: U P T O $100,000 P ER U NIT

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: AQMD



### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY

Control Measure #FUG-01 is a new control measure that targets a variety of fugitive emissions sources including, but not limited to, oil and ga s production facilities, petroleum and chemical products processing, storage and transfer facilities, marine terminals, and other sources contributing to fugitive emissions. Most of these facilities are required under District and federal rules to maintain a leak detection a nd repair (LDAR) program that involves individual screening of all of their piping components.

The scope of Control Measure FUG–01 is to enhance the effectiveness of existing LDAR programs by identifying and repairing leaks sooner and in a manner that is less time consuming and labor intensive and expand the applicability of LDAR programs to areas currently not covered by existing rules such as harbor vessels. For this purpose, the new control measure uses recently developed technology, called optical ga s imaging, to detect leaks (Smart LDAR). There are two types of optical gas imaging inst ruments: active and passive. The active type uses a laser beam that is reflected by the bac kground; and the attenuation of the beam traversing through a hydrocarbon cloud provides the optical imag e. The passive type uses the ambient illumination to detect the difference in heat ra diance of the hydrocarbon cloud. For either type, the instrument displays an image of the hydrocarbon plume.


### Background Fugitive VOC leaks have been the subject of c ontrol measures in previous AQMPs since they are ozone precursors and contribute to formation of smog. Several District rules that affect petroleum and chemical-related industries, such as oil refineries, oil and gas production fields, natural gas processing plants, pipeline transfer st ations and chemical plants have some kind of requirement involving the periodic inspection of piping components and the detection and repair of leaks.Final 2007 AQMP Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-01

IV-A-24 Fugitive leaks are detected with an organic vapor analyzer (OVA) that measures the leak rate for each component, using U.S. EPA Referen ce Method 21. In the early 1970s, U.S. EPA initiated the Petroleum Refinery Assessment St udy, which developed average emission factors for each type of piping component (valve, fla nge, pump, etc) and concluded that mass emission rates are dependent of the phase of the process stream (gas/vapor, light liquid and heavy liquid) and the relative volatility of the liquid stream.

Mass emissions from fugitive leaks can be calcu lated based on correlation equations developed by the U.S. EPA based on data from the 1994 Refinery Equipment Leak Report. Mass emissions are calculated by inserting the measur ed leak rates into the correlation equations specific for each type of component, such as valve, flange, pump, compressor, etc.

The current LDAR program has been successf ul in significantly reducing fugitive VOC emissions from a variety of sources. Howeve r, the latest technology provides opportunities for further improvements in the efficiency of th e conventional LDAR program and for further reductions.


### Regulatory History Fugitive emissions are currently regulated under various District rules that require a LDAR program: Rules 462 – Organic Liquid Loadi ng, 463 – Storage of Or ganic Liquids, 1142 – Marine Vessel Tank Operations, 1173 – Contro l of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from Components at Petroleum and Chemical Plants, 1176 – Sumps and Wastewater Separators, and 1178 - Further Reductions of VOC Emissions from Storage Tanks at Petroleum Facilities.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This control measure will be implemented in tw o phases: Phase I will be a pilot LDAR program involving familiarization with the new technology and establishing implementation protocols, and will involve the identification of facilities/i ndustries currently subject to LDAR programs as well as others that are not where the new tec hnology can successfully be utilized. Based on the results of Phase I, fugitive VOC rules, if f easible, will be amended under a subsequent phase (Phase II) to enhance their applicability, effectiveness, and to further reduce emissions.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION

The emission reductions from this control measure have not been determined.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Rule compliance would be similar to comp liance requirements under existing Rules 462, 463, 1142, 1173, 1176, and 1178. Recordkeeping and monito ring requirements would be similar to Rule 109.Final 2007 AQMP Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-01

IV-A-25 

### TEST METHODS

Test methods include the following:

U.S. EPA Reference Method 21 - Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds Leaks.

Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 66 April 6, 2006 - Alternative Work Practice To Detect Leaks From Equipment.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

There are no claimed emission reductions associat ed with this control measure and therefore cost effectiveness is not calculated.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has authority to regulate fugitive VOC emissions sources.



### REFERENCES U.S. EPA – Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, November 1995.

Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 66/April 6, 2006, Alternative Work Practice To Detect Leaks From Equipment.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-02 (CM #2003FUG-05)

IV-A-26 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM GASOLINE TRANSFER AND DISPENSING [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : G ASOLINE T RANSFER AND D ISPENSING C ONTROL M ETHODS : I MPROVE THE I MPLEMENTATION OF THE E NHANCED V APOR R ECOVERY R EGULATION
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 17.3 17.3 19.0 VOC R EDUCTION 3.7 4.1 VOC R EMAINING 13.6 14.9

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 17.3 17.3 19.0 VOC R EDUCTION 3.7 4.1 VOC R EMAINING 13.6 14.9

C ONTROL C OST : $1,673 PER T ON VOC R EDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to reduce VOC and toxic emissions from gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) by improving implem entation of the Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) Regulation.


### Background GDFs represent the second largest emission s ource category under the District’s regulatory authority, following architectural coatings. Emissions from GDFs are regulated by the Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) regulation of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the District’s Rule 461.

In March 2000, California Air Resources Board (CARB) amended the EVR to reduce VOC and toxic emissions from the transfer and dispensi ng of gasoline at GDFS (service stations). The EVR includes testing and certification pro cedures to improve the performance and specifications of both Phase I and Phase II vapor recovery systems.

The EVR for Phase I (one module) included th e improvements of the spill containment and covers; rotatable product and vapor adaptors; ove rfill prevention device; and pressure vacuum vent gauges. Phase I module for both the balance and the vacuum assist systems was completely implemented on April 1, 2005.

The EVR for Phase II (five modules) includes, but is not limited to, the onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR), and the in-station diagnostic (ISD). The ORVR routes gasoline vaporFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-02 (CM #2003FUG-05)

IV-A-27 displaced during vehicle fueling to the onboard can ister on the vehicle. The ISD is designed to provide continuous real-time monitoring of vapor collection and containment efficiencies; alert the GDF operator when a failure mode is detected so that corrective action can be taken; shut down the dispensers, if repairs are ignored; and provide compliance records. Presently, the ISD is only certified and installed on the Healy VR 202 (Veeder-Root ISD) system. The ISD for the balance system and other vacuum assist systems are in the testing program phase (180 days) and the complete implementation of the ISD for both balance and vacuum assist systems is scheduled for 2009-2010.

There are approximately 3400 retail GDFs and 1500 non-retail GDFs in the Basin with a total approximate throughput of 7 billion gallons per y ear. Current regulatory structure seeks to reduce the uncontrolled emissions inventory estim ated at 197 tpd by 95 percent. However, because of poor compliance rates, the reduction target remains elusive. Through successive amendments to EVR regulation and Rule 461, CARB and the District attempted to address this chronic problem.


### Regulatory History In an effort to significantly improve the co mpliance rates from this industry by monitoring emissions, the District in 2000 amended Rule 461 and significantly enhanced the monitoring of source testing requirements of this rule as we ll as its enforcement presence. The emission reduction from the 2000 amendment was estimated to be 27.3 tpd. While the compliance rates improved significantly, they are far from being satisfactory. Based on the current compliance status (75 percent), the remaining VOC emissions from GDF operations are estimated to be 17.3 tpd.

Presently, Rule 461 requires 95 percent control e fficiency for both Phase I and Phase II vapor recovery systems. On April 2005, CARB requested the installation of EVR Phase I and Phase II on all GDFs. EVR is projected to increase the control efficiency of the vapor recovery systems from 95 percent to 98 percent.

Effective September 2005, CARB required all GDFs di spensing units to be compatible with the integral ORVR vapor recovery systems installed on late model motor vehicle.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The proposed control measure includes the following potential actions:

1. Improve the functions of the ISD to provi de an earlier warning signal at a lower degradation rate which would indicate the potential for the failure thereby allowing preventative repairs prior to system failure. Currently, the warning alert starts after 25 percent degradation of performance of the vapor recovery system.

2. Change both the ISD warning and gross fa ilure alerting ranges to approximate the CARB Executive Orders standards. For ex ample, the Executive Order and the ISD ranges for the gross failure alert of the vapor/liquid (V/L) test are 0.95 – 1.15 and 0.24 – 2.01, respectively. Therefore, the ISD gross failure alerts starts after 75 percent degradation of performance of the vapor recovery system.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-02 (CM #2003FUG-05)

IV-A-28 The preliminary results of CARB ISD field study which dated November 14, 2006 indicated that the malfunction criteria for both the warning and the gross failure modes can be tightened and provide earlier warn ing and gross failure alerts at lower degradation of performance rates.

3. Disallow the use of the ISD reset button unless and until all the defective components are repaired and the vapor recovery system operates in full compliance. Currently, the ISD system is equipped with a reset butt on, which allows a failed vapor recovery system to be reset to dispense gasoline wit hout repair of the syst em. Additionally, staff is exploring with ISD’s manufacturer the feasibility of restricting the ISD shut down function to the defective fueling point(s) instead of the current shut down function which includes all the fueling points.

4. Seek implementation of the CARB certified ISD systems on all the balance and the vacuum assist systems.

5. Install a “shut down” sensor or mechanism on the fuel line of the dispenser to stop fueling if the fuel filters are blocked and th e fueling flow rate drops below the system certification standards. After the implemen tation of the ORVR requirement, the fuel filters integrity is essential to maintain th e appropriate liquid flow rate (as specified by the CARB Executive Order). Partially blocked fuel filters decrease the fuel flow rates which deactivate the pressure sensor in th e nozzles and allow air ingestion and vapor growth in the underground tanks. This method of control provides a feasible technology to verify compliance with the fuel flow rate standards of the Executive Order and assure the integrity of the vapor recovery system.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The estimated emission reductions are summarized in the control measure summary.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure would be similar to the compliance requirements under existing Rule 461.



### TEST METHODSThe control measure will implement the EVR tests procedures: TP-201.3 (Leak Decay), TP201.4 (Back Pressure), TP-201.5 (Vapor/liquid ra tio A/L), and TP-201.6 (Liquid Removal).



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control meas ure is estimated at $1,673 per a ton of emission reduction.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-02 (CM #2003FUG-05)

IV-A-29 

### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to adopt and en force rules and regulations (Health and Safety Code §40001).



### REFERENCES “Retail Gasoline Dispensing Facility Inspection, Rule 461 Compliance Audit in the South Coast AQMD,” Second Quarter 1997, South Coast Air Quality Management District.

“Emissions Inventory Procedural Manual Vo lume III Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions,” Section 4.10 – Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, October 1997, Air Resources Board.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Final Staff Report For Proposed Amended Rule 461 - Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing,” April 21, 2000.

“Enhanced Vapor Recovery Technology Review,” Monitoring and Laboratory Staff Report, California Air Resources Board, April 2002.

“Enhanced Vapor Recovery Update,” Sixth A nnual California Unified Program Conference, February 5, 2004.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-03

IV-A-30 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM CUTBACK ASPHALTS [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : A SPHALT P AVING C ONTROL M ETHODS : L IMITING U SE OF C UTBACK A SPHALT
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY TBD TBD TBD VOC R EDUCTION TBD TBD VOC R EMAINING TBD TBD

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY TBD TBD TBD VOC R EDUCTION TBD TBD VOC R EMAINING TBD TBD

C ONTROL C OST : T O B E D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to redu ce emissions from asphalt paving applications by limiting the use of cutback asphalt and/or replacing it with emulsified asphalt.


### Background Cutback and emulsified asphalts are used in near ly all paving applications. Cutback asphalt is prepared by blending (or “cutting back”) asphalt cement with petroleum distillates such as gasoline, naphtha, kerosene, or slow volatile oils. Emulsified asphalt is made by blending asphalt cement with a majority of non-volatile em ulsifying agent (e.g. water or soap) and some light petroleum distillates used as diluents. As a result, emulsifying asphalt has a lower emission potential than cutback asphalt. In 1977, EPA issued a Control Technology Guidelines (CTG) defining Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for cutback asphalt and indicating that the use of emulsified asphalt in place of cutback asphalt would reduce almost all VOC emissions. EPA provided additional guidelines for cutback asphalts in its “Blue Book” 1) No CTG cutoff level; 2) seasonal exemptions (i.e. cutback asphalt is not recommended during ozone season) as opposed to limitation on temperat ure where paving is applied (e.g. less than 50 degree F); and 3) exemptions for use solely as penetrating prime coat and when stockpiled for extended period of time which is longer than 1 month.


### Regulatory History The District’s Rule 1108 – Cutback Asphalt requires that no person shall sell, or offer for sale for use, or use medium or slow curing grad e cutback asphalt containing more than 0.5% by volume organic compounds which evaporate at 260 degree C (or 500 degree F) or lower as measured by ASTM Method D402. The District ’s Rule 1108.1 – Emulsified Asphalt requiresFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-03

IV-A-31 that no person shall sell, or offer for sale for us e, or use emulsified asphalt containing more than 3% by volume organic compounds which evaporate at 260 degree C (or 500 degree F) or lower as measured by ASTM Method D244. These rules do not contain seasonal exemptions or usage limitation as in EPA’s RACT.

Many states, such as Maine (Regulation, Ch apter 131), Missouri (R ule 10 CSR 10-5.310), New York (Rule 211, §211.4), Pennsylvania (Rule 129, §129.64), Rhode Island (Rule 25), have already adopted regulations to implement EPA’ s RACT to prohibit the use of cutback asphalt during ozone season (May to September). These states provide exemptions for cutback asphalts used as penetrating prime coat, long-life stoc kpiles, filling potholes, road patching, and dust palliative. In addition, Maine and Rhode Island al so require that cutback asphalts contain less than 5% organic compounds which evaporate at 500 degree F, and New York requires that cutback asphalts must be applied only at low am bient temperatures, during other months of the
year.
In California, Sacramento (Rule 453) and Pl acer County (Rule 217) limit the use of cutback asphalts throughout the entire year. Placer County allows the use of cutback asphalts solely during the months of the year when the Nationa l Weather Service forecasts that atmospheric temperatures for the 24-hour period following the application will not exceed 10 degree C (50 degree F), and Sacramento allows the use of cutback asphalts solely as prime coat.

As required by federal rule 40 CFR 51.912, the Dist rict developed and submitted to U.S. EPA a report to demonstrate that the current District rules and regulations fulfill the 8-hour ozone RACT. During this review, the EPA Region 9 not ed that Rule 1108 does not contain RACT for asphalt paving (i.e. seasonal and usage exemptions), and therefore recommended staff to consider this option in the 2007 AQMP. In thei r RACT submittal to U.S. EPA, the District committed to evaluate the potential of limiting the use of cutback asphalt. This control measure is intended to fulfill this commitment.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The most effective way to control emissions from asphalt paving is to reduce the VOC content in cutback as well as emulsified asphalts. Another strategy is to prohibit the use of high VOC containing asphalts by using seasonal restrictions, or limit its use to certain applications. The District will continue further evaluation to determine the possibility of implementing these control options, as well as evaluating further controls.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION

The 2014 and 2023 baseline emissions estimated fo r asphalt paving are about 0.90 tons per day and 1.40 tons per day, respectively. At this time, it is not possible to quantify precise emission reductions from implementation of this contro l measure. However, prohibiting the use of cutback asphalt and replacing it with emulsifi ed asphalt could potentially reduce 40% (or 0.5 tpd) of the VOC emissions from this category. Further analysis is needed to quantify accurate emission reductions from this control measure.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-03

IV-A-32 

### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure would de pend on the type of controls implemented, but would be similar to the compliance requirements under existing Rules 1108 and 1108.1.



### TEST METHODS The percent by volume organic compounds whic h evaporate at 500 degree F or lower) is determined based on ASTM Method D403 (AAS HTO T78) for cutback asphalt, and ASTM Method D244 (AASHTO T59) for emulsified aspha lt as specified in the District’s Rule 1108 and 1108.1.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been specifically determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential co st impact associated with implementing this control measure and will provide specific cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to adopt and enfor ce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standa rds in all areas affected by emission sources under its jurisdiction (Health and Safety Code §40001).



### REFERENCES EPA, Control Technology Guidelines - Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Use of Cutback Asphalt, EPA-450/2-77-037, December 1977.

EPA, EPA “Blue Book” - Issues Relating to VOC Regulations Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations – Cutback or Emulsified Asphalt, May 25, 1988

EPA, Comment letter from Andrew Steckel (EPA Region 9) to Joe Cassmassi (AQMD), 8-Hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology – State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) Analysis, June 28, 2006.

LADCO-Midwest RPO, Interim Paper – Midw est Regional Planning Organization (RPO) Candidate of Control Measures – Asphalt Paving, March 10, 2006.

New York State, Department of Environmenta l Conservation, Rules and Regulations, Part 211 – General Prohibitions, §211.4 – Volatile Organic Compounds Prohibited, 1983.

Maine, Department of Environmental Protecti on, Rules and Regulations, Chapter 131 – Cutback Asphalt and Emulsified Asphalt, 1993.

Missouri, Code of Regulation, 10 CSR 10-5.310, Liquefied Cutback Asphalt Restricted, 1988.

OTC, Summary of Ozone Transport Commissi on Candidate Control Measures – Asphalt Paving, March 27, 2006.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-03

IV-A-33 Pennsylvania, Code of Regulations, §129.64, Cutback Asphalt Paving, Amended 1983.

Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Ca lifornia, Rule 217 – Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials, Amended September 25, 1990.

Rhode Islands, Air Pollution Control Regula tion, No. 25, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt, February 2001.

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, California, Rule 453 - Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials, Amended August 31, 1982.

District, Rule 1108 – Cutback Asphalt, Amended February 1, 1985.

District, Rule 1108.1 – Emulsified Asphalt, Amended November 4, 1983.

District, Staff Report – AQM D 8-Hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Demonstration, June 2006.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-04

IV-A-34 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM PIPELINE AND STORAGE TANK DEGASSING [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : P IPELINE AND STORAGE TANK DEGASSING C ONTROL M ETHODS : E NHANCED C ONTROL T ECHNOLOGY ; I NCREASED C ONTROL E FFICIENCY ; E STABLISH C ONCENTRATION L IMITS ; E XPAND C URRENT R ULE TO I NCLUDE P IPELINES , O THER S OURCE C ATEGORIES , S MALLER T ANKS S IZES AND O THER D EGASSING O PERATIONS
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 1.2 to 1.8 1.2 to 1.8 1.2 to 1.8 VOC R EDUCTION 0.7 to 1.6 0.7 to 1.6 VOC R EMAINING 0.2 to 0.5 0.2 to 0.5

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 1.2 to 1.8 1.2 to 1.8 1.2 to 1.8 VOC R EDUCTION 0.7 to 1.6 0.7 to 1.6 VOC R EMAINING 0.2 to 0.5 0.2 to 0.5

C ONTROL C OST : $2,500 TO $22,900 PER T ON OF VOC R EDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to reduce emissions from pipeline and storage tank degassing by requiring enhanced control technology, increased control efficiency, establishing concentration limits, and expanding the source cate gories, operations and the capacity (size) of affected equipment.


### Background There are approximately 640 floating roof tanks and 750 fixed roof tanks storing petroleum products in refineries, bulk loading, and stor age facilities, as well as 11,000 gasoline storage tanks at service stations throughout the Basin, a ll of which are subject to Rule 1149 – Storage Tank Cleaning and Degassing. Stor age tanks must be degassed prior to cleaning, removal, and maintenance. These tanks and their associat ed piping require periodic cleaning to prevent contamination of the product. Ultimately, the tanks are replaced as they wear out. In addition, some tanks are taken out of service each year so that land can be put to alterative use. This control measure would impact the refineries, ch emical plants, gasoline stations, and an unknown number of new facilities in the paint, solvent, adhesive, and ink manufacturing industries.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-04

IV-A-35 

### Regulatory History Rule 1149 – Storage Tank Cleaning and De gassing was adopted on December 4, 1987, and amended on April 1, 1988 and July 14, 1995. Rule 1149 requires control of VOC emissions during the degassing process. Degassing is the process of removing organic gases from a tank for cleaning purposes. Subject to this rule are the following:

• Above-ground tanks having a capacity of mo re than 39,630 gallons storing organic liquid with a vapor pressure of more than 2.6 psi or between 19815 and 39,630 gallons having a vapor pressure of more than 3.9 psi.

• Underground tanks having a capacity of more than 500 gallons storing organic liquid with a vapor pressure of more than 3.9 psi.


### This rule requires that specific volume(s) of displaced organic gas be vented to control devices that are at least 90 percent efficient for all affected facilities and the submittal of a compliance plan.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL

This control measure seeks to further reduce emissions from storage tank degassing by requiring enhanced control technology, increased control e fficiency, establishing concentration limits for gases vented to the atmosphere. In additi on, Rule 1149 could also be amended to regulate smaller tanks; other source categories, such as pipelines; other industries that manufacture or store paint, ink, adhesive, and solvent; and othe r degassing operations, such as those for repair or product switching, and not just those opera tions performed as part of tank cleaning.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The emissions inventory is estimated betw een 1.2 and 1.8 tons of VOC per day based on notification data and operational records. Emi ssions reductions are estimated to range between 0.7 and 1.6 tons of VOC per day depending on the concentration limit established and the vapor pressure of liquids applicable. Further anal ysis is needed to quantify accurate emission reductions from this control measure.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure would de pend on the type of controls implemented, but would be similar to the compliance requirements under existing Rule 1149.



### TEST METHODS

U.S. EPA Method 25 – Determination of Total Gaseous Non-methane Organic Emissions as Carbon;

U.S. EPA Method 25A - Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer; orFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FUG-04

IV-A-36 AQMD Test Method 25.1 - Determination of Total Gaseous Non-methane Organic Emissions as Carbon.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control meas ure ranges between $2,500 per ton of VOC reduced to $22,900 depending on the concentration limit estab lished and the vapor pressure of liquids applicable. The District will continue to anal yze the potential cost impact associated with implementing this control measure and will provide specific cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to adopt and enfor ce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standa rds in all areas affected by emission sources under its jurisdiction (Health and Safety Code §40001).



### REFERENCES Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regul ation 8, Rule 5 – Storage of Organic Liquids (November 27, 2002).

San Joaquin United Valley Air Pollution Contro l District Rule 4623 - Storage of Organic Liquids (May 19, 2005).

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Rule 74.26 – Crude Oil Storage Tank Degassing Operations (November 8, 1994).

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Rule 74.27 – Gasoline and ROC Liquid Storage Tank Degassing Operations (November 8, 1994).

South Coast Air Quality Management Dist rict Rule 1149 - Storage Tank Cleaning and Degassing (July 14, 1995)



### .

## GROUP 3 Combustion SourcesFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-01

IV-A-37 

### NO X 

### REDUCTIONS FROM NON-RECLAIM OVENS, DRYERS AND FURNACES [NO X 

### ]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : F ACILITIES WITH O VENS , D RYERS & F URNACES C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 4.9 6.2 6.8 NO X R EDUCTION 3.5 3.8 NO X R EMAINING 2.7 3.0

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 5.3 6.6 7.3 NO X R EDUCTION 3.7 4.1 NO X R EMAINING 2.9 3.2

C ONTROL C OST : $4,000 TO 13,000 PER T ON NO X R EDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Boilers, process heaters, internal combustion engi nes and turbines are regulated by the District under source specific NOx rules. However, there is a wide variety of combustion equipment for which the District does not have source specific NOx rules. The equipment includes but is not limited to ovens, dryers, furnaces, kilns, afterburners and incinerators. The equipment is used in many industrial and commercial operations to dry, ba ke, cure, melt, burn off and form materials, or as VOC control devices.

Ovens, dryers and furnaces at non-RECLAIM facilities have NOx emission limits based on BACT/LAER requirements at the time the equi pment was permitted. In addition, equipment exempt from permit requirements are not subject to NOx controls. However, technology is available to lower emissions from these units through retrofit of burners and controls or replacement with new equipment.


### Regulatory History
In the 1994 and 1997 AQMP, control measure CMB- 02 included reductions from a variety of non-RECLAIM combustion sources. Of the six co mponents of the control measure, two have been implemented as District rules (CMB-02B – Small Boilers and Process Heaters and CMB02F – IC Engines). The other components of CMB-02 proposed reductions from curing and drying ovens, metal melting furnaces, afterbur ners, and other miscellaneous combustion sources. In the 2003 AQMP these components of the control measure were delayed due toFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-01

IV-A-38 administrative and technical issues. These categories are being reconsidered because technology has advanced and is more cost effective.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL NOx emissions from these types of equipment can be reduced using low NOx burners. Many different types of burners have been devel oped to reduce NOx emissions from combustion sources. The principle technique involves premix ing of fuel and air before combustion takes place. This results in a lower peak and more uniform flame temperature. A lower flame temperature reduces formation of NOx. Some premix burners also use staged combustion with a fuel rich zone to start combustion and stabili ze the flame and a fuel lean zone to complete combustion and reduce the peak flame temperature.

Burners can also be designed to spread flames over a larger area to reduce hot spots and lower NOx emissions. Radiant premix burners with ceramic, sintered metal or metal fiber flame surfaces spread the flame, lower NOx emissions and produce more radiant heat. When a burner produces more radiant heat, it can also result in less heat escaping the equipment through exhaust gasses and an increase in efficiency.

Low NOx burners can significantly reduce emissions . Uncontrolled gas-fired ovens and dryers typically have NOx emissions on the order of 120 ppm. Ovens and dryers subject to BACT/LAER can have emission limits ranging from 60 ppm to less than 20 ppm. Uncontrolled high temperature furnaces and ovens can have NOx emissions greater than 150 ppm. High temperature furnaces that meet BACT/LAER can achieve NOx emissions as low as 60 ppm.

During the rulemaking process it may be assesse d that reducing NOx emissions from this category is better suited by applying today’s BACT as described in the 2007 AQMP control measure MCS-01 Facility Modernization.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The current inventory for permitted equipment in these categories is estimated to be approximately 4.9 tons of NOx per day. Appr oximately 25 to 35% of this equipment is estimated to be permitted at current BACT. An estimate of the percent emissions associated with major categories of this type equipment is presented in Figure 1 based on District permit database. Reductions of 50 to 75% are achievabl e for the equipment which has not been subject to BACT. The estimated NOx emission reducti on from requiring current BACT is therefore about 50 percent. It is anticipated that 3.5 t ons per day of NOx emission reductions could be achieved by 2014 and 3.8 tons per day by 2023.

Additional reductions can be achieved by adopti ng emission limits for new ovens, dryers and furnaces that do not require a permit. Thes e reductions can be achieved by requiring new equipment to be certified at lower emission levels as is required for small boilers and heaters subject to the District’s Rule 1146.2.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-01

IV-A-39 

### FIGURE 1

NOx Emission Contribution of NOx Non-RECLAIM Equipment Categories



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Compliance with the provisions of this control measure would be based on source testing, permit requirements, monitoring, recordkeeping, a nd reporting requirements similar to those in other District rules regulating combustion sources . In addition, compliance would be verified through inspections.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of retrofitting this type of equipment to meet best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) was analyzed fo r the January 2005 amendment to the NOx RECLAIM program. The cost effectiveness in th at analysis varied from about $4,000 per ton of NOx reduced to $13,000 per ton. The typical cost effectiveness was around $10,000 per ton NOx reduced. This cost effectiveness is also within the range of cost effectiveness in the January 2005 amendment for RECLAIM boilers and process heaters to meet BARCT. It is also in the range of cost effectiveness for small boilers and heaters to meet 20 ppm (Rule 1146.2). Food Oven, 3% Fryer, 2% Heat Treat, 6% Kiln, 2%
Incinerator, 1% Metal Furnace, 7% Misc, 1%

Printing Dryer, 5%

Remediation, 12% Tank/Pot, 2% Asphalt, 7%

Burn-Off Oven/Furnace, 3%

Cook/Cure/React Oven/Furnace, 25%

Crematory, 3%

Drying, 22%Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-01

IV-A-40 The cost effectiveness for this equipment to meet BARCT would be similar to these costs. In addition, in many cases, BACT and BARCT are the same.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate emissions from stationary sources.



### REFERENCES 1994 AQMP Appendix IV-A

1997 AQMP Appendix IV-A

2003 AQMP Appendix IV-A

AQMD, Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1121, December 1999.

AQMD, Staff Report for Proposed Amendments to Regulation XX - Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), January 2005

AQMD, Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1146.2, May 2006.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-02

IV-A-41 

### FURTHER SO X 

### REDUCTIONS FOR RECLAIM [SO X 

### ]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : SO X RECLAIM F ACILITIES C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023

SO X I NVENTORY 11.7 11.7 11.8

SO X R EDUCTION 2.9 2.9

SO X R EMAINING 8.8 8.9
C ONTROL C OST : B ETWEEN $10,100 AND $16,000 PER T ON SO X R EDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY As of the end of the 2004 compliance year, ther e were approximately 33 SOx facilities in the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLA IM) Program. The RECLAIM program includes facilities with SOx emissions greater than or equal to four tons per year in 1990 or any subsequent year. SOx facilities in the RECLAIM program have a wide range of equipment such as Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCU), furnaces, internal combustion engines, boilers, incinerators, dryers, kilns, afterburners, heaters, and gas turbines.

This control measure identifies a series of contro l approaches that would be implemented as part of Best Available Retrofit Control Technol ogy (BARCT) for the SOx RECLAIM program. Depending on the control strategy implemented, this control measure may affect all SOx RECLAIM facilities or a portion of the facilities ba sed on their annual emissions or the type of equipment at the facility.


### Background Under the RECLAIM program, facilities are issued SOx (and NOx) allocations. SOx allocations decline annually until 2003, and remain constant thereafter. To meet their annual allocation, facilities have the option of installing pollution control equipment, changing operations, or purchasing RECLAIM Trading Credits (RTCs).

Additional emission reductions from RECLAIM may be needed to meet the federal “as expeditiously as practicable” and the state “all feasible measures” requirements. When the RECLAIM program was adopted, it was designed to achieve a Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) level of emission reducti ons. As BARCT is updated to reflect improvements in pollution control equipment, additional reductions from the RECLAIM program may be possible.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-02

IV-A-42 

### Regulatory History
On October 15, 1993, the District’s Governi ng Board adopted the RECLAIM program. Regulation XX – RECLAIM includes 11 rules th at specify the applicability, allocations, definitions, requirements, and monitoring, repor ting, and recordkeeping requirements. When the RECLAIM program was adopted, it origin ally included 41 SOx and 392 NOx commercial and industrial facilities. Since the adoption of RECLAIM, there have been a number of amendments to the RECLAIM rules.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires dist ricts to achieve and maintain state standards by the earliest practicable date and for extreme non-attainment areas, to include all feasible measures Health and Safety (H&S) Code (H&S §§40913, 40914, and 40920.5). The term “feasible” is defined in the 14 California C ode of Regulations, section 15364, as a measure “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, lega l, social, and technological factors.” The required use of BARCT for existing stationary sources is one of the specified feasible measures. H&S Code §40440 (b)(1) requires the District to adopt rules requiring best available retrofit control technology for existing sources. H& S Code §40406 specifically defines BARCT as “...best available retrofit technology means an emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable taki ng into account environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or category of source.”

In RECLAIM, these emission limits are conve rted into mass emission limitations utilizing activity levels. BARCT for each category of e quipment takes into account the range of types and size of equipment in each category.

Applicable RECLAIM Task Force recommenda tions would be incorporated during the rulemaking process.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL As of the end of the 2004 compliance year, ther e were approximately 36 SOx facilities in the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLA IM) Program. The RECLAIM program includes facilities with SOx emissions greater than or equal to four tons per year in 1990 or any subsequent year. SOx facilities in the RECLAIM program have a wide range of equipment such as FCCUs, asphalt blowing, boilers, heater and sour gas treating units.

Refinery gas fueled process heaters and extern al combustion boilers and fluidized catalytic cracking units (FCCUs) account for over half of SOx RECLAIM emissions and could potentially be sources for further reductions.

The primary purpose of reducing the SOx RECLAIM ending allocations is to meet the state law best available retrofit control technology (BA RCT) equivalency requirements. Potential BARCT evaluation includes evaluating the ma ximum degree of reduction achievable with current control technologies in relation to environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or category of source. Advancements in control technologies require a re-evaluation of current BARCT. A re-evaluation of BARCT would require updated control technology assessments for permitted equipment at RECLAIM f acilities. An example of this possible re-Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-02

IV-A-43 evaluation involves the reduction of sulfur in re finery gas to reduce SOx emissions from the combustion of the refinery gas.

Compounds have been developed that are added to the catalyst in the regenerator of fluidized catalytic cracking units that drive a series chem ical reactions that create H2S from the sulfur released from the feed stock. The H2S can be removed from the process stream as elemental sulfur. This reduces the amount of sulfur ava ilable to create SOx pollutants. As fluidized catalytic cracking units are the largest source of SOx emissions in RECLAIM, the use of sulfur reducing compounds will result in a large reduction of SOx emissions. Furthermore, although SOx sources are required to burn 15 ppmv sulfur content diesel fuel via Rule 431.2, ending allocation has not been reduced to reflect such requirements.

During the rulemaking process, staff will also e xplore the feasibility to incorporate the control concept of Control Measure MCS-01 Facility Modernization to achieve reductions beyond 2014.


### Reduce Existing Ending Allocations Under the RECLAIM program, initial SOx alloca tions decline annually through the year 2003 and remain constant after 2003. This control option would seek further reductions in allocations from 2010 through 2014 and remain constant after 2014. Such reduction in allocations can be across-the-board shaving or source-specific. Similar to the existing RECLAIM program, facilities have the following options to meet their allocation: install pollution control equipment, process or other changes, or purchase RTCs.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Implementation of this measure is designed to achieve BARCT for sources subject to the following rules:

1) Rule 431.1 – Sulfur Content of Gaseous Fuels; and

2) Rule 1105 – Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units – Oxides of Sulfur.

In addition, this measure would implement BARCT not yet incorporated in the ending allocation (e.g., Rule 431.2).

Estimated SOx emissions reduction from reduction of sulfur concentration in refinery gas burned is approximately 1.56 tons per day.

Estimated SOx emissions reduction from FCCUs is approximately 1.28 tons per day.

Along with low sulfur diesel fuel applications, it is estimated at this time that approximately 2.9 tons per day of SOx reductions could be achie ved from the RECLAIM program. It should be noted that during rule development all SOx s ources in RECLAIM will be subject to a thorough BARCT evaluation to achieve the maximum feasible SOx reductions.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-02

IV-A-44 

### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Compliance with the provisions of this c ontrol measure would be based on monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that have been established in either the RECLAIM program or existing source specific rules and re gulations. In addition, compliance would be verified through inspections and other recordkeeping and reporting requirements.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS Two major sources of RECLAIM SOx emissions that have been identified as possible areas of emission reductions are refinery gas fueled pro cess heaters and external combustion boilers and FCCUs. Exact equipment and material costs ar e very difficult to obtain due to the uniqueness of the processes of each refinery subject to the RECLAIM program. Therefore, cost effectiveness numbers are difficult to calculate and are, by necessity, broad estimates. The estimated average cost effectiveness for SOx reductions achieved through reducing refinery gas sulfur content is approximately $10,100 per ton SOx reduced. The estimated average cost effectiveness for SOx reductions achieved thr ough the use of FCCU catalyst additives is approximately $16,000 per ton SOx reduced.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate emissions from stationary sources.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-03

IV-A-45 

### FURTHER NOX REDUCTIONS FROM SPACE HEATERS [NO X 

### ]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : N ATURAL G AS F IRED F AN -T YPE F URNACES C ONTROL M ETHODS : L OW NO X B URNERS
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 9.7 10.5 11.1 NO X R EDUCTION 0.8 3.3 NO X R EMAINING 9.7 7.8

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 3.4 3.6 3.8 NO X R EDUCTION 0.3 1.2 NO X R EMAINING 3.3 2.6

C ONTROL C OST : $10,000 PER T ON NO X R EDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Natural gas fired fan-type central furnaces are us ed in residential and commercial buildings to provide comfort heating. Most single family hom es and many multiunit residences in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) have this type of heating equipment. Many older homes, with below floor furnaces, have been retrofitted with this type of forced air heaters. Typically, residential units have burners rated between 50,000 and 175,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr). Since 1984, this equipment has been regulated by the District Rule 1111 – NOx Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired, Fan type Central Furnaces.


### Regulatory History Rule 1111 was first adopted by the District G overning Board in December 1978 and amended in July 1983. The rule regulates natural gas fired fa n-type central furnaces with an input rate of less than 175,000 Btu/hr. The NOx emission limit in the rule is 40 nanograms/joule (ng/J) of heat delivered to the heated space (heat output ). As required by Rule 1111, the manufacturer must obtain certification of each furnace model ba sed on source testing conducted in accordance with the test methods approved by the District.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL NOx emissions from these types of equipment can be controlled with low NOx burners. Other combustion equipment with similarly sized burners can achieve NOx levels as low as 15 to 20 ppm (10 to 14 ng/J). The current Rule 1111 requires natural gas fired fan-type central furnaces to meet a NOx emission limit of 40 ng/J heat out put. Also, this is the current NOx emissionFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-03

IV-A-46 limit under the District Rule 1146.2 (Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers and Process Heaters) for boilers and water heaters rated up to 400,000 Btu/hr. The future limit for these small boilers in the year 2012 is 20 ppm or 14 ng/J heat output. The current limit for residentia l tank-type water heaters rated less than 75,000 Btu/hr per Rule 1121 (Control of Nitrogen Oxides from Residential Type, Natural Gas-Fired water Heaters) is 15 ppm or 10 ng/J heat output.

To achieve NOx emission levels of 30 ppm (20 ng/J) or less from the central furnaces may require the use of power premix burners in the higher heat input range, and atmospheric premix burners in the lower heat input range.

Another control strategy available for NOx reducti on is the use of heat pumps for space heating which do not burn natural gas, and are often used in moderate climates. This technology may be promoted through an incentive program or by regulation.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Technology exists to achieve NOx emission levels of 15 to 30 ppm (10 to 20 ng/J) from burners in this size range. The current emission limit is 40 ng/J; emission reducti ons of 50% to 75% are possible from this source category. It is anticip ated that this emission limit will be implemented starting 2012. If necessary, reductions could be phased in by equipment category. Assuming a 50% reduction (from 40 to 20 ng/J), a reduction of 3.3 tons/day NOx emissions could be achieved by the year 2023 from the baseline year 2002 annual average inventory of 9.7 tons/day. Additional reductions from 2010 through 2023 are possible through incentive programs for homeowners to purchase low NOx furn aces before the end of the useful life of their existing furnace.

During the rulemaking phase, staff intends to form a working group comprised of equipment vendors and other interested parties. Th e working group will assist in the technology assessment and in establishing emission limits a nd an appropriate implementation schedule for the rule.

Additional emission reductions will be achieved if residential type furnaces must meet proposed higher efficiency standards under consideration by the U.S. Department of Energy. The current proposed standard would result in a fuel savings of up to 2.5% for an individual unit and lower NOx emissions. The contribution to emission re ductions of this proposed regulation will be evaluated as part of rule development.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the equipment meets the emission limit. Compliance is determined by testing each applia nce model using test methods and procedures approved by the District. Test results ar e reviewed for approval by the District.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-03

IV-A-47 

### COST EFFECTIVENESS At the present time, there are no heating furn aces with NOx emissions significantly below the 40 ng/J standard in the District Rule 1111. A re view of the emissions test data for Rule 1111 compliance indicates that typical emissions range from 30 to 40 ng/J. However, cost effectiveness analyses have been performe d for similarly sized burners (less than 175,000 BTU/hr) in other equipment regulated by the District.

Based on the cost effectiveness of power premix ed burners to reduce emissions from 40 ng/J to 20 ng/J in small boilers and water heaters ( 100,000 to 300,000 Btu/hr), subj ect to the District Rule 1146.2, the cost effectiveness of meeting 20 ng/J or 30 ppm for this control measure is estimated to be up to $12,500 per ton of NOx reduced. The cost effectiveness to meet 14 ng/J (20 ppm) for the same units was estimated to be up to $10,000 per ton of NOx reduced. In a similar analysis for the District Rule 1121, the co st effectiveness to reduce NOx emissions from 40 ng/J to 10 ng/J for premixed atmospheric radiant burners, in the size range of 30,000 to 50,000 Btu/hr used in residential tank-type wate r heaters, was estimated to be $16,000 per ton of NOx reduced.

The cost effectiveness for fan-type central furn aces should be lower than for small boilers and water heaters since the expected life of a centr al furnace is more than for tank-type water heaters and small boilers. More emission reductions would be achieved for the same cost. Most manufacturers provide a 20 year warranty on the heat exchanger of the furnace. In the cost effectiveness analyses for Rule 1146.2, the lifetime of small boilers was assumed to be 15 years. A tank type water heater has a shorter lifetime of 10 years.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate emissions from stationary sources.



### REFERENCES SCAQMD, Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1121, December 1999.

SCAQMD, 2003 AQMP Appendix III, Base and Futu re Year Emissions Inventories, August 2003.

SCAQMD, Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1146.2, May 2006.

CEC (California Energy Commission), California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study, June 200 

### 4

.Final AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-04 (CM #2003MSC-07)

IV-A-48 

### NATURAL GAS FUEL SPECIFICATIONS [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : N ATURAL G AS F UEL C OMBUSTION (S TATIONARY S OURCES )
C ONTROL M ETHODS : F UEL S PECIFICATIONS E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to mini mize potential future emission increases from the combustion of natural gas in stationary applications.


### Background Natural gas is a combustible, gaseous mixture composed primarily of methane (CH4), with lesser amounts of ethane (C2H6), propane (C3H8), other heavier hydrocarbons, oxygen and inert compounds such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The composition of natural gas varies by source. The table below compares the natural ga s characteristics of the current system average for Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), California-produced natural gas, and potentially available LNG derived supplies that may be imported in the future, and the SoCalGas gas quality tariff.

System Average* California Production** Potential LNG Imports*** Revised Rule 30 Tariff

Higher Heating Value, (Btu/scf) 1033 993-1150 1063-1166 990-1150

Wobbe Index, (Btu/scf) 1341 1289-1424 1373-1446 1279-1385 Carbon Dioxide, (% by Volume) 1.3% 0.00-3.00% Trace 3%

Oxygen, (% by Volume) Trace Trace Trace 0-.2% Total Inerts, (% by Volume) 1.7% 0.34-4.00% Trace 4%

Methane, (% by Volume) 95.4% 82-99% 84-99% - Ethane, (% by Volume) 2.3% 0.00-11% 0.06-13.2% - Propane, (% by Volume) 0.8% 0.1-4.8% 0.4-4.0% - Butane+, (% by Volume) Trace Trace -3.5% Trace – 2.3% - * System weighted average since 1997. The ma jority of SoCalGas gas supply is from out of State with about 20% of the supplies coming from the Rocky Mountain area. Supplies from the Rocky Mountains currently have a WI of about 1370.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-04 (CM#2003MSC-07)

IV-A-49 ** California production is about 12-14% of the ga s supply mix in southern California. Less than 1% of the California supplies are produced within the District.

*** Gas quality characteristics of potentially available LNG supplies at the source.

The natural gas currently supplied within the Di strict on a weighted average, is 1033 Btu/SCF higher heating value (HHV) and 1341 Wobbe Index (WI). Data from SoCalGas for the five year period from 2000-2004 show that the WI in the District has been less than 1360. In counties north of the District, where local gas production is significant, the average gas has a higher HHV and WI than in the District. In Sant a Barbara and Kern Counties, the WI ranged as high as 1407 to 1429.

The increasing demand for natural gas indicates that there is a need for importation of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from foreign countries. On e LNG terminal is under construction in Baja California, and several more are proposed, that will bring LNG to Southern California. Introducing LNG which contains higher concentr ations of heavier hydrocarbon components into the distribution system will result in a different mixture of gas quality than traditional supplies. The change in gas quality will directly affect air quality and performance of the machinery and end-user appliances. The effect would depend on the type of burner and how the device was tuned to its previous gas supply. Studies ha ve shown that some combustion devices are relatively insensitive to changes in gas quality, while others can have increased NOx, CO and soot emissions. Sensitive devices include applia nces with closed combustion chambers (i.e. ovens), low-NOx boilers with lean premix bur ners, microturbines, lean-burn natural gas engines, and large gas turbines with dry low- NOx combustors. Sensitive devices can have NOx emission increases from 20 to over 100% with hot gas. Appropriate tuning may reduce the emissions increase.

The Natural Gas Council’s Interchangeability Work Group’s white paper provides a good discussion of natural gas interchangeability, and identifies the needed research to address the unknowns with gas quality, particularly with industrial combustion equipment where little testing has been done. It found that WI was an effective screening tool for interchangeability, but alone is not sufficient to adequately pred ict all combustion phenomena. As an interim approach, it recommends that new gas supplies s hould not exceed the local historical average WI by more than ±4.0% and a maximum WI of 1400, maximum HHV of 1100, and maximum gas composition limits of 1.5% butane+ and 4% to tal inerts, unless there is testing or other historical experience that would support a wide r range. SoCalGas sponsored studies covering residential appliances, small commercial/industrial equipment, natural gas vehicles and internal combustion engines. Further studies are be ing conducted by the California Energy Commission at Gas Technology Institute - Large Co mmercial/Industrial Burner Study and at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Gas Interchangeab ility Study for Residential Appliances. This work, which will be completed over the next 2 y ears, will be helpful to assess the impact of potential gas quality changes. GE and Siemens Westinghouse have indicated work is in progress on effectively handling changes in gas quality for large turbines.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-04 (CM#2003MSC-07)

IV-A-50 

### Regulatory History
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates gas quality for the public utilities through a series of rules and tariffs including PG&E Rule 21 and SoCalGas and SDG&E Rule 30. General Order 58 has standards for the hydroge n sulfide and total sulfide content of gas (0.25 grain/100 scf and 5 grains/100 scf, respec tively) but does not c ontain standards for HHV or WI.
SoCalGas Rule 30 applies to “customer-owned gas” and has gas quality specifications for HHV, WI, moisture content, hydrogen sulfide, mer captan sulfur, total sulfur, carbon dioxide, oxygen, inerts, and hydrocarbons and other properties. Prior to the recent CPUC decision, Rule 30 allowed a wide range of HHV (970-1150) and a wide range of WI (approximately 1270 – 1437).

In 2004 the CPUC initiated Rulemaking 04-01-025 to address the sufficiency of natural gas supplies and infrastructure in California. In Phase 2 proceeding of Rulemaking 04-01-025, SoCalGas proposed to limit the WI to a range of 1290 to 1400. The District recommended a maximum WI for new large gas supplies of 1360 in order to reduce potential emission impacts. The CPUC issued a final decision in September 2006. In general, the CPUC directed SoCalGas to file a revised Rule 30 tariff that contains the following specifications: minimum WI of 1279, maximum WI of 1385, minimum HHV of 990, maximum HHV of 1150, maximum carbon dioxide content of 3%, and maximum oxygen c ontent of 0.2%. Because there are existing suppliers in California that do not meet these specifications, the CPUC is allowing a deviation process to grandfather in these existing supplies. The CPUC also directed SoCalGas to post real-time information on the WI of gas at id entified points in the pipeline system on an electronic bulletin board. SoCalGas has adde d 15 WI monitoring points that are accessible through the internet.

District Rule 431.1 - Sulfur Content of Gaseous Fuels, limits the sulfur compound content of natural gas (calculated as hydrogen sulfide) to a maximum of 16 parts per million by volume. The District does not currently regulate the other properties of natural gas. The District has rules that regulate the emissions from combustion of natural gas from various types of equipment such as RECLAIM, Rule 1146, 1146.1, 1146.2, 1110.2, 1121 etc.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This control measure proposes to develop a tw o-component District regulation. The first component will include monitoring and testing of natural gas supplies to enhance quantification of emission changes attributable to gas quality higher than a Wobbe Index of 1360. Additional studies will also be conducted to further refine emission factors by equipmen t type. The District will also work with stakeholders to assess em ission impacts based on the data collected during this phase of rule implementation. The sec ond component will include a Wobbe Index of 1360 or equivalent mechanism/parameter and establish mitigation measures that would mitigate any emission increases, identified above, in the same time frame. Options for natural gas suppliers to achieve the objective of this control stra tegy could include, but are not limited to, 1) Importing a high-methane LNG, such as the 99+% methane gas proposed by BHP Billiton; 2) Removing the more complex hydrocarbons by condens ing processes; 3) Adding inert gases like nitrogen, and/or 4) Blending natural gas from di fferent sources where feasible, so that theFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-04 (CM#2003MSC-07)

IV-A-51 supply will not exceed a WI of 1360 or equivalent mechanism/parameter in the South Coast AQMD.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Projected emission reductions are uncertain at this time, and require further analysis. The control measure may only reduce future emissi on increases rather than provide emission reductions.

SoCalGas estimated that importing 1.0 bcf/day of CNG could increase NOx emissions in the District by 1.2 tons per day. Ther e are not adequate data to support this estimate. The increase could be higher because 1) studies underw ay and sponsored by the California Energy Commission at the Gas Technology Institute may find that there are emission imports from natural gas used by industrial burners; 2) im ported LNG could potentially replace all of the current low-WI interstate gas; 3) only a small number of units were tested in each equipment category by the SoCalGas test program; 4) th e SoCalGas analysis assumed all industrial equipment would be readjusted to hotter gas and ignored the effects of fr equent changes in gas quality.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure would depend on the type of controls implemented.



### TEST METHODS The appropriate testing methods are uncertain at this time and would require further analysis.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

Not Determined



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to adopt and enfor ce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standa rds in all areas affected by emission sources under its jurisdiction (Health and Safety C ode §40001), and may need to seek additional legislation to implement this control measure.



### REFERENCES
California Public Utilities Commission, General Orde r 58-A: Standards for Gas Service in the State of California, April 1989.

California Public Utilities Commission, Phase 2 of Rule 04-01-025, Proposed Decision of Administrative Law Judges’ Ruling on Rule 04-01- 025 Phase 2 Order Addressing Infrastructure Adequacy & Slack Capacity, Interconnection & Operational Balancing Agreements, An Infrastructure Working Group, Natural Gas Suppl y and Infrastructure Adequacy For Electric Generators, Natural Gas Quality and Other Matters, August 8, 2006.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CMB-04 (CM#2003MSC-07)

IV-A-52 Natural Gas Council Interchangeability Wo rk Group, “White Paper on Natural Gas Interchangeability and Non-Combustion End Use”, February 28, 2005

SCAQMD, “Effects of Hot Gas on Stationary Source Emissions,” Presentation to CAPCOA Mobile Source and Fuels Subcommittee, January 2003.

Southern California Gas Company, “Final Repor t – Gas Quality and Liquefied Natural Gas Research Study”, April 2005

Southern California Gas Company, CPUC Rule 30, Transportation of Customer-Owned Gas, 1998-2003.

Responsive Testimony of South Coast Air Qua lity Management District to Testimony and Proposal of San Diego Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company, Barry Wallerstein, CPUC Case R.04-01-025, September 23, 2005.

Opening Brief of South Coast Air Quality Management District, CPUC Case R.04-01-025, January 18, 2006.

Proposed Rebuttal Testimony of Joseph Hower, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company, CPUC Case R.04-01-025, November 30, 2005.

## GROUP 4 PM SourcesFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-01

IV-A-53 

### PM CONTROL DEVICES (BAGHOUSES, WET SCRUBBERS, ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS, AND OTHER DEVICES) [PM]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : PM C ONTROL D EVICES C ONTROL M ETHODS : F ABRIC OR O THER F ILTRATION D EVICES E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Baghouses are air pollution control devices that f ilter out small particles on the surface of fabric bags in a contained unit. This measure woul d strengthen existing regulatory requirements for baghouses to improve overall control efficiency by establishing stricter emission standards, automatic monitoring systems to ensure proper operation, and standard operating and maintenance procedures. Where applicable, other control devices designed to control PM emission, including wet scrubbers and electric precipitators could be implemented


### Background District rules establish particulate matter emissi ons limits and visible opacity standards that may be achieved with baghouse control equipment. Baghouses are considered by the District as the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to effectively reduce particulate emissions. Currently two District rules require baghouses to be equipped with automatic leak detection systems; Rule 1156 – PM10 Emission Reductions from Cement Manufacturing Facilities, and Rule 1407 – Control of Emissions of Arsenic, Cadmium, and Nickel and Non-ferrous Metal Melting Operations. This measure would expa nd the requirement for Bag Leak Detection Systems to new and amended rules that rely on ba ghouses as particulate matter control devices. Electric precipitators or wet scrubbers might al so be employed to reduce PM emissions from various operations.


### Regulatory History Historically, for almost 20 years (1988), baghouses have been designated BACT for controlling PM. Retrofit technology has advanced making high control efficiency possible. These improved retrofit requirements have begun to be impl emented in District rules. For example, in the rule development process for Rule 1156, Dist rict staff received several comments from the public and baghouse vendors regarding the mon itoring requirements for baghouses. Baghouse manufacturers strongly recommended that the Dist rict include a requirement for Bag Leak Detection Systems that would benefit the indus try by allowing equipment operators to predict and detect bag failure before it occurs. Speci fically, recommendations were made to include operation and maintenance procedures for baghouses to ensure that the performance of the baghouse is verified when the equipment is tested and maintained continuously. These procedures contain technical requirements re quired by the U.S. EPA’s Maximum AchievableFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-01

IV-A-54 Control Technology (MACT) for National Emi ssion Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for the Portland Cement Manufactur ing Industry (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL, §63.1350). The NESHAPs implement the federal Clean Air Act by requiring all major sources to meet emission standards for hazardous air po llutants reflecting application of the MACT. Rule 1156 also has required O&M procedures and in centivizes the use of EPA verified filtration products by less frequent source testing and record keeping requirements.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Description of Control Opportunities

 Specify opacity standards for PM control devices (e.g., 20%)

 Specify PM emission standards for PM control devices based on outlet concentrations (e.g., 0.01 gr/dscf PM for existing control e quipment and 0.005 gr/dscf for new control equipment).

 Require enclosure of process equipment (i .e., aggregate processing) and conveyors.

 Require use of EPA-approved high-efficiency baghouse filters.

 Specify performance standards for ventilation and hood systems

 Require operators of PM control devices to monitor, record and report (MRR) pertinent operating parameters of the air pollution cont rol device to ensure continuous compliance with the emission standards, and install a nd operate Continuous Opacity Monitor System (COMS) or Bag Leak Detection System (BLDS) for top process emitters

 Require operators of PM control devices to establish operating and maintenance procedures, coupled with regular source testing to ensure proper equipment operation.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION An additional 30 to 50 percent emission reductions are feasible for existing equipment/processes equipped with PM contro l devices using the above noted control techniques and operating practice standards. Properly operated and maintained baghouses are extremely efficient air pollution control devices, but they may be very ineffective if dust cake is allowed to accumulate on the surface of the bags or the fabric is torn. This measure seeks to improve the operation and maintenance of baghouses by requiring an automated alarm system (COMS or BLDS) to be installed to minimize the release of excess particulate matter during upset conditions that follow equipment malfunction or failure. In the event the alarm is triggered, corrective action procedures could in clude a shutdown of the process producing the particulate emissions or a specific section of the baghouse itself, depending on its size. Corrective actions may be more stringent fo r baghouses controlling toxic particulate matter emissions. This is the benefit of requiring established operating and maintenance procedures.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-01

IV-A-55 

### RULE COMPLIANCE Develop a new rule with a schedule of complia nce based on size rating. Require retrofitting for existing PM sources (BARCT) and control new equipment based on outlet concentrations. Compliance with this measure would be ba sed on monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements established in other District rule s (e.g., Rule 1156) and would take into account a schedule of compliance based on size rating and outlet concentration, etc.



### TEST METHODS BLDS or COMS would be required as indicators of fabric filter performance. The equipment operator should follow EPA’s Fabric Filter Ba g Leak Detection Guidance, and Industrial Ventilation Handbook, for proper set up procedures , system operation principles, and quality assurance. In addition, EPA has verified f iltration products that have demonstrated high performance under specific operational conditions.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost of a typically BLDS ranges fr om about $5,000 to $9,000. The system cost will approach $6,000 to $12,000 if it is equipped with a data logger. COMS will range from $20,000 to $25,000 per monitor. Manufactures indi cate the initial costs may be quickly recovered within a year or two because the system reduces employee-related costs associated with equipment monitoring, and the fact that overall equipment performance is improved which may double the life of fabric bags.

 High efficiency filter bags can cost upwards of twice that of conventional bags.

 The cost of source tests can vary, but typically cost $3,000 to $5,000, but can cost more depending on the complexity of the equipment or process.

 Covered or enclosed conveyors can cost from $100 to $1,000 per foot.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to implement this measure.



### REFERENCES South Coast Air Quality Management Distri ct Rule 1156 - PM10 Emission Reductions from Cement Manufacturing Facilities, final staff report November 2005.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-02

IV-A-56 

### PM EMISSION HOT SPOTS – LOCALIZED CONTROL PROGRAMS [PM]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : PM H OT S POTS C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL PM REDUCTION M ETHODS F EASIBLE E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The Basin covers a large geographic territory. The natural consequence of its size is that not all areas of the Basin are at the same stage of economic development. Locations with economic development as a result of increased construction activity may be prone to significantly higher levels of particulate matter as compared to the broader surrounding area. For example, the highest levels of PM10 concentrations are meas ured at the District’s monitoring station in Rubidoux and nearby Mira Loma, which are curre ntly undergoing a significant redevelopment effort.


### Background The District has not attained the annual average federal PM10 and PM2.5 standards. U.S. EPA revoked the annual federal PM10 standard on September 21, 2006. However, to ensure progress toward PM2.5 standards (a subset of PM10) and to address community PM exposure, this measure will continue to be pursued. Wh ile the District has made great progress in reducing PM concentrations Basinwide, certain areas have been proven to be more challenging than others in achieving the necessary reductions of PM concentrations that are deemed as PM “Hot Spots”. One such area is western Ri verside County which was the only area out of attainment for the federal PM10 standard. Pr imary contributors to those high levels, which currently exceed federally established threshold le vels, are sources of crustal material (better known as entrained fugitive dust). The area of the Rubidoux monitoring station is a rural area with unstabilized vacant lots, many roads have unimproved road shoulders and are thereby not subject to street sweeping, and some roads a nd residential parking areas are unpaved. In addition, Mira Loma has had a large industrial bu ild-up in recent years with a sizeable increase in heavy-duty truck traffic. Trucks are known to be parked on unpaved surfaces when not in use. This control measure would establish a localized program to supplement the regional approach to address PM hot spots through a coope rative effort with local agencies to reduce emissions from direct sources of PM. Sources of funding will be sought to aid in achieving the reductions, particularly for residents and priv ate property owners. Any success and lessons learned in addressing the high PM10 emissions in the Rubidoux area will be used in addressing any PM hot spots in other areas of the Basin.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-02

IV-A-57 

### Regulatory History

The District has enacted a number of rules to a ddress the issue of PM emissions for the past 30 years. In addition to developing and implementing programs to reduce fugitive dust from a variety of different sources, recently, measures have been taken to address the PM emissions associated with diesel emissions. Overall, the difficulty in attaining the PM standards may be attributed to the geographical nature of the Basin with PM emissions coming not just from combustion sources and other anthropogenic activities but also the ocean spray and desert environment that are part of Southern California and can be complicated by the fact that certain areas undergoing significant economic development are subject to higher particulate emissions due to the increased construction activity. The District has examined and implemented localized programs, such as the Ports initiatives and railroad rules to address localized PM “Hot Spots”.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL In the case of fugitive dust, control opportunities could include one or more of the following:

• Require fencing to inhibit dumping, and require mowing for weed abatement, pursuant to Rule 403 to create stabilized surfaces that minimize wind-blown dust;

• Clean-out existing curbs and mandate street-sweeping; and

• Encourage residents with dirt driveways to cove r them with gravel or otherwise stabilize the surface. Implementation of these measures could be ex ecuted through cooperative efforts, wherein the District and local governments would work togeth er each under their own authority to maximize dust control efforts. In addition, this meas ure would enhance the District’s enforcement presence to ensure compliance with air quality requirements and suppor t Off-highway Vehicle (OHV) ordnance enforcement. Also, the Dist rict would work with economic development agencies to expedite construction activities directly affecting fugitive dust sources, including paving of roads and parking areas, curb/gutter and sidewalk installation where needed, and where not feasible for sidewalks, install landscaping.

Areas where combustion sources are the major contributors might reduce emissions through implementation of the Control Measure for PM Control Devices (Baghouses/wet scrubbers/electrostatic precipitators). The Goods Movement in Port Plan is an example of addressing a PM Hot Spots through the implementa tion of a variety of coordinated efforts.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION

Not Determined.



### RULE COMPLIANCE

To Be DeterminedFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-02

IV-A-58 

### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost-effectiveness of this control measure ha s not yet been determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact s associated with implementing this control measure and will provide specific cost-effectiveness as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has authority to implement this measure.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-03 (CM #2003MSC-06)

IV-A-59 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM WOOD BURNING FIREPLACES AND WOOD STOVES [PM2.5]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : R ESIDENTIAL W OOD C OMBUSTION C ONTROL M ETHODS : L OW E MISSION S TANDARDS , I NCENTIVE P ROGRAMS , S MOKE M ANAGEMENT P LAN (V OLUNTARY C URTAILMENT ), AND P UBLIC O UTREACH E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 PM2.5 I NVENTORY 5.8 6.5 7.0 PM2.5 R EDUCTION 1.0 1.6 PM2.5 R EMAINING 5.5 5.4

C ONTROL C OST : $11,000 TO $17,000 PER TON REDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to seek emission reductions from wood burning fireplaces and wood stoves.


### Background The types of devices used to burn wood in a t ypical residence are fireplaces and wood heaters which include fireplace inserts and free-standi ng wood stoves. Since fireplaces are very inefficient heat sources, they are used primarily for aesthetic effects. Fireplace inserts and wood stoves are much more efficient and in some re sidences are used as the primary source of heating.


### Equipment Description

(The following discussion of w ood burning devices is taken directly from U.S. EPA AP-42, Sections 1.9 and 1.10, October 1996.)

Fireplaces can be divided into two broad categorie s: (1) masonry (generally brick and/or stone, assembled on site, and integral to a structure) a nd (2) prefabricated (usually metal, installed on site as a package with appropriate duct work). Some prefabricated fireplaces can be inserted into existing masonry fireplace openings, and thus are called “inserts”.

Wood stoves are enclosed wood heaters that c ontrol burning or burn time by restricting the amount of air that can be used for combustion. They are used both as the primary source of residential heat and to supplement conventional heating systems. Based on known variations in construction, combustion, and emission characteristic s, there are five different categories ofFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-03 (CM #2003MSC-06)

IV-A-60 residential wood heating devices: (1) the conve ntional wood stove; (2) the non-catalytic wood stove; (3) the catalytic wood stove; (4) the pellet stove; and (5) the masonry heater.



### Emissions

Emissions from residential wood burning devices , caused primarily by incomplete combustion, include PM, CO, NOx, SOx, and VOC, although partic ulate emissions have been the focus of other air district control programs. Studies indi cate that the majority of particulate emissions from residential wood burning are in the fine fr action (2.5 micrometers or less). Additionally, incomplete combustion of wood produces polycyclic organic matter, a group of compounds classified as hazardous air pollutants under Title III of the federal Clean Air Act.

The emissions inventory from residential wood burni ng in the District is presented in the control measure summary. The emissions inventory wa s developed based on the estimated number of wood-burning households and the amount of w ood burned per household by county, and U.S. EPA’s AP-42 emission factors. District staff, in cooperation with CARB and other stakeholders, has been re-evaluating the emissi ons inventory in conjunction with current rule development efforts.


### Regulatory History
Prior to the 2003 AQMP, the Distri ct had not developed a control measure for residential wood burning for rule development. The U.S. EP A and CARB regulations of this source are discussed below.

In 1988, the U.S. EPA promulgated New Source Performance Standards for new wood heaters (i.e., wood stoves and fireplace inserts) to reduce PM emissions. Since then, the U.S. EPA has regulated the manufacture and sale of new wood heaters in the U.S. with standards becoming effective in 1990. Phase I of the regulation required that after July 1, 1990, catalytic wood heaters must be certified to meet 5.5 grams pe r hour particulate matter emission standard and non-catalytic wood heaters must meet an 8.5 gram s per hour standard. Phase II requires that new wood heaters sold after July 1, 1992 must m eet more stringent standards of 4.1 grams per hour for catalytic heaters and 7.5 grams per hour for non-catalytic heaters.

There are no federal certification requirements for fireplaces. They are exempt from U.S. EPA certification because their air-to-fuel ratios are in excess of the 35:1. Only the states of Washington (WAC 150-31-200) and Colorado (Regul ation 4) and the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), San Luis Obispo County APCD, Shasta County Air Quality Management District and Great Basin Unified APCD (Regulation IV, Rule 504, Rule 3:23, and Rule 431, respectively) have fireplace st andards. The California APCDs referenced above require all new wood burning devices (incl uding fireplaces) installed in new or existing units to meet, at minimum, U.S. EPA Phase II em ission standards. In effect, these regulations limit new residential wood burning devices to wood burning stoves, fireplace inserts, pelletfueled wood heaters, or dedicated gas-fired fireplaces.

In 1989, the CARB adopted a suggested control m easure (SCM) for emissions from residential wood heaters. CARB’s SCM for the Control of Emissions from Residential Wood CombustionFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-03 (CM #2003MSC-06)

IV-A-61 includes a list of specific control strategies fo r new and existing residential wood heaters (i.e., fireplace inserts and wood stoves – not firepl aces). CARB’s SCM includes the following:

Public awareness programs: Retailers of wood heaters will be required to have available to customers, public information that includes pamphlets or other information discussing the proper operation and maintenance of wood heaters and health effects of wood smoke.

Replacement of existing wood heaters: Upon the sale of real pr operty that contains a wood heater, the heater must be an EPA-certified, Oregon-certified, or pellet-fueled wood heater.

EPA Phase II requirements: This strategy will accelerate th e implementation date by a year and a half, new wood heaters meeting EPA's Phase II requirements by January 1, 1991.

Sale of Used wood heaters: After January 1, 1991, used wood heaters that are offered for sale must be EPA-certified, Oregon-certified, or be pellet-fueled.

Moisture content of seasoned wood: Firewood that is offered for sale as "seasoned wood" must have a moisture content of 20 percent by weight or less.

Prohibited fuel types: Garbage, treated wood, plastic, rubber, waste petroleum products, paints and paint solvents, and coal having a su lfur content exceeding more than one percent by weight are prohibited from being burned in a residential wood-burning appliance.

Voluntary curtailment program: This program involves the vol untary curtailment of the use of wood heaters and fireplaces during poor air quality conditions.

As discussed above, a number of California air pollu tion control districts have adopted rules that regulate emissions from residential wood combus tion. The requirements of these rules vary from voluntary programs to curtail burning on days with poor air quality to voluntary or mandatory installation of lower-emitting wood st oves to limiting or banning the installation of wood burning devices in new buildings. A sample of pertinent requirements from some of these air districts’ rules is presented below.

• All solid fuel appliances (including fire places) must meet EPA Phase II certification. (Great Basin APCD)

• Mandatory wood burning curtailment when an Air Quality Index (AQI) over 150 is forecast. (San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD)

• Prior to the completion of the sale or tr ansfer of any real property, all existing noncertified solid fuel appliances must be replaced, removed, or rendered permanently inoperable. (San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD)

• Installation of wood burning fireplaces is prohi bited in new residential subdivisions with a density of greater than two dwelling units per acre. (San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD)Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-03 (CM #2003MSC-06)

IV-A-62 

### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Fireplace and wood stove emissions are highl y variable and are a function of wood characteristics and operating practices. In genera l, conditions which promote a fast burn rate and higher flame intensity enhance secondary co mbustion and thereby lower emissions. Studiesperformed by U.S. EPA have shown that new combustion device technology and nonconventional fuels (e.g., natural gas.) can cons iderably increase combustion efficiency and thereby significantly reduce emissions. Conse quently, a technologically effective control strategy would ensure that all new wood combus tion devices (i.e., including fireplaces) meet U.S. EPA certification standards (or other equivalent or more stringent standards 1 ) and would also accelerate the turnover of existing non-certified combustion units.

Based on a re-evaluation of the emissions inve ntory for wood burning devices as well as the feasibility analysis of potential control strategies, a number of control strategies could be pursued including, but not limited to, those adopted by other air districts and those suggested by CARB. The following is a summary of the proposed multi-faceted program.

• Implementation of a comprehensive educa tion and outreach program to educate the public on wood smoke health effects, th e cleanest wood burning technologies (e.g., natural gas) and proper wood burning techni ques (i.e., use of seasoned or dry wood)

• Development and implementation of a gas log exchange program to encourage the public to install gas log set in existing open hearth fireplaces and to replace non-U.S. EPA Phase II-Certified wood burning heaters with natural gas units.

• Development and implementation of a vol untary wood burning curtailment program during periods of poor air quality (i.e., > 35 μg/m 3 ).

• Standards for new construction;

• Prohibition of burning non-wood items (trash);

• Distribution of industry- and District-p repared outreach material to wood burning appliance and firewood customers at the point of sale.

• Removal or replacement of non-U.S. EP A Phase II-Certified wood burning heaters during property transfers in areas with elevated PM2.5 concentrations; and

• Based on a suggestion by CARB, this measure will consider development and implementation of a mandatory wood burning curtailment program during winter months (November through the end of Fe bruary) when forecasted ambient 24-hour PM2.5 concentration levels are greater than 35 μg/m 3 . This generally, corresponds to

1 More stringent standards may include thermal efficiency standards. Incr eased thermal efficiency likely reduces emissions since less fuel is consumed to produce the sa me amount of heat. There has been little incentive for manufacturers to increase thermal effici ency since efficiency testing is not required in the U.S. EPA New Source Performance Standard certification process.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-03 (CM #2003MSC-06)

IV-A-63 an AQI value of 100 - Unhealthful for Sensitive Groups 2 (Cautionary statement people with heart or lung disease, older adults, and children should reduce prolonged or heavy exertion). Based on implementation of a mandatory curtailment program by 2014, staff estimates that the number of days greater than an ambient level of 35 μg/m 3 will be fewer than 20 and decreasing over subsequent winter seasons.

Other control strategies of equivalent or better effectiveness to those listed above will also be considered during the rulemaking process.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The District staff is currently in rulemaking process for this source category and it considers various elements implemented by other air distri cts, including a voluntary curtailment of using woodburning fireplace and stones during high polluti on days. Emission reductions associated with this control measure would depend on amendm ents to the existing emissions inventory and the control strategy pursued. For reference, the recently adopted wood smoke control program for the Sacramento area estimated a five pe rcent reduction in residential wood burning PM emissions (Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, 2006). A 20 percent reduction of PM emissions on an average winter day was estimated fo r the adopted San Joaquin Valley wood smoke control program with the majority of emi ssion reductions resulting from mandatory wood burning curtailment during periods of poor air quality (SJVUAPCD, 2003). It should also be noted that while controlling emissions from residential wood burning is primarily intended to reduce particulate emissions, an added benefit would also be reduced emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, and hazardous air pollutants. This control measure is estimated to achieve approximately 1.0 ton per day (15%) reduction on an annual basis overall from this source category by 2014.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance requirements for this control m easure would depend on the control strategy implemented.



### TEST METHODS The appropriate test methods for this contro l measure would depend on the control strategy implemented.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control m easure ranges from $11,000 to $17,000 per ton reduced based on either change-out to a U.S. EP A-certified Phase II wood burning appliance or conversion of a fireplace to a dedicated gas unit. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact associated with implemen ting this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes availabl e. Incremental costs to install a U.S. EPAcertified Phase II wood burning appliance, a dedi cated natural gas fireplace insert and an

2 Based on the current AQI system, a PM2.5 concentration of 35 μg/m 3 equates to an AQI of 91. It should be noted that

revisions will be made to the AQI i ndex thresholds based on the recently a dopted federal PM2. 5 24-hour standard.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-03 (CM #2003MSC-06)

IV-A-64 electric fireplace insert in new construc tion have been estimated at $2,500, $500, and $400, respectively (Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, 2006).



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to adopt and enfor ce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standa rds in all areas affected by emission sources under its jurisdiction (Health and Safety Code §40001). Specifically, the District has the authority to reduce or mitigate emissions from area sources such as residential wood burning devices (Health and Safety Code §40716).



### REFERENCES CARB, Section 7.1, Residential Wood Combustion, July, 1997.

CARB, Proposed Clean Air Plan (Rescinded), March 2002.

CARB, Agenda, Public Meeting to Consider A pproval of a Suggested Control Measure for the Control of Emissions from Residential Wood Combustion, November 1989.

Great Basin Unified APCD, Rule 431 – Partic ulate Emissions – Town of Mammoth Lakes

Northern Sonoma APCD, Regulation IV - C ontrol Measure for Wood Fired Appliance Emissions.

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Draft Staff Report, Rule 417, Wood Burning Appliances, July 12, 2006.

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, Final Draft Staff Report, Amendments to Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Heaters), June 19, 2003.

U.S. EPA, AP-42, Section 1.9, Residential Fireplaces, October 1996.

U.S. EPA, AP-42, Section 1.10, Residential Wood Stoves, October 1996.

U.S. EPA, Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review - Volume 1. Technical Report, EPA-600/R-98-174a, December 1998.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-04

IV-A-65 

### ADDITIONAL PM EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM RULE 444 – OPEN BURNING [PM]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : O PEN B URNING C ONTROL M ETHODS : B URN R ESTRICTIONS E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 PM10 I NVENTORY PM10 R EDUCTION S EE E MISSIONS R EDUCTION

S ECTION PM10 R EMAINING

C ONTROL C OST : T O B E D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Rule 444 outlines the criteria and guidelines for agricultural and prescribed burning, as well as training burns to minimize PM emissions and smoke in a manner that is consistent with state and federal laws. Agricultural burning is open burning of vegetative materials produced from the growing and harvesting of crops, as well as fields preparation in agricultural operations. Prescribed burning is a planned open burning of vegetative materials, usually conducted by a fire protection agency and/or department of fore stry, to promote a healthier habitat for plants and animals, and to prevent plant disease and pest, as well as fire episodes and destruction. Training burns are hands-on trainings conducted by fire protection agencies on methods of preventing and/or suppressing fire.


### Background Currently, Rule 444 allows open burning on perm issive burn days, provided that permit and event authorization are obtained, and that such burning events are not prohibited by a fire protection agency. A permissive burn day is declared by the District when certain meteorological conditions are met and the 1-hour ozone level does not exceed the state standard of 0.09 ppm. Rule 444 also includes genera l requirements (i.e., burning time window and ignition device) for open burning, as well as particular requirements, such as moisture level and firing methods for agricultural burning, and a Smoke Management Plan for prescribed burning. In addition, Rule 444 sets District-wide ma ximum daily burn acreage for agricultural and prescribed burning, but is lenient toward traini ng burns if the duration is less than 30 minutes and clean fuel is utilized.

This control measure calls for potential admini stration and compliance streamlining of the burn program, as well as additional and/or alternativ e controls to further reduce PM emissions andFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-04

IV-A-66 smoke from open burning. Alternatives to open burning are also require d by state law for the San Joaquin Valley where agricultural burning will be phased out by the year 2010.


### Regulatory History Rule 444 – Open Burning, (previously Open Fi res) was adopted October 1976. It has been amended three times, first in 1981. The rule wa s amended in 1987 to incorporate provisions of California Code of Regulations, Title 17 addr essing wildland vegetative management burns. The rule was amended in 2001 to incorporate th e Smoke Management Guideline requirement of the amended Title 17 and implement 1999 AQMP Control Measure WST-03.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Description of Control Opportunities Further PM emission reductions can be achieved through the following:

• Consideration of alternatives (i.e., chipping/ grinding and/or composting) to agricultural burning, especially if the burn project is locat ed within a close proximity to a sensitive receptor. Potentially seek authority to pha se-out of agricultural burning, potentially by 2015, as all feasible measures pursuant to San Joaquin Valley APCD requirements.

• Establishment of a fee schedule and/or regul atory incentive program to limit agricultural burning and promote alternatives.

• Establishment of criteria (fuel types, burni ng areas) for prioritizing training burns and agricultural burning requests.

• Establishment of “no burn days” based on a PM2.5 daily forecast. A threshold similar to the current federal 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m 3 or the future 35 μg/m 3 may be used. No-burn day may be established based on 8-hour ozone predictions.

• Prohibition and/or restriction of burning hours in case of unexpected changes in meteorology conditions.

• Requirement of a Smoke Management Plan (whe re specific plans to curtail PM emissions and smoke are included) and the utilization of clean fuel for all prescribed and training burns.

• Restriction of total burn time and/or number of structures to be used for training burns, as well as limit multiple training events by single agency.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION PM emissions from open burning are estimated at 0.63 ton per day. The proposed measure would eliminate 0.63 tons per day of PM2.5 on days when open burning is prohibited. However, since such burning would be shifted to other days, the total annual emissions would remain the same, thus the emission reductions.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-04

IV-A-67 

### RULE COMPLIANCE This control measure would be implemented us ing existing resources. Requirements would be effective upon rule adoption.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The rule amendment will focus on better program management and data collection, with no real emission reductions. Therefore, no additional costs are anticipated.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to implement this measure.



### REFERENCES Rule 444 – Open Burning California Code of Regulations, Title 17 – Agricultural Burning GuidelinesFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-05 (CM #2003PRC-03(P2))

IV-A-68 

### PM EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM UNDER-FIRED CHARBROILERS [PM2.5]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : U NDER -F IRED C HARBROILERS C ONTROL M ETHODS : A DD -O N C ONTROL E QUIPMENT WITH V ENTILATION H OOD R EQUIREMENTS

E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 PM2.5 I NVENTORY 11.3 13.2 14.4 PM2.5 R EDUCTION 1.1 1.2 PM2.5 R EMAINING 12.1 13.2

C ONTROL C OST : $13,000

- $15,000 PER T ON PM10 R EDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD/L OCAL G OVERNMENTS 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Restaurant operations emit PM and VOCs. Both of these pollutants can cause adverse health impacts, as well as causing a potential nuisance to the local community.


### Background
The 1997 AQMP contained Control Measure PRC- 03 - Emission Reductions from Restaurant Operations. Rule 1138, adopted in November 1997, implemented Phase I of this control measure, reducing 0.5 ton/day of PM10 emissions from chain-driven charbroilers. Under-fired charbroilers are the largest contributor to th e PM inventory contributing approximately eightythree percent. Restaurant operations include ch arbroilers, griddles, deep fat fryers, ovens, and other equipment. The total PM10 inventory is approximately 11.4 tons/day (11.3 of which is PM2.5) and 1.6 tons/day VOC. Under-fired charbr oilers are responsible for the majority of emissions from this source category (84 percent [9.6 tpd] of PM emissions, and 71 percent [1.2 tpd] of VOC emissions). Gri ddles account for approximately five percent of the total PM restaurant emissions inventory and four percen t of the total VOC emissions. Oven emissions appear to be negligible. Based on the contri bution of emissions from under-fired charbroilers, they were chosen as the next logical piece of basic equipment for which to seek cost-effective controls.


### Regulatory History The 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone State Impl ementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin listed PRC-03 – Emission Reductions from Restaurant Operations – Phase II, with reductions of 0.9 tons/day VOC and 7.0 tons/day of PM10.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-05 (CM #2003PRC-03(P2))

IV-A-69 The Board received a report on emerging control technologies for under-fired charbroilers in May 1999. This report pointed out that a c ontinuing effort to find cost-effective and technologically feasible controls for the rest aurant industry has been ongoing since 1991. The earlier phases of this effort included the investme nt of significant resources in improving test methods and developing emission factors.

In August 2000, staff reported that cost-effec tive controls were limited and recommended substituting the remaining 0.9 tons/day of VOC emi ssions assigned to this source category with another control measure achieving excess VOC emission.

However, because of the significant contributi on of the restaurant operations to the PM emissions inventory, the 2003 AQMP included C ontrol measure PRC-03 – Emission Reductions from Restaurant Operation to reduce PM10 em issions by 1 ton per day by 2010. This limited emission reduction projection from a baseline of approximately 10 tpd was based on the fact that cost-effective controls for the majority of under-fired charbroilers had not been developed. A report to the Board was made December 2004 recommending findings of infeasibility be made, and substitute emission reductions from other adopted rules, as required by the 2003 AQMP. Staff also recommended f unding for demonstration projects.
The Board authorized up to $200,000 from mitiga tion fees collected pursuant to Rule 1309.1 – Priority Reserve, to fund six to eight new or retrofit demonstration sites on large restaurants. However, no applications have been received to date for this project.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Restaurant operations continue to be signifi cant contributors in the PM10 and PM2.5 emission inventory. The District intends to continue its efforts in the research and development of control technologies that would cost-effectively reduce particulates from restaurant operations and intend to amend its rules should those technologies become available.

It has recently come to staff’s attention that the Bay Area AQMD has proposed a new rule for commercial cooking equipment. While this propos al reflects the District ’s Rule 1138 for chain driven charbroilers, it also contains contro l requirements for new and existing underfired charbroilers with a facility-wide cooking surface of greater than or equal to 10 square feet. The Bay Area AQMD proposal identifies a list of feasible control technologies available to reach an emissions limit of 1.9 pounds of PM10 per 1,000 pounds of meat cooked. Control options include electrostatic precipitators (ESP), high efficiency (HEPA) filters, wet scrubbers, and thermal oxidizers. The proposal also requires ventilation hoods on new installations to meet standards of the Underwriters Laboratory (UL). Staff will further investigate the Bay Area AQMD’s technical assessment and monitor rule im plementation. As stated in the Bay Area AQMD draft Staff Repot, technology advancement is necessary for retrofit applications on existing sources. District staff will be worki ng with the Bay Area AQMD staff to develop this

measure.
In conjunction with this effort, staff will al so evaluate potential PM10/PM2.5 credit generation opportunities for use by other sources.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007BCM-05 (CM #2003PRC-03(P2))

IV-A-70 

### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Based on the Bay Area AQMD rule development effort, a 90 percent reduction of PM10 is estimated for underfired charbroilers using one of the identified emission control technologies. If the District were to adopt and implement the same requirements, focusing on a 90 percent reduction on large volume restaurants using e ither ESP or HEPA filter technology, staff estimates that a reduction of 1.1 tons per day (8 percent) overall from this source category by 2014.



### TEST METHODS In conjunction with the rule development pro cess for Rule 1138 and associated source testing, the document “Protocol – Determination of Particulate and Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Restaurant Operations” was published November 14, 1997. These test methods are currently being used for testing of charbr oilers and potential control devices. The test methods are used by qualified labs to certify the emissions level of specific control systems but are not employed to test emissions at individual restaurants.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost-effectiveness associated with achieving the 1.1 ton per day reduction by underfired charbroilers is estimated to be between $13,000 and $15,000 per ton PM2.5 reduced based on the use of either ESP or HEPA filters. The Dist rict will continue to an alyze the potential cost impacts on the industry during rulemaking.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate emissions from restaurant operations.



### REFERENCES Report to the Governing Board Decembe r 2004 - Staff Recommendations Regarding Controlling Emissions from Restaurant Operations.

BAAQMD Draft Staff Report, Regulation 6, Rule 2: Commercial Cooking Equipment, April 2007.

## GROUP 5 Multiple Component SourcesFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-01

IV-A-71 

### FACILITY MODERNIZATION [NOx, VOC, PM2.5]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : A LL F ACILITIES

C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS R ELATED TO T ODAY ’ S BACT AND S UPERCOMPLIANT C OMPOUNDS

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023

NO X I NVENTORY 22.6 12.1 9.8

NO X R EDUCTION 1.6 2.0

NO X R EMAINING 10.5 7.8

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023

NO X I NVENTORY 24.6 13.2 10.8

NO X R EDUCTION 1.8 2.2

NO X R EMAINING 11.4 8.6

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023

VOC I NVENTORY 13.6 14.2 16.3

VOC R EDUCTION 2.0 8.0

VOC R EMAINING 12.2 8.3

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023

VOC I NVENTORY 15.8 16.3 18.7

VOC R EDUCTION 2.3 9.2

VOC R EMAINING 14.0 9.5

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023

PM2.5 I NVENTORY 3.3 3.9 4.3

PM2.5 R EDUCTION 0.4 1.7

PM2.5 R EMAINING 3.5 2.6
C ONTROL C OST : $10,600 TO $17,000 PER T ON NOx R EDUCED ; $10,000 PER T ON VOC R EDUCED ; $19,000 PER T ON PM 2.5 R EDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMDFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-01

IV-A-72 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY

This control measure would obtain further emission reductions of NOx, VOC, and PM2.5 by requiring that facilities modernize permitted equipment and processes and use supercompliant materials based on a set of pre-specified equipment useful life.

For NOx emission reductions, existing equipment at facilities not participating in the NOx RECLAIM program would need to be retrofit orreplaced with BACT at the end of a predetermined life span. For facilities participa ting in the NOx RECLAIM program, further NOx reductions will be obtained through periodic BA RCT evaluation and other program review.

For VOC emission reductions, supercompliant VOC materials would be required for surface coating applications, where feasible, beginning w ith 10 tpy or greater VOC facilities. Facilities subject to Rule 1132 are excluded from this measur e, because they are already subject to a 65% facility-wide reduction in VOC emissions.

PM2.5 emissions reductions would be obtai ned from both RECLAIM and non-RECLAIM facilities through this control measure.

This comprehensive control strategy is comprised of five facility emission components:

 Combustion Sources – NOx

 Fugitive VOC Emissions

 Industrial Coating and Solvents Operations - VOC

 PM2.5 Emissions from Facility Operations

 Fugitive PM2.5 

### Background

BACT

The District’s New Sour ce Review (NSR) programs 3 establish pre-construction permit review requirements for equipment or processes subj ect to permit requirements. Under NSR, applicants are required to incorporate BACT when new equipment is installed, existing stationary permitted equipment is relocated, or existing permitted equipment is modified such that there is an emissions increase. BACT means the most stringent emission limitation or control technique which:

 Has been achieved in practice for such category or class of source; or

 Is contained in any state implementation plan approved by EPA for such category or class of source (unless demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer or designee to be not presently achievable); or

3 The NSR programs include Regulation XIII – New Source Review and Rule 2005 – New Source Review for RECLAIM.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-01

IV-A-73  Is any other emission limitation or control technique, found by the Executive Officer or designee to be technologically feasible for such class or category of sources or for a specific source, and cost-effective as compared to m easures listed in the AQMP or rules adopted by the District Governing Board.


### Existing Equipment

Although control measures are routinely applie d to existing sources, it is generally more difficult and costly to retrofit existing equipment with BACT than it is to apply BACT to a new source. The equipment being retrofit may not be compatible with current BACT if a specific process or method is needed. There may also be space restrictions that prevent installation of some add-on control technology.

Consequently, control measures targeting exis ting combustion sources typically do not reduce emissions to the same levels that would be obtained from the application of BACT. And, although NSR requires BACT for new, relocated, or modified equipment with an emissions increase, older equipment is allowed to remain in operation for many years, provided that the equipment complies with applicable rules for existing equipment. As a result, emission reductions to the level of BACT are not achieved for older equipment, and there is currently no mechanism that limits the continued use of such equipment.

This control measure ensures that as equipment ages and reaches the e nd of useful life, the equipment is either upgraded or replaced to meet BACT. This measure would provide the certainty for implementation of the cleanest av ailable technology within the time frame of the attainment dates.


### Regulatory History

This control measure would affect a wide va riety of permitted equipment and processes. Consequently, the rules and regulations impacting the affected sources are extensive and are summarized briefly.

Regulation IV - Contains more than 35 rules th at place prohibitions on equipment or operations. Several of these rules place restrictions on the exhaust concentrations of different combustion contaminants. For instance, Rule 474 (Fuel Burn ing Equipment - Oxides of Nitrogen) limits the NOx emissions from fuel burning equipment. For recently permitted equipment, many of these rules are superseded by more stringent BACT limits.

Regulation IX is derived from federal law a nd specifies standards of performance for new stationary sources. The regulation consists of mo re than 70 subparts. Most of the standards in this regulation have been adopted by the District without change and are enforced by delegation from the USEPA. As an example, Subpart Eb provides standards of performance and emission guidelines for municipal waste combustors.

Regulation X is also derived from federal la w and specifies standards for handling hazardous materials. The regulation consists of at leas t 15 subparts. The federal standards have been adopted by the District without change and are enforced under EPA authority.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-01

IV-A-74 Regulation XI contains source-specific standards and is composed of more than 85 rules. As an example, Rule 1110.2 (Emissions from Gaseous- and Liquid-Fueled Engines) places NOx, CO, and VOC limits on engines. For engines that ha ve been permitted for many years and have not been recently subject to BACT, this rule may be the most restrictive in terms of limiting engine emissions. Another example is Rule 1118 (Emissi ons from Refinery Flares). Regulation XI rules are tailored to specific types of air pollution sources.

Regulation XIII (New Source Review) sets fo rth the requirements that proposed new or modified stationary sources must meet before construction can take place. These requirements are in addition to those specified by other rule s and include use of Best Available Control Technology, offset of emission increases, and a demonstration that air quality will not be diminished as the result of the construction or modification.

Regulation XIV (Toxics) consists of more than 15 rules that address toxic air contaminants. Rule 1401 pertains to the New Source Review of toxic air contaminants, and Rule 1402 controls toxic air contaminants from existing sources.

Regulation XX (RECLAIM) specifies requirements for facilities participating in the market incentive program, which is designed to allo w facilities flexibility in achieving emission reduction requirements for NOx and SOx. Rule 2005 provides New Source Review requirements for RECLAIM facilities.

Regulation XXX (Title V Permits) defines permit app lication and issuance procedures and also compliance requirements associated with the fede ral Operating Permit Program. This regulation is mandated by Title V of the federal Clean Air Act.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The concept of this control measure is to en sure timely upgrade of existing technology to the cleanest technology available. The District, as part of rulemaking will develop a list of useful equipment life by equipment category. The equipm ent operators are expected to achieve BACT or equivalent emission limits at the end of us eful life through equipment replacement or retrofit technology. The term BACT in the context of th is control measure only refers to the limit or control technology specified in NSR regulations . For VOC solvent/coating facilities, this measure would begin with 10 tpy or greater facilities to design a program to encourage application of supercompliant materials or process change to achieve emission reductions.

During the rulemaking process for this control measure, a more detailed analysis will be performed to establish appropriate useful lives for various equipment categories and size ranges. Special consideration will be given to past retrofit requirements and investments made, to ensure that reasonable useful lives for vari ous equipment types are obtained. During the implementation phase of this control measure, consideration should be given to those facilities reducing their emissions through retrofits/replacem ents of their existing equipment to least polluting alternatives (BACT) to ensure that th ey do not trigger emission offsets and/or other NSR requirements, if consistent with federal la w. It should be noted that offsets are only targeted when there is an emissions increase.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-01

IV-A-75 As part of its efforts to implement this control measure and to promote facility modernization, the District will forge partnerships with local businesses, trade organizations, environmental groups, and other stakeholders, and pursue state and federal tax incentives. The District will follow a two-step public hearing procedure whic h will provide a pre-hearing to receive public comments on the basic program design prior to the adoption hearing before the District’s Governing Board. The District will also work with EPA and other stakeholders on any potential issues such as the applicability of an NSR event to equipment replacements and determination of equipment life prior to rule adoption. Earl y replacement of equipment significantly prior to specified useful life may qualify for the tax incen tives. Potential credit generation will also be explored during rule development.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION
The emission reductions for NOx, VOC and PM2.5 ar e shown in the summary table. There may also be concurrent emission reductions in SO x, and CO. For purposes of emission reduction calculations, the refinery sector is excluded because reductions are included in FLX-02.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Compliance with the provisions of this c ontrol measure would be based on monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that have been established in either the RECLAIM program or existing source-specific rules and re gulations. In addition, compliance would be verified through inspections and other recordkeeping and reporting requirements.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The estimated cost effectiveness for NOx reductions through this control measure ranges from $10,600 to $17,000 per ton reduced, based on a vari ety of combustion equipment. NOx reductions may also be obtained from additiona l equipment, depending on results from further analyses during the rulemaking process. .
A cost-effectiveness of $10,000 per ton was estimated for sources of VOC. This value corresponds to a reasonably conservative cost-eff ectiveness for facilities subject to the January 2001 amendment to Rule 1132 Further Control of VOC Emissions from High-Emitting Spray Booth Facilities. This value was deemed appropr iate because of the similarity between this control measure and Rule 1132. That is, both reduce VOC on a facility-wide basis by lowering the VOC content of coatings or through the application of add-on controls.
A cost-effectiveness of $19,000 per ton was estimat ed for sources of PM2.5. This value was based on the $4,500 per ton of PM10 cost-effectiven ess for facilities subject to the minor source BACT, if one assumes a four to five PM10 to PM2.5 ratio, by weight.

A comprehensive evaluation of costs and imp acts on businesses will be conducted during the rulemaking process. Any potential tax incentives that may be made available would improve the cost effectiveness beyond the figures provided.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-01

IV-A-76 

### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

The District has the authority to regulate emissions from the targeted sources.



### REFERENCE South Coast Air Quality Management District. Best Available Control Technology Guidelines. July 14, 2006.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-02 (CM #2003MSC-01)

IV-A-77 

### URBAN HEAT ISLAND

[ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : R OOFING , P AVING , AND B UILDING M ATERIALS AND T REE P LANTING P ROJECTS
C ONTROL M ETHODS : U SE OF M ORE R EFLECTIVE AND L IGHTER C OLOR S URFACES
ON E XTERIOR S URFACES L OCATED IN U RBAN A REAS
E MISSIONS : I MPLEMENTATION OF T HIS C ONTROL M EASURE IS E XPECTED TO L OWER A MBIENT T EMPERATURES IN U RBAN A REAS

. L OWER A MBIENT T EMPERATURES W OULD D ECREASE THE F ORMATION OF O ZONE , W HICH I N T URN IS E XPECTED TO R ESULT IN I MPROVED A IR Q UALITY

. C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED

. I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD, CEC, L OCAL G OVERNMENT 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to encourage activities that would lower ambient temperatures in urban areas. This control m easure focuses on encouraging activities such as using lighter, more reflective surface materials and increased tree planting.


### Background Over the past four decades, summer temperatures in urban cities throughout the nation have increased by 2 to 4°F. Since 1940, it is estimated that peak temperatures in Los Angeles have increased approximately 5 to 6°F (Akbari, et al , 1990; EPA, 1990). The increased temperatures are primarily occurring in urban areas. Moreover, studies have shown that summer temperatures in urban areas are typically 2°F to 8°F higher than in their rural surroundings (EPA, 1992).

The difference between urban and rural temperatur es is referred to as the “urban heat island effect.” The replacement of natural vegetation su ch as trees, grass, and soil with concrete and asphalt reduces the landscape’s ability to lower day time temperatures and loses the benefits of shade. In addition, the use of da rk colored materials and surfaces that absorb, rather than reflect incoming solar energy adds to the effect, thus increasing temperatures in cities and urban areas.

The urban heat island effect has adverse im pacts on air quality and energy demands. The increased solar gain absorbed by the city can increase energy demands for cooling and accelerate ozone formation. Studies indicate th at in large metropolitan cities such as Los Angeles, utility peak loads will increase 1.5 to 2 pe rcent for every 1°F increase in temperature. In Los Angeles, energy loads for both Los Ange les Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and Southern California Edison (SCE) increase by about 2 percent per °F with respect to the base load (Taha, et al, 1992).Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-02 (CM #2003MSC-01)

IV-A-78 The ability of a surface to reflect is referred to as albedo and is measured from zero to one, with one representing the most reflective and zero repr esenting the most absorbent. Most buildings and cities have albedos between .20 and .35 (Akbari, et al, 1990). To reduce urban temperatures, albedos can be increased by using lighter, more reflective materials on surfaces of roofs and pavement (roads and parking lots). In addition to providing shade to buildings and surfaces, trees cool the air directly by evapotra nspiration and block solar radiation and prevent these structures and surfaces from heating up beyond the ambient temperature (LADWP, 1992). Moreover through evapotranspiration, the natural releasing of water vapor from leaves and trees cools the environment, thus bringing down the temperature of the entire area.

A preliminary air quality modeling analysis i ndicates cooler surfaces and tree planting can improve the ozone air quality in Los Angeles. Initial results indicate that through cooler surfaces for homes, office-building roofs, and paved surfaces, and planting 11 million trees in Los Angeles, that the heat island effect can be reduced between 3 - 7°F (Rosenfeld, et al, 1996).

In May 2002, the District co-funded a project with the City of L.A., L.A. Department of Water and Power, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories and the California Energy Commission to assess the effects of using lighter colored roofing mate rials to improve energy efficiency and to lessen the urban heat island effect. A field study wa s conducted to measure the changes in surface temperatures in light colored roofing and paving materials installed in and around the L.A. Zoo. This and other studies will provide better data on the effectiveness of lighter colored materials to lessen the urban heat island effect.

A study was conducted in 1998 to quantify the ai r quality benefits of the cool community concept by applying an appropriate air quality modeling approach (ENVIRON, 1998). Cool communities impacts on temperature and disper sion were mapped using the Urban Airshed Model (UAM) to evaluate the meteorological e ffects on ozone formation and transport within the Basin. Maximum ozone reductions were f ound to be about 8 part s per billion (ppb). A follow-up study was conducted to explore ways in which the air quality benefits that accrue from the implementation of urban heat island mitigation strategies can be converted into quantifiable emission reductions (ENVIRON, 2001). This study analyzed three options for regulatory approaches in generating emi ssion reductions including: local governments modifying building codes to require the use of li ght colored materials, public or private groups providing cash or other incentives to building owners to install lighter colored materials, and the District requiring the use of lighter colored materials with the resulting emission reductions applied for SIP purposes.


### Regulatory History In January 1992, the EPA introduced a publication, Cooling Our Communities: A Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-Colored Surfacing. Th is guidebook discussed the causes, magnitude and impacts of increased urban heat islands.

There are communities within the Basin which have tree planting programs and ordinances already in effect. In addition, some utilities pr ovide educational guidance brochures regarding tree planting.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-02 (CM #2003MSC-01)

IV-A-79 

### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This control measure proposes to develop a program to promote the use of light colored roofing and pavement materials, solar roofing membra nes, and increased tree planting. Programs to promote use of more reflective pavement and tr ee planting could be a required element for new sources, or could be included as recomme ndations through the District’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook. Sources such as builders, utilities, cities and local government agencies, and private citizens, etc. that promote the use of lighter colored materials and increased tree planting could be eligible for an emission credit. Emission credits could be issued based on types of surface materials used or numbers of trees per unit or area that meet or exceed a specified benchmark.

There are a variety of techniques that can be implemented to reduce urban temperatures and increase the albedo of roofs, pavements, and build ing surfaces. Most of these techniques can be implemented during the maintenance or modifi cation of existing structures or during the building stages of new structures.


### Roofing Materials The reflectivity of roofs is measured in term s of roof temperature at noon on a clear summer day, with an air temperature of 90oF, averaged ove r the warranted life of th e roof. A gray roof with a smooth or washable texture would have a roof temperature under the aforementioned conditions of approximately 160oF. A light gr een roof has a higher albedo, and accordingly a lower surface temperature of 135oF.

One method of achieving higher albedos is to co at existing surfaces or modify the makeup of new surfaces so that they incorporate lighter co lored materials. Available techniques for roof whitening include, but are not limited to the following (Taha, et al, 1992):

• adding light-colored aggregate to the roofing material;

• light-colored rocks on flat or gently-sloped roofs;

• colored or painted roofs;

• coating with elastomeric coatings and single plies; and

• using light-colored concrete tiles on sloping roofs.

In addition to these techniques, the use of integrated roofing membranes using solar photovoltaic arrays can have a combined effect of lowering the thermal impacts on commercial and industrial building roofs while at the same time supplying the electricity needs of these buildings. Such products consist of an array of photovoltaic modules integrated into a flexible polyester-based roofing membrane. These roofing membranes have relatively high albedos (e.g., 0.8) and can be equipped with insulation th ereby, reducing the thermal impacts on roofs. The photovoltaic modules convert much of the in coming sun’s energy directly into electricity, substantially reducing the energy absorbed by a roof.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-02 (CM #2003MSC-01)

IV-A-80 

### Pavement and Building Surface Materials Within the city, there are a number of urban surf aces such as streets, sidewalks, parking lots, school yards, and other similar surfaces, that have dark surfaces. The following identifies techniques that can be implemented to lighten urban surfaces (Taha, et al, 1992, Pomerantz, 1996):

• using light-colored aggregates in the upper layer of the asphalt in new pavements;

• using a light-colored slurry or chip seal when resurfacing;

• using concrete rather than asphalt, with a light-colored aggregate and binder;

• whitetopping (light-colored concrete pavements);

• using artificial lighteners in preparing the mixtures of asphaltic concrete and slurry seals; and

• using paints of light colors that are desi gned specifically to resist weathering, wear and tear, and other environmental effects.

In addition to selecting materials with high albedos , other considerations are important to ensure that materials maintain their original albedos. Considerations that should be taken into account include, but are not limited to material wear resi stance, effects of soiling, and surface texture. In addition, in selecting materials for roads, park ing lots, and driveways, it is important that the light-colored surface has a non-skid finish.


### Tree Planting To help lower an entire city’s temperatures th rough evapotranspiration, street trees need to be planted in public as well as private spaces such as parking lots, plazas, street meridians, sidewalks, residential yards, corporate lawn s, parks, and shopping plazas (EPA, 1992). For homes and buildings, the most dramatic cooling takes place when trees directly shade windows, walls, roofs, and air-conditioning units (LADWP, 1992). For residences, most experts suggest planting three or more trees, placing them so they will shade the home and outdoor living areas during the summer months (SCE, 1991). The air conditioning savings are even greater when the tree shades an office building with large windows and long air conditioning hours.

A general rule of thumb is to plan t at least five to ten feet from a structure; moreover, the shape and projected mature spread of the tree should be taken into account in this distance (LADWP, 1991). To maximize the evaportranspiration of tr ee planting programs, the placement of trees in cities is important. The following identifies tree pl anting strategies that should be considered to maximize the cooling benefits associated with increased tree planting:

• shade east- and west facing walls and windows of home or building to reduce air conditioning energy consumption,Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-02 (CM #2003MSC-01)

IV-A-81 • shade roofs to lower the temperature of interiors of homes and buildings, external surfaces, and surrounding environment,

• shade outdoor air conditioning units to increase its efficiency,

• shade nearby walls and flat surfaces such as walkways, driveways, alleys, and the streets, and

• plant trees to influence wind movement and circulation around and through residences and buildings.

In selecting shade trees for large-scale planti ng, they must be low biogenic emitters (Benjamin & Winer, 1994). Consideration should also be taken for their tolerance to air pollution, water requirements, effect (or lack of effect) on sidewalks, sewer lines and overhead electric lines, and insect and pest resistance (Corchnoy, et al, 1991). The shape, size, species, as well as fire hazards are important to consider in selecting sh ade trees. In selecting species, it is important that trees with the potential to produce bi ogenic hydrocarbon emissions be avoided. The District would work with interested parties to develop a list of species of trees that would be recommended for shading.
Currently there are programs such as the $3.5 million dollar effort by the California Urban Forests Urban Council. In addition to tree pl anting in the Los Angeles area, this project provides services in public education, management support to urban foresters, support to public agencies, government to develop urban forest initiatives and urban forest service and research.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Implementation of this control measure is exp ected to decrease ambient temperatures in the Basin, particularly during summer months. Improve d air quality is expected as a result of lower urban temperatures.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Implementation of this measure could be based on the following:

• local government model ordinances;

• legislative strategies for incentives; and

• public outreach for consumer awareness.

In addition, the District may consider the development of an emissions credit mechanism to provide emission credits based on the number of un its modified or installed that use materials and colors meeting or exceeding a specified benchmark.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-02 (CM #2003MSC-01)

IV-A-82 

### TEST METHODS ASTM Sub-Committee E06-21 has developed E1980- 01 Standard Practice for Calculating Solar Reflectance Index of Horizontal and Low-Sloped Opaque Surfaces to determine indexes and surface temperatures for surfaces with emissivity greater than 0.1.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measure ha s not yet been fully determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost imp act associated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY Implementation of this measure is expected to re quire the partnership of the District, CEC, and local government.



### REFERENCES

Rosenfeld et. al. “Policies to Reduce Heat Isla nds: Magnitudes of Benefits and Incentives to Achieve Them,” EE-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. MS 90-2000, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California. 1996.

Pomerantz, M., H. Akbari, A. Chen, H. Taha, A.H. Rosenfeld. “Paving Materials for Heat Island Mitigation,” LBL 38074, Berkeley, CA. 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. C ooling Our Communities. A Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-Colored Surfacing. January, 1992.

Akbari, H., Rosenfeld, A.H., Taha, H. “Su mmer Heat Islands, Urban Trees, and White Surfaces.” January, 1990.

Taha, H., R. Ritschard, and B. Huang. “Urban Climates, Global Change, and Energy Use: A Preliminary Investigation of the Potential for Offset with High Albedo and Increased Vegetation Cover, “ DRAFT, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, December 1992.

Taha, H., D. Sailor, and H. Akbari. “High- Albedo Materials for Reducing Building Cooling Energy Use.” Heat Island Project Energy a nd Environment Division Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. January 1992.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. “Smart Planting for the New Urban Forest. A Guide to Planting Trees Around Your Home.” 1992.

Southern California Edison. “Trees Saving Energy Naturally.” 1991.

Corchnoy, B. Stephanie, Janet Arey, Roger At kinson. “Hydrocarbon Emissions from Twelve Urban Shade Trees of the Los Angeles, California, Air Basin.” November 1991.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-02 (CM #2003MSC-01)

IV-A-83 ENVIRON. 1998. “Air Quality Modeling Evaluati on of the Cool Communities Ozone Control Strategy.” ENVIRON International Corporation. March 1998.

ENVIRON. 2001. “Final Report: Development of an Ozone Precursor Emission Reduction Credit Program Based on Urban Heat Island M itigation Measures.” Prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation for the City of Los Angeles. May 2001.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-03

IV-A-84 

### ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : S TATIONARY S OURCE F UEL C OMBUSTION C ATEGORIES C ONTROL M ETHODS : I NCENTIVES FOR H IGH F UEL E FFICIENCY E QUIPMENT

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM Background Energy efficiency and conservation programs redu ce emissions of all pollutants and tend to be cost effective. There is a renewed interest in efficiency and conservation programs at local, state, national and international levels. Industrial and commercial businesses and the public also share this interest.

In the 1991, 1994, 1997, and 2003 Air Quality Manageme nt Plans the District included energy efficiency and conservation components. The 1991 AQMP included control measures for residential, commercial and industrial sectors and local government conservation measures. That AQMP also included efficiency and cons ervation goals developed in cooperation with other agencies and affected businesses. The plan included electricity conservation goals of 5 to 15 percent for different sectors and natural gas conservation goals of 20 to 30% for commercial and residential sectors. In later AQMPs, ener gy efficiency and conservation were addressed within specific control measures.

The 1991 AQMP also addressed global warming a nd ozone depletion. The District committed to specific measures to reduce emissions of co mpounds that contributed to both ozone depletion and global warming. In addition, the District committed to working with other agencies to reduce global warming through energy efficiency and conservation.


### Current Regulatory Programs Promoting Clean Energy Promoting cleaner sources of energy has always been a component of the AQMP. Clean energy produces less air pollution and includes sources such as solar, wind, hydro, bio-fuels and hydrogen. Solar energy can produce electricity using photovoltaic cells or thermal energy by heating water or a heat transfer fluid. Wind can be used to generate electricity using windmills in locations where winds are strong and constant . Examples of bio-fu els include ethanol and bio-diesel produced from plants. Hydrogen can be produced in a variety of ways and when used as a fuel the only byproduct of combustion is wate r. Electric and hybrid electric vehicles are also cleaner and result in fewer emissions of nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulate matter compared with conventional gasoline powered vehicles.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-03

IV-A-85 Renewable energy sources such as hydro, solar and wind, as well as alternative fuels and electric and hybrid electric vehicles are all com ponents of the plan. The CARB and the District have emission reduction targets for mobile sources that include alternative fuels and hybrid and electric vehicles.

The CEC has established a goal for electric utilitie s of producing 33% of the state’s electricity from renewable resources. Also, at the state level, California also has a solar initiative whose main focus is the installation of photovoltaic ce lls on residences and commercial buildings to help reduce peak electricity demand. The stat e will also promote clean energy sources as a means of reducing global warming gasses under a new state law. Greenhouse gasses must be reduced 25% by 2020.

Reducing Energy Demand Currently there are a variety of programs at the federal, state and local level for reducing energy demand. At the federal and state level, th e U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) develop mi nimum energy efficiency standards for residential, commercial and industrial equipm ent. The USEPA oversees the Energy Star program which promotes energy efficient applian ces and equipment for residential, office and commercial use by identifying equipment that exceed s efficiency standards. Equipment which significantly exceeds standards can use the energy star label in advertising and are listed in the energy star database.

Public utilities in California promote conservati on and efficiency through advertising rebate programs that offset the cost of energy effici ent equipment and conservation programs. These programs are supported by the CEC and the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC).

Reducing energy demand in California through effi ciency and conservation is the responsibility of the CEC and PUC. These two agencies in cooperation with utilities and local governments assure the state has an adequate energy supply as well as establish efficiency and conservation goals. Utilities and local governments provide incentives to help meet these goals.

State and Federal Initiatives and Programs Currently there are a variety of energy efficiency and conservation programs at the federal, state and local level. At the federal and state le vel, the U.S. DOE and the CEC develop minimum energy efficiency standards for residential, co mmercial and industrial equipment. The USEPA Energy Star program promotes ener gy efficient appliances and equipment for residential, office and commercial use which significantly exceed standards.

The California Energy and Public Utilities Commissi ons require natural gas and electric utilities to include energy efficiency and conservati on programs in their operations. Utilities have specific energy conservation goals and commit funds and other resources to provide incentives for property owners and businesses to purchase energy efficient equipment and initiate energy conservation and management programs. Curren tly, electric utilities have been set a long term goal of having 33% of their generation produced by renewable energy sources.

In addition, California has recently establishe d a program to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses – pollutants that contribute to global warming. The program has a goal of reducingFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-03

IV-A-86 emissions by 25% from current levels by 2020. This goal will be achieved in part through promotion of energy efficient t echnologies and energy conservation.

The state also has a solar initiative program w hose emphasis is increasing the amount of energy produced through solar energy. A major focus of this program is to increase the number of photovoltaic systems on residential and commercia l buildings to reduce the peak electricity demand on summer afternoons.

At the local level, counties and cities also ha ve energy efficiency and conservation programs and promote conservation by providing incentiv es to building projects which meet LEED standards (Leadership in Energy and Environm ental Standards). LEED is an energy and environmental standards certification program developed by the non-profit U.S. Green Building Council. Local governments can provide a variety of incentives to developers whose projects meet LEED standards such as a quicker review of permit applications.

The USEPA also provides guidance to local air pollution control agencies for including energy efficiency and conservation programs in their st ate implementation plans. Emission reductions must be quantifiable, enforceable and in excess of reductions from other programs and regulations.

Energy Demand Projections Information developed by the CEC in the first ha lf of 2006 indicated that the projected increase in demand for natural gas and electricity are expect ed to be in the range of 1 to 11⁄2 percent per year for the years covered by the AQMP. A similar increase in demand is expected for transportations fuels (i.e., gasoline and diesel). The effect of the state program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not known at this tim e. However, energy conservation and use of more efficient technologies would be expected to mitigate the projected increases in demand for fossil fuels and electricity and would reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses.

Energy Conservation and Efficiency Program Assumed in the Plan The energy demand forecasts provided by the gas and electric utilities include conservation and efficiency programs that have been estab lished through the PUC and CEC. The energy projections provided to the District for th e AQMP include these conservation goals. All required conservation measures have been included in the energy projections for the plan.

The utility programs include rebates for energy e fficient equipment such as lights, motors, pumps, boilers, and water heaters. They also o ffer energy audit and monitoring services to help business become more efficient, save energy and reduce costs. These programs and public service advertising are the way each utility achieves the energy conservation goals set for it by the PUC.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-03

IV-A-87



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The proposed method of control is to provide incentives for businesses or residents to use energy efficient equipment in the District a nd increase the effectiveness of existing energy conservation programs. The District is propos ing to develop and implement specific energy efficiency and conservation programs above and beyond the state and federal mandated programs to achieve further emission reductions. It should be noted that the impact of existing federal and state programs are already reflected in the District’s projected emissions forecast.

Under this measure, monetary incentives could be provided to accelerate the retirement existing of equipment (e.g., boilers, water heaters) subj ect to AQMP rules and replacement of these equipment with high fuel efficiency units. Such approach will not only have the benefit of achieving early NOx reductions due to early co mpliance with NOx emission limits, but it will also provide additional NOx benefits based on the use of more fuel efficient equipment. The District will work with utility companies to pr ovide additional incentives for property owners and businesses to purchase more fuel or energy efficient equipment. Funding for these programs could come from a variety of sour ces including the District Priority Reserve (District’s Rule 1309.1) or mitigation fees (e.g., from federal sources). The District will conduct an assessment of the cost and the cost-e ffectiveness of specific energy efficiency and conservation measures before launching this program. Close coordination with vendors supplying high efficiency equipment as well as with local governments to explore opportunities to increase program outreach would be critical for the success of this program.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION

The amount of emission reductions will be determ ined during implementation of this control measure. Emission reductions will be in exce ss of reductions achieved by current regulatory
programs.
Energy and environmental impacts of the proposed energy efficiency measure will be evaluated during the CEQA process as a part of the Final AQMP. Impacts on emissions of criteria air pollutants, electricity and fossil fuel demand and emissions of global warming gasses will be assessed in the CEQA document.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS

Compliance with the provisions of this c ontrol measure would be based on monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that have been established in existing source specific rules and regulations. In addition, compliance w ould be verified through inspections and other recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Emissions quantification protocols will establish the appropriate test methods that applicable source categories will be required to use when generating and using emission credits under this
program.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-03

IV-A-88 

### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness has not been determined. In general, energy efficiency and conservation measures tend to be cost effective.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The implementing agencies would include the District and local governments.



### REFERENCES

ENERGY ACTION PLAN II: IMPLEMENTA TION ROADMAP FOR ENERGY POLICIES, California Energy Commission and Public Utilities Commission, September 21, 2005

SUMMER 2006 ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND DE MAND OUTLOOK, California Energy Commission, December 2005

APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY REGULATI ONS, California Energy Commission,

Revised July 2006

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS IN SUPPORT OF THE GREEN BUILDING INITIATIVE, California Public Utilities Commission, October 2005

RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES AND THE CALIFORNIA RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD PROGRAM, California Public Utilities Commission, April 20, 2006Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-04 (CM #2003WST-02)

IV-A-89 

### EMISSIONS REDUCTION FROM GREENWASTE COMPOSTING [VOC, PM2.5]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : G REENWASTE C OMPOSTING C ONTROL M ETHODS : B EST M ANAGEMENT P RACTICES AND / OR C ONTROL T ECHNOLOGIES E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY TBD TBD TBD VOC R EDUCTION TBD TBD VOC R EMAINING TBD TBD

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY TBD TBD TBD VOC R EDUCTION TBD TBD VOC R EMAINING TBD TBD

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 PM2.5 I NVENTORY TBD TBD TBD PM2.5 R EDUCTION TBD TBD PM2.5 R EMAINING TBD TBD

C ONTROL C OST : T O B E D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Greenwaste composting is a biological process wh ere greenwaste (organic waste generated from gardening, agriculture, and/or landscaping activities) is decomposed under controlled environment to produce a soil-like product called compost. Greenwaste composting is an important component of the solid waste indus try; it provides resource conservation through source reduction, recycling, and reuse. However, it produces air emissions that are currently uncontrolled. Greenwaste composting is a source of direct dust and VOC (4.4 tons/day). It also releases carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methan e, which are greenhouse gases. In addition, greenwaste composting can generate odors, a comm on public nuisance, if not properly operated. Emissions and odors from greenwaste composti ng can be reduced by maintaining optimal aerobic conditions thru best management practices , or utilizing ag-bag, enclosure, as well as state-of-the art emissions control technologies, su ch as aeration static pile (ASP) and in-vessel equipped with a control device such as bio-filter.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-04 (CM #2003WST-02)

IV-A-90 

### Background

Control Measure (CM) WST-02 – Emission Reduc tions from Composting, included in the 1997 and 2003 AQMPs, as well as the 1999 Amendments to the 1997 Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the SCAB, called for the developm ent of feasible control strategies to reduce VOC and ammonia emissions from composting activities. As such, Rule 1133.2 – Emission Reductions from Composting Operations and Rela ted Operations, was adopted in January 2003. Rule 1133.2 partially implements CM WST-02 because it only focused on controlling the emissions from co-composting operations (bio-solids).

Although the 2002 District’s and the Californi a Integrated Waste Management Board’s (CIWMB) source testing revealed that greenwast e composting was a significant source of VOC, at that time, staff only proposed minimal regi stration requirements for greenwaste composting, with the intention to track their operations a nd emissions. According to staff’s affordability analysis conducted in 2002, control options (enclosu re, ASP, in-vessel, and bio-filter) identified for co-composting may have adverse impacts on the greenwaste composting industry despite their cost-effectiveness.

During the Rule 1133.2 development process, st aff identified approximately 16 greenwaste composting facilities in the District’s jurisdic tion. Most of these facilities compost their greenwaste in long piles called windrows. In order to maintain optimal aerobic conditions, which would in turn, reduce emissions and odor s generated during the decomposition process, windrows must be turned frequently by front-end loaders.


### Regulatory History Currently, operators of greenwaste composting fac ilities located in the District’s jurisdiction are required to comply with the District’s Rule 203 – Permit to Operate (for equipment that require permits), Rule 401 – Visible Emissions, Ru le 403 – Fugitive Dust, and Rule 1133 (for registration and annual update).

Depending on the throughput levels, greenwaste co mposting facilities are either required to comply with the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA ) Notification requirements set forth in Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Divi sion 7, Chapter 5.0, Article 3.0, or obtain a Compostable Materials Handling Facility Permit from the CIWMB pursuant to Title 27, California Code of Regulations, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 4.0, Subchapters 1 and 3, Articles 1, 2, 3, and 3.1. However, neither the Di strict nor state regulations require specific emission controls from the greenwaste composting industry.

Assembly Bill (AB) 939 (California Integrated Waste Management Act):

In September 1989, AB 939 was passed into law and was incorporated into the California Public Resources Code, Division 30, §40000 et seq. (Div ision 30). Division 30 is implemented by CIWMB. It mandates cities and counties to ach ieve a total waste diversion of 25 percent by 1995, and a total waste diversion of 50 percen t by 2000, based on the 1990 baseline. Division 30 also requires California to secure a long-term disposal capacity. Organic waste (foodwaste and greenwaste) only accounted for approximately 30 percent of California’s waste stream inFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-04 (CM #2003WST-02)

IV-A-91 1999. Recycling, reuse, and source reduction have been widely promoted to achieve the overall AB939 diversion such goals.

Work conducted by CIWMB:

CIWMB conducted several source tests on greenwaste chipping and grinding, as well as composting in conjunction with similar work pe rformed by the District. Studies have been commissioned by CIWMB to San Diego State Univ ersity to evaluate greenwaste composting processes, including characterization of emi ssions (e.g., VOC, PM and NH3) and to UC Davis to evaluate anaerobic digestion technologies. CIWMB also conducted testing and studies on BMPs (i.e., feedstock controls, aeration t echniques) and on biogenic emissions from greenwaste.
A greenwaste composting facility is also require d to obtain or renew its Conditional Use Permit from the city and/or county offices in the jurisdiction where the facility is located.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The proposed control method will be divided into two phases:

Phase I - Review recent studies on emission fact ors and BMPs to refine inventories and to assess reduction potential.

Phase II – Program development including potential rule development to incorporate technical feasible and cost-effective BMPs or controls . Any future regulatory actions (e.g., reducing greenhouse gases) that provide concurrent reducti ons will be SIP creditable. The District will convene a working group involving all stakeholde rs to develop cost-effective and workable solutions for this source category.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The emission reduction potential for this measure is not determined at this time.



### RULE COMPLIANCE A District regulation or other enforceable inst rument will be considered to ensure emission reductions. The most effective regulating tool will be selected based on the BMP options. Implementation of this control measure will not conflict with efforts under AB939.



### TEST METHODS

District staff will work with CIWMB to deve lop appropriate test methods, based on BMPs.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS Cost-effectiveness for BMPs will be determined during rule development process.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-04 (CM #2003WST-02)

IV-A-92 

### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

AQMD with consultation of CIWMB.



### REFERENCE

Technology Assessment for Proposed Rule 1133: Emission Reductions from Composting and Related Operations, AQMD, March 13, 2002.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-05

IV-A-93 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM LIVESTOCK WASTE [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : L IVESTOCK W ASTE C ONTROL M ETHODS : B EST M ANAGEMENT P RACTICES , F EED V ARIATIONS , C ONTROL D EVICE I NSTALLATION E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 9.4 3.7 3.0 VOC R EDUCTION 0.8 0.6 VOC R EMAINING 2.9 2.4

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 9.4 3.7 3.0 VOC R EDUCTION 0.8 0.6 VOC R EMAINING 2.9 2.4

C ONTROL C OST : T O B E D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD WITH THE C OOPERATION OF S TATE AND L OCAL R ESOURCE A GENCIES 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to seek emission reductions from confined livestock facilities.


### Background Livestock waste emissions are precursors to both ozone and fine particulates (PM2.5). Although confined animal facilities have been re locating out of the District’s jurisdictional boundaries for years the District, in 2002, still reta ined over nine million poultry (egg layers and broilers) and more than 15,000 hogs and pigs (s wine), and an estimated 400,000 cows, of which approximately 250,000 are dairy cattle and approxi mately 150,000 are support cattle (dairy). Additional VOC and NH3 emission reductions c ould be achieved by requiring control actions above those required by Rule 223 (Emission Reduc tion Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities) by applying similar requirements to f acilities not large enough to be subject to the rule. Further emission reductions could also be achieved from amendments to Rule 1127 (Livestock Waste) based on mitigation measures recently developed.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-05

IV-A-94 Source Description The following information was obtained from a report prepared for the US EPA (US EPA, August, 2001). Laying hens or layers are sexually mature female chickens maintained for the production of eggs, primarily for human consump tion. These eggs are known as table eggs and may be sold as shell eggs, or may be used in the production of liquid, frozen, or dehydrated eggs. Laying hens maintained for table egg production are almost exclusively confined in cages, which allow automation of feed distri bution and egg production. Most confinement facilities for laying hens are mechanically ven tilated to remove moisture and carbon dioxide produced by respiration. Exhaust fans draw air into the building through slots located along the perimeter of the roof under the eves. Manur e is typically collected at commercial eggproduction facilities in two types of laying he n houses. One is a manure belt house where manure is collected as frequently as daily but t ypically every three to four days and stored in open storage piles. The other type of laying hen house is referred to as a high-rise where manure accumulates below the laying hen houses and is collected on an annual or semi-annual basis. At either facility manure is spread on th e ground to allow the material to dry before it is sold or delivered as fertilizer.

Swine (hog) operations can be of several type s. The most common is the farrow-to-finish operation that encompasses all three phases of swine production (farrowing, nursing, and finishing). The animals are typically housed in confinement buildings that are either totally enclosed or open-sided with curtains. Totally enclosed facilities are mechanically ventilated throughout the year. Open-sided buildings are natu rally ventilated the majority of the year, but may be mechanically ventilated when the curt ains are closed due to weather conditions. Manure may be flushed from the floor of the hous ing or fall through slats in the floor to a pit underneath the floor. Manure in the pit may be flushed or scraped (SJVUAPCD, 2006).

Most dairy facilities in the Basin are “dry lot corral” dairies. Dairy cows live in open corrals, with feed lanes usually along one side of the corral. Manure is generally cleared from the feed lane into the corral and then periodically remove d from the corral to one-site stockpiles to offsite locations or spread on cropland at the dairy as a soil amendment. The high concentration of animals per acre of land results in a large volume of manure stored in corrals and stockpiles. Because most dairy operations are clustered in a relatively small area with a high density of dairy livestock herds, substantial amounts of manure are produced in a concentrated area (SCAQMD, 2004).

Data from the UC Cooperative Extension indicat es that there are 34 active laying-hen poultry facilities within the jurisdictional boundaries of the District. All of these facilities are located in Riverside and San Bernardino County. In total, these facilities have approximately 8.4 million egg-producers, commonly referred to as layers. According to the UC Cooperative Extension, there are also seven confined pullet (also refe rred to as young hens, usually less than one year old) facilities (Kuney, 2005). The District’s perm itting data indicates that there are four egg production facilities that are defined as Large Confined Animal Facilities (LCAFs) but that there currently are no swine production facilities that have permits. According to 2002 data, there are approximately 300 dairies in the Basi n, mostly located in the Chino/Ontario area (SCAQMD, 2004). The industry is expected to experience negative growth in the coming years as many dairy facilities have initiated two to five year escrows (Nathan DeBoom, 2006).Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-05

IV-A-95 Emissions Emission factors are a critical part of emissi on calculations and there is a fair amount of discrepancy relative to the emission factors by di fferent jurisdictions fo r different type of operations. Due to ongoing research, these numbers may change as more detailed research data is made available. The interim emission factor s currently used by District staff for calculating emissions from layer hens and swine operations ar e provided. It should be pointed out that for certain chicken farm operations the applicable emission factors from ammonia can be ten times as high as the emission factors shown in the Table below that could potentially increase the emissions inventory for ammonia from these operations by an order of magnitude.



### Emission Factors Ammonia (lb/hd/year) VOC (lb/hd/year) Layer Hens 4 

### 0.096 0.02565 Swine 20.3 4.6 5

To improve the current emission factors, furt her studies are currently being conducted at different locations. It is anticipated that impr oved emission rate data will be available prior to implementation of this control measure.


### Regulatory History

Agricultural operations represent a significant s ource of air pollution throughout the state. SB 700, which was enacted into law as of January 1, 2004, eliminated the exemption from the permit system of local air pollution control distri cts for agricultural operations in the farming of crops or raising of fowl or animals. The b ill amended air pollution control requirements in the California Health & Safety Code to include requirements for agricultural sources of air pollution.

Rule 223 was adopted in June of 2006 to satisfy the SB 700 requirement th at all Large Confined Animal Facilities (LCAF) have permits that seek to minimize their emissions. Rule 223 requires that all LCAFs apply for and obtain a permit that includes a mitigation plan that the LCAF will implement to reduce emissions. Rule 223 requires compliance with Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) when deve loping mitigation plans but does not mandate any specific measure. 6 To serve as interim BARCT guidelines, Appendix A of Rule 223 contains a list of the Emission Mitigation Meas ures for use by applicants when developing a mitigation plan. This list was developed in consultation with and general agreement of stakeholders, including Western United Dairym en, Milk Producers Council, Inland Empire Poultrymen, Inc. and Pacific Egg and Poultry Association. The Rule 223 Appendix A list of measures includes both Class One Mitigation Measures and Class Two (more stringent) Measures.

4 Rule 223 Draft Final Staff Report, South Coas t Air Quality Management District, June 2006.
5 Rule 4570 Draft Final Staff Report, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, May 2006.
6 BARCT is defined 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.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-05

IV-A-96 Rule 1127 was adopted in August of 2004 to re duce emissions from dairy farms and the disposal of manure by requiring on-dairy best management practices (BMPs) and removal of surplus manure from corrals and stockpiles 4 times per year. The rule exempts small dairies or related farms with fewer than 50 animals on-site and does not establish performance standards (e.g. higher frequency of manure removal.)



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Depending on the ultimate size of the emissions inventory, this control measure would aim to mandate the Class Two Mitigation Measures of Rule 223, with a higher level of overall control efficiency for the larger facilities and seek reduc tions from the smaller facilities not subject to Rule 223, possibly through requirements to implement Rule 223 Class One Mitigation Measures. Examples of Rule 223 Class Two Mitigation Measures for poultry facilities include:

• Use of a belt litter removal/drier system, or use a tunnel ventilated houses, or litter

drying systems

• Store manure in an enclosure vented to a control device

Additional research has quantified emission reductions potential from manure management practices. For example, in poultry buildings ( cages) removing manure twice a week using belts or weekly with drying manure on belts has b een estimated to reduce NH3 emissions from battery cage houses by 60 percent or more. Removing NH3 from vented air using filters or scrubbers (water and acid) is feasible where barns are mechanically ventilated. In poultry buildings, exhaust air can be cleaned using bi oscrubbers, biofilters, or chemical scrubbers, however, the practical applications of these devices may be limited by cost and technical feasibility due to dust in poultry and swine houses (Arogo, J., et al). Chemical additions can also be applied to manure during collection to reduce ammonia emissions by lowering the pH. For example, field tests indicate that alum can reduce ammonia emissions by 75-97 percent when added to poultry litter; however, alum also increases nitrogen content of litter, potentially increasing ammonia loss during field application (Moore et al, 2000).

Currently, Rule 223 does not have any Class One or Two Measures for swine production; however, similar measures (e.g., manure management) could be developed.

For dairies, this control measure would also aim to strengthen and expand mitigation methods listed in Rule 223 for dairy farm manure and on BMPs listed in Rule 1127. Recent scientific research indicates that additional VOC reductions are feasible through manure management practices, including mitigation measures such as aci d application to dry lot dairies, lowering the pH of wastewater lagoons, and f eed modification. The control measure would also aim to apply performance standards to both large and small dairy facilities.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-05

IV-A-97 

### EMISSIONS REDUCTION

Emission reductions associated with this cont rol measure would depend on the control strategy pursued and will be quantified in conjunction with an evaluation of the existing emission factors for this source category.

A 20 percent reduction is anticipated for poultr y and swine operations due to improved manure management practices. A minimum 20 percent le vel of control for dairy manure management practices is also expected. Emission reductions from dairies are considered to have a longer term emission reduction benefit, whereas reducti ons for swine and poultry are more of a short
term nature.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure can be monitored through recordkeeping and inspections.



### TEST METHODS The appropriate test methods for this contro l measure would depend on the control strategy implemented.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact a ssociated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost-effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to adopt and enfor ce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standa rds in all areas affected by emission sources under its jurisdiction (Health and Safety Code §40001).



### REFERENCES Arogo, J., et al, Ammonia Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations, White Paper prepared for the National Center for Manure and Anim al Waste Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.

Kuney, Doug, UC Cooperative Extension, personal communication with Mike Laybourn, February 2005.

Moore, P and J Meisinger, 2003, Air Quality Issues: Poultry. Working paper in J. Hatfield (ed.), Air Quality Primer, Draft Report.

Nathan DeBoom, Milk Producers Council, Pers onal Communication with District staff.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-05

IV-A-98 SCAQMD, Final Draft Staff Report for Propos ed Rule 1127 – Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste, August 6, 2004.

SJVUAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollu tion Control District), Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed Rule 4570 – Confined Animal Facilities, May 18, 2006.

US EPA, Emissions from Animal Feeding Oper ations, Contract No. 68-D6-0011, Draft, August 2001.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-06

IV-A-99 

### IMPROVED START-UP, SHUTDOWN AND TURNAROUND PROCEDURES [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : A LL S OURCES C ATEGORIES

C ONTROL M ETHODS : O PERATIONAL P ROCEDURES

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED (S EE E MISSIONS R EDUCTION S ECTION )

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
Background Equipment start-up, shutdown and turnaround are t ypically associated with significantly higher emission rates compared to the emission rate s observed from the same equipment operating under steady state or normal operating conditions . The higher emission rates observed during start-up, shutdown and turnaround are in part due to the higher loads equipment are subjected to during these transient operating conditions compar ed to the normal operating conditions as well as the lead times necessary for the conditioning of certain control technologies. The emission rates observed during start-up, shutdown and tu rnaround, in addition to the equipment design, are influenced by the speed by which a particular equipment is fired to reach normal operating conditions or taken out of service. Start-up, shutdown or turnaround, often adversely impact the emission rates from equipment that are inte rconnected, either upstream or downstream to equipment undergoing start-up/shutdown. Th is is a phenomenon commonly observed in refinery operations and chemical plants that rely on interconnected equipment and processes. Refinery operations predominantly rely on flares to minimize the emissions impact resulting from start-up, shutdown and turnarounds. Howeve r, there are adverse environmental impacts associated with the use of flares as well.

On November 4, 2005 the District’s Governing Board adopted an amendment to Rule 1118 - Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares. In an effort to minimize flaring and associated emissions, the amendment established declining emission targets over time that each refinery operation had to meet. The amendment eliminated the flaring of vent gases except for those resulting from emergencies, shutdowns and st artups, turnarounds and essential operational needs. The amendment also established opera tional requirements of diagnostic practices to minimize flaring.

Reducing flaring and associated emissions conti nued to be an area of intense interest by the community, regulators as well as industry. Th e Rule 1118 staff report listed several possible alternatives of minimizing flare emissions that could be incorporated further explored:Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-06

IV-A-100 - Optimization of turnaround schedules Coordination of turnaround schedules for different units can result in minimizing emissions associated with these periodic maintenance activities.

- Developing startup and shutdown proce dures that do not increase emissions For certain units, it is possible to develop pro cedures that avoid flaring during shutdown and startup, such as using reduced loads, recycling feeds, better decontamination procedures, etc. Sometimes more time is necessary for a startup or shutdown, or physical modifications to achieve this purpose.

Several of these approaches are also applicable to other types of industries in minimizing these types of operations. For example, the installa tion of redundant equipment to increase reliability and the promotion of operator training for envi ronmental awareness could help a particular facility in minimizing the number of start-ups and shutdowns within a given operational cycle.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Conduct analysis to identify improved operating pr ocedures, that minimize or eliminate the emissions impacts in either start-up, shutdown or turnaround and develop rule amendments that could seek implementation of best management practices and/or additional hardware.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Implementation of the control measure is exp ected to result in emission reductions. The magnitude of these reductions cannot be readily quantified at this time.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Compliance would be based on monitoring, reco rdkeeping, and reporting requirements that have been established in existing source specific rules and regulations. In addition, compliance would be verified through inspections and ot her recordkeeping and reporting requirements.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

Not Determined.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has authority to establish procedur es for the purpose of minimizing or eliminating emissions during equipment start-up, shutdown and turnaround.



### REFERENCES Final Staff Report, Proposed Ame nded Rule 1118 – Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares, October 2005.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-07

IV-A-101 

### APPLICATION OF ALL FEASIBLE MEASURES [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : A LL S OURCE C ATEGORIES

C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED (S EE E MISSIONS R EDUCTION S ECTION )

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
Background This control measure addresses the attainment of further emission reductions through the amendment of existing rules and regulations. In particular, existing regulations on VOC coatings and solvents would be targeted for further emission reductions as well as rules and regulations for other pollutants such as NOx and SOx.


### Regulatory History The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires dist ricts to achieve and maintain state standards by the earliest practicable date and for extreme non-attainment areas, to include all feasible measures Health and Safety (H&S) Code (H&S §§40913, 40914, and 40920.5). The term “feasible” is defined in the 14 California C ode of Regulations, section 15364, as a measure “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, lega l, social, and technological factors.” The required use of best available retrofit cont rol technology (BARCT) for existing stationary sources is one of the specified feasible meas ures. H&S Code §40440 (b)(1) requires the District to adopt rules requiring best available retrof it control technology for existing sources. H&S Code §40406 specifically defines BARCT as “...best available retrofit technology means an emission limitation that is based on the maximu m degree of reduction achievable taking into account environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or category of source.”

The BARCT assessment for RECLAIM sources is made in conjunction with the approximate 3- year cycle of the AQMP. Any applicable BA RCT identified during the AQMP would then be subject to the rulemaking process. In January 2005, the Board adopted further reductions to RECLAIM Allocations starting Compliance Y ear 2007 to implement BARCT. Reductions would proceed until the 2011 compliance year. The total NOx reduction from the RECLAIM facilities was determined to be 7.7 tons per day. As such, RECLAIM is designed to achieve the same level of emissions reductions as would ha ve been achieved in aggregate by implementing the subsumed rules and command-and-control measures as well as complying with state law,Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-07

IV-A-102 such as California Health and Safety Code §39616( e). The BARCT associated with the January 2005 amendment was identified in Control Measure CMB-10 in the 2003 AQMP.

Existing rules and regulations on VOC coatings and solvents as well as regulations for pollutants such as NOx, SOx and PM reflect current BARCT. However, BARCT is ever evolving as new BARCT becomes available that is feasible and cost-effective. Through this control measure, the District commits to the adoption and implementation of the new retrofit control technology standards.



### CONTROL METHOD

The District will continue to review new emi ssion limits introduced through federal, state or other local regulations to determine if District regulations remain equivalent or more stringent than other regions. If not, a rulemaking process will be initiated to perform BARCT analysis with potential rule amendments if deemed appropria te. In addition, the District will continue to monitor technology advances in order to implement new BARCT where applicable.

For RECLAIM it is anticipated that BARCT technology would evolve in the next 10 to 15 years. In addition, facilities in the RECLAI M program are required to install BACT if RECLAIM NSR is triggered. This phase of th e control is to further reduce the RECLAIM allocations to reflect future BARCT and any BACT installations due to RECLAIM NSR requirements. In addition, during rule de velopment for Control Measure #2007MCS-01, its applicability to the RECLAIM program will also be examined to ensure equity between RECLAIM and non-RECLAIM sources.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL Adopt and implement new retrofit technology cont rol standards that are feasible and costeffective as new BARCT standards become available in the future.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Further emission reductions would be sought from the amendment of existing rules and regulations to reflect new BARCT standards, but may become available in the future. This control measure would act as an intermedia ry control measure between now and 2023 to achieve further emission reductions on a faster tim eline than long-term control measures calling for further emission reductions from the amendmen t of existing rules and regulations starting in 2020.

Based on historical advancements in control technology and RECLAIM's fair share in the 2024 ozone attainment demonstration, it is anticipated that the reductions would range from 3 to 5 tons per day.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Compliance with this measure would be based on monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that have been established in ex isting source specific rules and regulations. InFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-07

IV-A-103 addition, compliance would be verified thr ough inspections and other recordkeeping and reporting requirements.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

Cost-effectives for this control measure cannot be determined because “all feasible” measures are not known. However, the most cost-effec tive control strategy using the newest control technologies would be sought. Th e District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact associated with implementing this control m easure, conduct research on the newest control technologies, and provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate emissions from stationary sources.



### REFERENCES

40 CFR Part 51.858.

Health and Safety (H&S) Code: §§40913, 40914, 40920.5, §40406, and §40440 (b)(1)

14 California Code of Regulations, section 15364

### Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-08

IV-A-104 

### CLEAN AIR ACT EMISSION FEES FOR MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES [VOC AND NOx]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : S TATIONARY S OURCES OF VOC A ND NO X W ITH P OTENTIAL TO E MIT O VER 10 T ONS PER Y EAR
C ONTROL M ETHODS : E MISSION F EES
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED
C ONTROL C OST : S EE C OST E FFECTIVENESS S ECTION
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD, P OSSIBLY R EQUIRING A DDITIONAL L EGISLATION 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Regulatory History

This control measure was first introduced in the 1994 AQMP and then carried over to the 1997 AQMP and then the 2003 AQMP.

On December 22, 2006, the federal Court of Appeal s in Washington, D.C., ruled that EPA did have the authority to revoke the one-hour ozone standard. Therefore, the 2007 AQMP does not need to demonstrate attainment of the one hour standard. However, the court also ruled that EPA must require areas that had not yet attained the one-hour standard to continue to implement control requirements at least as stringent as t hose in effect under the one-hour standard. In particular, one-hour ozone NSR and conformity pr ovisions must continue to be implemented. In addition, if a severe or extreme area fails to attain the one hour standard by the statutory date, the area must implement a measure requiring majo r stationary sources to either reduce their emissions to 80% of what they were in the attainment year, or pay an annual fee of $5,000 (adjusted for inflation) for each ton in excess of 80% of the baseline.
The $5,000 (1990 dollars) per ton fee applies to every "major stationary source" of VOC emissions, whether permitted or not. The definiti on of major stationary source is any source with a "potential to emit" of 10 t ons per year, not just sources with actual emissions of ten tons per year. Therefore, the fee should be based on total actual emissions, not just permitted emissions. However, fugitive emissions are not included in determining potential to emit (PTE) unless the sources is one of the types of fac ilities listed in 40 CFR Part 70, section 70.2. If the facility is already a major source, then fug itive emissions would be included in its total emissions. If the facility has taken a synthetic minor permit limiting them to less than 10 tpy, then these facilities would not be subject to the fee.

It should also be noted, pursuant to section 182( f) of the federal Clean Air Act, the plan provisions required under this subpart, which includes the fee, which are applicable to major stationary sources of VOC are also applicable to major stationary sources of NOx. That is, unless EPA finds that additional reductions of NOx would not contribute to attainment. On this basis, it is assumed that the fee applies to ma jor NOx sources as well. The intent of this

### Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-08

IV-A-105 measure is to implement the 2006 court decision. EPA has filed a petition for a rehearing. Implementation of this control measure would be modified to reflect a future court ruling.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The l990 federal Clean Air Act requires that th e AQMP include all control measures, means or techniques, including economic incentives such as fees, as may be necessary to reach attainment. Further, the Act requires that all stationary sources of VOC emissions (with PTE greater than 10 tons per year) in an extreme nonattainment area that has failed to attain the ambient air quality standard for ozone pay a fee as a penalty for such failure (Title I, Section 185).

This control measure proposes that if the former federal 1-hour ozone ambient air standard is not met by the year 2010, the District shall impose an emissions fee of $5,000 (1990 dollars) per ton of VOC, emitted by each major source in exce ss of 80 percent of the sources 2010 emissions beginning in 2011. The fee rate w ill be adjusted to reflect increases in Consumer Price Index (CPI) since 1990 and annually to reflect increases in the CPI. The fee sh all be paid for each calendar year after the year 2010 and until the area meets the 1-hour ozone standard. This fee will be in addition to the annual emission fee required by District Rule 301.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Implementation of this measure is expected to result in emission reductions as facilities seek to further reduce emissions to reduce the fees pr oposed by this measure. Projected emission reductions are uncertain at this time, and require further analysis.



### TEST METHODS The EPA and AQMD approved test methods for this measure include:

EPA METHOD 24 – DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE MATTER CONTENT,WATER CONTENT, DENSITY, VOLUME SOLIDS, AND WEIGHT SOLIDS OF SURFACE COATINGS

EPA METHOD 25 – DETERMINATION OF TOTAL GASEOUS NONMETHANE ORGANIC EMISSIONS AS CARBON

EPA METHOD 7E – DETERMINATION OF NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES (INSTRUMENTAL ANALYZER PROCEDURE)

AQMD METHOD 25.1 – DETERMINATION OF TOTAL GASEOUS NON-METHANE ORGANIC EMISSIONS AS CARBON

AQMD METHOD 25.3 – DETERMINATION OF LOW CONCENTRATION NONMETHANE NON-ETHANE ORGANIC COMP OUND EMISSIONS FROM CLEAN FUELED COMBUSTION SOURCES

### Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MCS-08

IV-A-106 AQMD METHOD 100.1 – INSTRUMENTAL ANALYZER PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUOUS GASEOUS EMISSION SAMPLING

Additional or alternative test methods, protocol s and guidelines may be used provided they are approved by EPA, ARB and AQMD.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS There would be an emission fee of $5,000 (1990 dollars) per ton of VOC and NOx emitted by each major source in excess of 80 percent of each source's baseline emissions.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY This measure will be implemented to give a ffected sources the option of reducing their emissions to 80% of baseline emissions or payi ng the fee on every ton above 80%. As such, the District has authority under H & S 40001 (rules to attain standards) to implement this measure.



### REFERENCES South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 301 - Permit Fees. Amended June 1993.

## GROUP 6 Compliance Flexibility ProgramsFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FLX-01 (CM #2003FLX-01)

IV-A-107 

### ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAMS [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : A LL S OURCE C ATEGORIES
C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED
C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY This control measure is designed to enhance the District’s existing regulatory programs to maximize compliance flexibility, minimize compliance costs, and to promote the commercialization of advanced pollution control t echnologies. In concept, this control measure proposes to expand the existing trading market to allow broader trading of mobile and stationary source emission credits, develop pilot credit trading rules between mobile and stationary sources including potential credits for new source review, develop clean air investment funds and other market incentive approaches.


### Background In April 1995 the District conducted the Intercre dit Trading Study to assess the existing marketbased regulatory programs and to identify potentia l enhancements for cost-effective air quality solutions. After a series of public workshops a nd public meetings the District staff presented a white paper titled, “Intercredit Trading Study - Proposed Recommendations and Action Plan” to its Governing Board in March 1996. This paper id entified specific enhancements to the existing regulatory program that would provide additi onal compliance flexibility while promoting the commercialization of advanced pollution control technologies.

The 1997 AQMP included control measure FLX-01 fo rmerly titled, “Intercredit Trading.” The 1997 AQMP control measure was based on recomme ndations from the Intercredit Trading Study white paper and presented concepts for developing a universal trading market with stationary and mobile sources.

Over the past decade, the District has adopted a series of programs that incorporate a variety of different market incentive approaches such as emissions trading programs, mitigation fee programs, clean air investment programs, a nd averaging. Staff will continue to work collaboratively with EPA, ARB, industry and other interested parties to expand trading programs and address issues related to economic growth and compliance flexibility.


### Emissions Trading Programs Emissions trading programs include programs wher e emissions trading credits are generated by one source and used by another. Emission reducti on credits are used in a variety of District programs. Under Regulation XIII – New Source Review, emission reduction credits (ERCs) areFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FLX-01 (CM #2003FLX-01)

IV-A-108 used to offset emission increase from new and modified sources. Some Regulation XI – Source Specific Rules, Regulation XX – RECLAIM and Rule 2202 allow the use of mobile source emission reduction credits (MSERCs) as a compliance alternative. MSERCs must be generated pursuant to an approved emission reduction protocol.


### Mitigation Fee Programs The concept of the mitigation fee program is to allow sources to pay a specified dollar per pollutant fee in lieu of directly complying with an emission limit. The fee would be used to generate emission reductions. The use of a m itigation fee approach was introduced in Rule 1121 – Residential Gas-Fired Water Heaters. Under Rule 1121, water heater manufacturers can pay a mitigation fee of $2.70 per pound NOx emission reductions that can be used in lieu of directly complying with the NOx emission limits. The mitigation fee under Rule 1121 is temporary, and is allowed as an alternative to complying with an interim NOx emission limit. Similar approaches may be considered in future rulemaking to provide certain compliance flexibility and to facilitate the adoption of technology-forcing limits. The mitigation fee concept has also been incorporated into Rule 1118 – Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares and Rule 1173 – Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from Components of Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants, providing additional disincentives against releases from flares and pressure release devices at refineries and chemical plants.


### Air Quality Investment Programs The concept of the Air Quality Investment Progr am (AQIP) is based on sources paying a fee to the District that is used to fund emission reduc tion projects. The District is responsible for obtaining emission reductions.

The District has three types of air quality investment programs, under Rule 2202 - On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options and Ru le 2020 – RECLAIM Reserve and Rule 1309.1. Under Rule 2202, facilities have the option to pay into an AQIP to purchase emission reductions to meet specified ridesharing requirements. The Rule 2202 AQIP has funded a variety of mobile source emission reduction control strategies from on-road vehicles, off-road vehicles, and marine vessels. To date, the Rule 2202 AQIP has generated 2,882 tons of NOx, 16,991 tons of CO, and 2,846 tons of VOC emission reductions.

In response to the energy crisis of 2001/2002, the District amended Rule 1309.1 – Priority Reserve to open up new source review emission reduction credits to electric generation facilities for expansion and growth. Operators of electric generation facilities were required to pay into a mitigation fee program which was then used to fund projects that mitigated the emission increases resulting from the expansion or growth.

The Rule 2020 AQIP was a tem porary AQIP of NOx emission reductions for RECLAIM facilities that met specific participation requi rements. Provided there were NOx emission reductions available, certain RECLAIM fac ilities could pay $7.50 per pound of NOx to meet their annual allocation requirements. The Rule 2020 AQIP relied on mobile source emission reduction protocols under the pilot credit generation programs of Regulation XVI.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FLX-01 (CM #2003FLX-01)

IV-A-109 

### Other Market Incentive Approaches Other types of market incentive approaches include averaging and banking. The concept of emissions averaging is based on averaging emissi ons to meet an overall emission limit. Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings includes a provisi on that allows manufacturers’ to average emissions from different coatings to comply with an overall emission limit. The concept of banking is based on saving emission credits generate d in one year for use in another year. EPA has included an averaging and banking approach as an alternative to complying with emission limits for marine vessel standards under 40 CF R Part 94. The averaging provision allows engine manufacturers to certify one or more engine families above the applicable emission standard provided the emissions increase is offs et by one or more families certified below the emission standard. The banking provision allows engine manufacturers to generate emission credits to bank for their future compliance use or another manufacturers’ use.


### Regulatory History In 2001, the District adopted six mobile and ar ea source pilot credit generation rules: Rule 1612.1 – Mobile Source Credit Generation Pilot Program; Rule 1631 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for Marine Vessels; Rule 1632 – P ilot Credit Generation Program for Hotelling Operations; Rule 1633 – Pilot Credit Generation Pr ogram for Truck/Trailer Refrigeration Units; Rule 1634 – Pilot Credit Generation Program fo r Truck Stops; and Rule 2507 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for Agricultural Pumps. NOx emission reductions generated from these pilot credit generation rules could be used in the RECLAIM program either directly or through the RECLAIM Reserve for the Mitigation Fee Program for power producing facilities or the Rule 2020 AQIP for specific RECLAIM facilities. The six pilot credit generation rules, Rules 1612.1, 1631, 1632, 1633, 1634, and 2507 have been appr oved by CARB and EPA. However, because of sunset provisions in each rule, all p ilot credit generation rules have now expired and can no longer be used to generate MSERCs.



### Economic Incentive Guidelines In January 2001, the EPA finalized their guidan ce document for “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs” (EIP). The EIP is designed to encourage cost-effective innovative approaches to achieving air pollu tion goals. The guidance document outlines economic incentive programs that states and lo cal areas may incorporate in their State Implementation Plans for meeting air quality standards.

The EIP outlines four main types of economic pr ograms: emissions trading programs, financial mechanism programs, clean air investment funds, and public information. The EIP also outlines key principles that must be incorporated in an economic incentive program to receive EPA approval such as the integrity of emission reduc tion credits, protection of health and welfare from use of emission credits, and assurance of an environmental benefit.



### Federal Clean Air Act Since 1970, the federal Clean Air Act has required that states adopt regulations designed to attain ambient air quality standards. The Act generally has allowed the states to choose the appropriate type and mix of control strategies used to achieve attainment. In 1977 and 1990Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FLX-01 (CM #2003FLX-01)

IV-A-110 Congress amended the Act to specify certain emission control requirements that each state regulatory program must impose. Nevertheless, the basic concept that states may choose the appropriate type and mix of control strategies ha s been retained as long as the specific control requirements of the Act are met (Sections 110, 172, and 182). Thus in general, the federal Clean Air Act does not prohibit the District from expanding or linking emissions trading
programs.
EPA has promulgated rules for economic incentive programs (EIPs) which either may or must be adopted by States for certain ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas upon the failure of States to submit an adequate showi ng that an applicable reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone has been met pursuant to CAA Section 182(g)(3) and (5). These rules require that EIPs be submitted to the EPA for approval as part of the SIP and that they contain provisions to ensure the following: (1) th e program will not interfere with other CAA requirements; (2) emission reductions credite d are quantifiable; (3) creditable emission reductions are consistent with SIP attainment and RFP demonstrations; (4) reductions are surplus to reductions required by, and credited t o, other SIP provisions in order to avoid doublecounting of reductions; (5) the program is enforceable by State and Federal authorities; and (6) all creditable emission reductions are permanent. (See 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Sections 51.490 to 51.494 and 59 Federal Regulation (FR) 16690 et seq., April 7, 1994).

One approach where the U.S. EPA allows emi ssion reductions from voluntary mobile source retrofit program to claim SIP credits is with the Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Policy (VMEP). Under this policy, states are allowe d to claim, in their SIPs, up to three percent of the reductions necessary to meet their air quality goals from voluntary mobile source emission reduction programs. Emission reductions from retrofit programs of highway vehicles can also be used in transportation conformity an alysis if the reductions are not included in the SIP.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This control measure is a voluntary program to provide additional compliance flexibility to regulated sources in the Basin, provide incentives for the early installation and commercialization of advanced pollution cont rol technologies, and lower overall compliance costs. All existing economic incentive programs di scussed in the previous section may be used to further the clean air objectives. The District will continue to evaluate source categories and strategies for future pilot credit generation programs and the potential to expand the program to generate alternative short-term offsets or cred its for NSR purposes. In conjunction with other measures, this measure may also use fees coll ected from other market incentive programs to create a ‘Moyer”-type stationary program to incentivize early implementation of control technologies. Furthermore, within the Distri ct’s programs (e.g., Regulation III) a fee schedule based on the VOC content or emission rate may be explored. The District is currently working on an architectural coating fee program to r ecover the costs regulating this industry. The proposed concept is under review.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FLX-01 (CM #2003FLX-01)

IV-A-111 

### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Due to the voluntary nature of this control m easure, potential emission reductions associated with the early introduction of advanced pollution control technologies cannot be quantified. Implementation of compliance flexibility program would not necessarily result in direct emission reductions since emission reductions asso ciated with credit generation activities would be offset by the use of the emission credits. However, emission fee programs may generate reductions that are otherwise not allowable th rough traditional regulation programs. Innovative offset program encourage new sources employing the best available control technologies that cleaner than retrofit technologies. These emissi on benefits can only be claimed retrospectively through SIP revisions.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Compliance with the provisions of this c ontrol measure would be based on monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that have been established in existing source specific rules and regulations. In addition, compliance w ould be verified through inspections and other recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Recently, U.S. EPA provided some guidance on tracking and reporting reductions associated with voluntary programs. The District will work with U.S. EPA to incorporate necessary requirements for SIP crediting purposes.

Emissions quantification protocols will establish the appropriate test methods that applicable source categories will be required to use when generating and using emission credits under this
program.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measure ha s not been determined. Since this measure is voluntary, implementation of this control measur e is expected to reduce the overall cost of compliance with District rules and regulations. Implementation of this control measure is expected to maximize trading opportunities and provide sources with more cost-effective compliance methods. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact associated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate sta tionary emissions sources such as refineries.



### REFERENCES South Coast Air Quality Management Distri ct. “Intercredit Trading Study. Proposed Recommendations and Action Plan.” January 1996.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FLX-02

IV-A-112 

### PETROLEUM REFINERY PILOT PROGRAM [VOC, PM2.5]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : E MISSION S OURCES IN THE S UBSUMED C ONTROL M EASURES

C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS

E MISSIONS (T ONS / DAY ):

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023

VOC I NVENTORY 7.4 5.5 5.5

VOC R EDUCTION 0.7 1.6

VOC R EMAINING 4.8 3.9

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023

VOC I NVENTORY 7.4 5.5 5.5

VOC R EDUCTION 0.7 1.6

VOC R EMAINING 4.8 3.9

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023

PM2.5 I NVENTORY 2.4 2.2 2.2

PM2.5 R EDUCTION 0.4 0.4

PM2.5 R EMAINING 1.8 1.8
C ONTROL C OST : $12,800 PER T ON VOC AND PM 2.5 R EDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background
In the 2003 AQMP there was a recommendation to provide more flexibility to existing stationary source rules by allowing sources to achieve their reduction obligations by reducing emissions from on-site or off-site projects. A three-step process was proposed to implement this strategy. Step one would identify specific source categories and facilities or sources that would be subject to additional controls under any porti on of this AQMP. Step two would include an identification of superior and more cost-effectiv e strategies for one or more existing sources whose emissions occur within or otherwise impact the Basin. The final step would be to craft regulations which would offer facilities the flexib ility to select from a menu of control options to comply with their emission reduction obligati ons as identified in the AQMP. The purpose of this program is to achieve emission reductions and environmental improvement in a less costly and more efficient manner and, through compliance flexibility, to minimize the economic and job-related impacts of the Plan and potentially to reduce the size of the black box.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FLX-02

IV-A-113 The District initiated a collaborative multi-stak eholder process to consider whether to implement this approach as a pilot program for the refineries in the Basin. This process has been on-going since the initial July 2005 Working Group meeting. Based on the results of this process, the District would consider adoption of a pilot program. An appropriate environmental review would be performed prior to adoption of any pilot program. If such a program is adopted, then upon achieving at least the equi valent reductions, the pilot program would subsume control measures and reduction obligations proposed in the 2007 AQMP for the refinery sector. Subsumed control measures include FUG-01: Improved Leak Detection and Repair, FUG-04: Emission Reductions from Pi peline and Storage Tank Degassing; BCM-01: PM Control Devices; MCS-01: Facility Mode rnization; MCS-06: Shutdown and Turnaround Procedures; and MCS-07: Application of All Feasible Control Measures.

The implementation of this pilot program does not preclude future adjustments to the overall reduction targets established for this source cat egory if warranted by changes in refinery emission inventories, applicable air quality standards, or attainment demonstrations in future SIP revisions.


### Regulatory History Currently, the District has a number of source sp ecific rules to reduce emissions from refinery operations. Refineries are also subject to Re g XIII when triggered. Further reductions are necessary from this industry to meet the PM2.5 and ozone air quality standards. This measure seeks an alternative means to achieve reduction obligations, including long-term reductions.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL This control measure is a voluntary program to provide additional compliance flexibility to regulated sources in the Basin. Refineries that choose to participate in the program may seek reduction opportunities either from on-site or o ff-site VOC sources. In addition to the VOC emission reduction obligation refineries would al so implement an on-site or at related port facilities diesel reduction strategy surplus to other regulatory requirements to address community concerns regarding potentially fore gone toxic reduction inherent in on-site VOC control strategy. Potential candidates for emissi on reductions could include sources within and adjacent to refinery properties, such as ports, rail yards, container operations, heavy duty truck and cargo marshalling areas, warehouses and truck st ops, as well as other mobile or stationary sources within the SCAB. Non-participating facilities would remain subject to the otherwiseapplicable AQMP control measures. The distri ct would develop facility-specific rule to incorporate enforceable commitment by participati ng refineries. Reductions need to be real, quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, and perman ent. Reduction quantification and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting protocols need to be approved by the District, CARB and EPA.

The District would also develop backstop rules s hould participating refineries elect to exit the pilot program to ensure the SIP obligation con tinues to be met. In addition, the petroleum refinery stakeholders requested consideration for a mitigation fee option.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007FLX-02

IV-A-114 

### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The overall emission reduction is 1.6 tpd of VOC by 2023. The PM2.5 reduction is estimated to be 0.44 tpd of PM2.5 by 2014. The pilot program may begin reductions in the 2008 to 2010 timeframe.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Compliance with the provisions of this c ontrol measure would be based on monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that have been established in existing source specific rules and regulations. In addition, compliance w ould be verified through inspections and other recordkeeping and reporting requirements.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS As described in the Proposed Method of C ontrol Section, the refineries could implement control at sources within and adjacent to refine ry properties. For purposes of this control strategy, a cost effectiveness of $12,000 per t on of VOC and PM2.5 reduced was calculated based on reductions from (1) retrofit of marine engines for ocean going vessels (2) replacement or retrofit of 2-stroke pleasure craft engines, a nd (3) installation of diesel particulate filters on heavy-heavy-duty trucks.

Since this measure is voluntary, implementation of this control measure is expected to reduce the overall cost of compliance with District ru les and regulations. Implementation of this control measure is expected to provide sources with more cost-effective compliance methods. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact associated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has authority to regulate fugitiv e VOC and PM2.5 emissions sources. The pilot program is subject to CARB and EPA’s approval as part of the SIP that defines the SCAB’s attainment strategy to meet the federal ozone and PM2.5 standards.



### REFERENCES 2003 AQMP, Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy, pp. 4-46 to 4-47 “Add Flexibility to Current Programs”.

## GROUP 7 Emission Growth ManagementFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007EGM-01

IV-A-115 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM NEW OR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS [NO X 

### , VOC, AND PM2.5]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : N EW OR R EDEVELOPMENT P ROJECTS

C ONTROL M ETHODS : E NHANCED CEQA A IR Q UALITY R EVIEW AND M ITIGATION T HROUGH D ISTRICT R EGULATION

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023

NO X I NVENTORY N/A 13.4 12.0

NO X R EDUCTION 0.0 0.8

NO X R EMAINING 13.4 11.2

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023

NO X I NVENTORY N/A 13.3 11.9

NO X R EDUCTION 0.0 0.8

NO X R EMAINING 13.3 11.1

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023

VOC I NVENTORY N/A 27.5 39.8

VOC R EDUCTION 0.0 0.5

VOC R EMAINING 27.5 39.3

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023

VOC I NVENTORY N/A 32.4 47.0

VOC R EDUCTION 0.0 0.6

VOC R EMAINING 32.4 46.4

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023

PM2.5 I NVENTORY N/A 5.7 8.8

PM2.5 R EDUCTION 0.0 0.5

PM2.5 R EMAINING 5.7 8.3
C ONTROL C OST : T O B E D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : D ISTRICT /L OCAL OR R EGIONAL A GENCIESFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007EGM-01

IV-A-116 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to mitigate emission growth from new development and redevelopment projects. This initiative is designed to reduce emissions related to new residential, commercial, industrial and institutional development, including redevelopment, required to meet the needs of the Basin’s future residents and economy. Lead agencies for projects subject to California Environmental Qu ality Act (CEQA) currently prepare air quality analysis as part of their environmental docum ents, including emissions during construction and operations. Typical emissions during constructi on phase include, but are not limited to: fugitive dust emissions, combustion emissions from off-ro ad mobile sources (construction equipment) and on-road mobile sources, and coating and asphalt evaporative emissions. Operational emissions include, but are not limited to: area s ources (e.g., water heater emissions), on-road mobile source emissions (worker commute trips, delivery truck trips, etc.), consumer products and other emissions sources depending on the speci fic type of land use. The purpose of this proposed measure is two-fold: (1) compliance w ith the “all feasible measures” requirement of the state law, and (2) capturing emission reduction opportunities during project development phase. In regards to “all feasible measures”, the California Clean Air Act requires districts to achieve and maintain state standards by the earliest practicable date and for extreme nonattainment areas, to include all feasible measures (Health and Safety Codes 40913, 40914 40920.5). The term “feasible” is defined in th e 14 California Code of Regulations, section 15364, as a measure “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, envi ronmental, legal, social, and technological factors.”


### Background

New development projects produce new sources of air pollution from new vehicle trips, use of consumer products, landscape maintenance, new stationary source processes such as fuel combustion, as well as emissions generated during construction activities. Each day millions of vehicles travel the roads in the South Coast Air Basin and the length of vehicle trips is expected to increase as outlying areas continue to be developed. In addition, older residential, commercial and industrial areas may undergo major redevelopment involving construction activities, with emissions comparable to new development projects. Redevelopment projects may also generate additional vehicular traffic compared to the projects they replace because redevelopment projects often involve increasing population density compared to the previous use. Redevelopment includes demolishing existi ng buildings, increasing overall floor area or building additional capacity on an existing property. For example, the conversion of an industrial warehouse to an office building could cr eate as much emissions as constructing a new building because it would be a complete remodel.


### Regulatory History

California Health and Safety Code Section 40716 states that “a district may adopt and implement regulations to reduce or mitigate emissions from indirect and areawide sources of air pollution”. Furthermore, a 1993 California Attorn ey General opinion states that “a district’s regulations may require the developer of an indir ect source to submit the plans to the district forFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007EGM-01

IV-A-117 review and comment prior to the issuance of a permit for construction by a city or county. A district may also require the owner of an indi rect source to adopt reasonable post-construction measures to mitigate particular indirect effect s of the facility’s operation. Such regulations could be enforced through an action for civil penalties...” H & S Code 40716 also states that the authority of a district to reduce or mitigate emissions from indirect and areawide sources of air pollution does not constitute an infringement on the existing authority of counties and cities to plan or control land use.

Health and Safety Code 42311(g) allows district s to adopt a schedule of fees on areawide or indirect sources which are regulated, but for whic h permits are not issued, to cover the costs of District programs related to this source.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Contro l District’s (SJVUAPCD) Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review, adopted on December 15, 2005, requi res new development projects to submit an Air Impact Assessment application to the District prior to obtaining discretionary approval for a building permit. Developers are require d to implement mitigation measures to reduce PM10 and NOx emissions or, as an alternative, may pay into a mitigation fund for SJVUAPCD sponsored emission reducing off-site projects. Th e rule applies to certain specified industrial, commercial, and residential projects based upon the amount of build-out upon project completion. Specifically, the rule applies to projects which include any of the following: 50 residential units; 2,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of commercial space; 25,000 sq. ft. of light industrial space; 100,000 sq. ft. of heavy industrial space; 20,000 sq. ft. of medical office space; 39,000 sq. ft. of general office space; 9,000 sq. ft. of educational space; 10,000 sq. ft. of government space; 20,000 sq. ft. of recreational space; and 9,000 sq. ft. of space not identified. It also includes transportation projects whose constructi on exhaust emissions will result in a total of two tons per year of NOx or PM10. The rule is designed to reduce the impact of development projects to the extent needed to allow SJVUAP CD to reach attainment of ozone and PM10 standards.

Many California air districts have adopted and implemented indirect source rules, policies, and/or the collection of mitigation fees. Examples of other air district’s rules or policies are briefly summarized below:

Mendocino County Air Quality Management Dist rict (MCAQMD) requires an Authority to Construct prior to starting construction, modi fication, operation or use of any stationary, portable, or indirect source. It further define s in Rule 1-130 an indirect source as “a facility, building, structure or installation, or combination thereof, that indirectly results in, or is projected to result in unmitigated emissions in excess of the following: ROG – 180 lbs/day, NOx – 42 lbs/day, CO – 690 lbs/day, PM10 – 80 lb s/day.” Furthermore, projects with an annual combined stationary source release of 25 t ons or more of any air contaminant are subject to emissions assessment fees.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007EGM-01

IV-A-118 Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District’s (APCD) New Source Review Requirements For Determining Impact On Air Quality Secondary Sources define indirect sources as a secondary source, which is any stru cture, building, facility, equipment, installation, operation, or aggregation thereof. General pr ovisions include, “A person shall not initiate, modify, construct or operate any secondary source which will cause the emission of any manmade air pollutant for which there is a state or national ambient air quality standard without first obtaining a permit from the Air Pollution C ontrol Officer.” The District, through Rule 301, imposes fees on secondary sources. The fees are based on the size of the commercial unit and the number of parking spaces, or the number of residential dwelling units.

Colusa County APCD Rule 4.8 – Indirect Source Review Fee: defines indirect source as any facility, building, structure, installation, real pr operty, road or highway which may cause mobile source emissions. The fee is based on commercial or industrial square footage or by the number of residential units.

Placer County APCD Policy Regarding Land Us e Air Quality Mitigation Funds assesses emissions estimated to occur during the ozone s eason of May-October from a particular project; and if sufficient permanent on-site mitigation measures cannot be implemented to adequately reduce emissions, the APCD will apply a cost effec tiveness factor to calculate funds required to attain offsite emission reductions.

Shasta County AQMD Rule 3:16 – Fugitive, Indi rect, Or Non-Traditional Sources authorizes the AQMD to place conditions upon indirect sources to mitigate emissions to a level which will not constitute a violation of Health and Safe ty Code Sections 41700 and /or 41701. Resolution No. 84-2, Resolution Of The Shasta County Ai r Pollution Control Board Amending The Rules Of The Shasta County Air Pollution Control Distri ct, authorizes an in-lieu buy out schedule for road paving, per parcel below 1,000 feet in elevation.


### Proposed Method of Control

The District is obligated by law to consider all feasible control measures which would include a measure that is considered at least equivalent to the programs implemented by other air districts. District staff convened a working group made up of stakeholders from industry, local governments, and community representatives to explore approaches to reduce emissions from indirect sources.

As part of the program development process, consideration will also be given so that the program requirements would not interfere with potential third party funding opportunities. Three working group meetings were held and, ba sed on the input received, the proposed control measure would require the District to develop a rule to establish applicability criteria for emissions or other equivalent parameters for ne w development and redevelopment projects. All discretionary permit applications filed with local jurisdictions pursuant to CEQA would be required to submit an Air Quality Analysis application per District methodology along with their CEQA documents prior to issuance of a building permit if the projects meet the applicability criteria. Projects meeting the established criteria would also be required to reduce their emissions by selecting a series of mitigati on measures from a menu of options provided inFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007EGM-01

IV-A-119 the rule. However, consideration will be given to any additional equivalent mitigation measures submitted by the project proponent. Mitigation measure requirements will be technically feasible and cost effective. Compliance with the rule will be achievable through the selection and implementation of mitigation measures chos en from a menu of op tions and without unduly restricting local or regional jurisdictions’ pr erogatives respecting land use approvals. During rule development, special consideration will be give n to the need to assure that any rule adopted will integrate with and enhance the CEQA proce ss nor retard project approvals in light of CEQA timelines. The District will conduct outreach and field audits to ensure rule compliance.

During the rule development process, a number of issues will be examined further, such as but not limited to:

• Rule applicability

• Menu of mitigation options

• Projects within SCAG’s 2% Compass Plan

• Regional Transportation Plan Projects

• Incentives for developers to incorporate air quality mitigation measures beyond rule requirements into their projects, such as District recognition of exemplary projects

• Timely review of project application

As part of the District’s streamlining of the process, the rule will include a local delegation component in which a local or regional juri sdiction may elect to implement a program comparable to the District’s for reviewing appli cations or by adopting an ordinance equal to or more stringent than the rule. Coachella Valle y Association of Government’s PM10 mitigation measures in Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust are good examples of how local ordinances can be incorporated in a District rule. This delegati on will include technical training and field auditing to be conducted by the District.

District staff will continue the EGM-01 wo rking group for rule development, including stakeholders from local governments, building industry, developers, realtors, other business representatives, environmental/community members and other stakeholder representatives to carry out this initiative, resolve issues, pr epare guidance, and identify solutions to implementation barriers. Written comments from stakeholders and the working group on the proposed control measure will be taken into cons ideration during the rulemaking process. The District will follow a two step public hearing procedure which will provide a pre-hearing to receive public comments on the basic program desi gn prior to the adoption hearing before the District Governing Board.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The precise emissions inventory for future new or development projects within the Basin cannot be determined at this time. For the purpos e of illustrating the potential inventory, Table 2 shows the emission sources that could be affected by this measure. These emissions would be further refined during rulemaki ng. Based on the emission growth projected for this region, a reduction target of 1.0 tpd of NOx, 0.5 tpd of VOC, and 0.5 tpd of PM2.5 is established for 2020. Due to continued fleet turnover, by 2023 th e emission reduction targets for NOx will beFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007EGM-01

IV-A-120 0.8 tpd, while the VOC and PM2.5 targets will remain at 0.5 tpd. Although the commitment appears small, this target takes into acc ount emission reductions credited to other AQMP control measures. The reduction estimates will be re-evaluated during the rule development process. Any emission reductions achieved beyond the SIP commitment stated here will contribute to the “black-box” reduction commitment. Table 2 shows the emissions from growth in 2014 and 2023 that may be targeted.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007EGM-01

IV-A-121 TABLE 2 

### Projected Emission Inventory from New & Redevelopment Projects (1) (2) 

### (tons/day)

2014 2023

VOC NOx PM2.5 VOC NOx PM2.5 Manufacturing & Industrial (fuel combustion) 0.14 0.29 0.13 0.16 0.39 0.14

Service & Commercial (fuel combustion) 0.08 0.24 0.04 0.11 0.09 0.01

Residential* (fuel combustion) 0.38 1.34 0.77 0.61 1.91 1.39 Asphalt Paving* (solvent evap.) 0.29 nil nil 0.47 nil 0.01

Consumer Products* (solvent evap.) 11.33 nil nil 17.41 nil nil

Architectural Coatings* (solvent evap) 2.97 nil nil 5.33 nil nil

Cooking* 0.30 nil 2.15 0.49 nil 3.47 Lawn & Garden Equipment* 4.79 0.97 0.10 7.73 1.27 0.13

Construction Equipment* 0.59 2.71 0.55 0.51 2.31 0.07

Construction & Demolition nil nil 0.94 nil nil 1.50

Paved Road Dust nil nil 0.58 nil nil 0.98 Light Duty Auto (on-road motor) 1.31 0.91 0.13 1.28 0.48 0.23 Light Duty and Light Heavy Duty Trucks (on-road motor) 3.19 4.09 0.13 3.73 3.72 0.59

Medium Duty & Medium Heavy Duty Trucks (on-road motor) 1.84 2.21 0.19 1.81 1.48 0.30

Heavy Heavy Duty Trucks (on-road motor) 0.25 0.63 nil 0.15 0.38 0.01

TOTAL 27.46 13.39 5.71 39.79 12.03 8.83
(1) Emission inventory incorporates proposed short-term measures in the 2007 plan to avoid double counting. (2) Assumes 50% of emission growth attributable to new and redevelopment projects except categories noted with an asterisk (*), where 100% is assumed.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007EGM-01

IV-A-122 

### RULE COMPLIANCE The District will adopt a rule to implement this measure and Rule compliance will be verified via field inspection.



### TEST METHODS Approved emission quantification protocols by federa l, state or local agencies will be used to track and report emission reductions for SIP purposes.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS Cost-effectiveness will be developed during the rulemaking process based on the mitigation measures included in the menu of options. 

### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to implement this measure under its indirect source authority in conjunction with local lead agencies.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007EGM-02

IV-A-123 

### EMISSION BUDGET AND MITIGATION FOR GENERAL CONFORMITY PROJECTS [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : A LL S OURCES C ATEGORIES

C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED (S EE E MISSIONS R EDUCTION S ECTION )

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
Background A General Conformity determination is required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for federal actions. These actions include airport expa nsion like those proposed for LAX and major projects that receive federal funding. In add ition, approval of federally funded transportation plans, programs, and projects are covered by the Transportation Conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act.)

The requirements for General Conformity are cont ained in section 176(c)(1) of the CAA and in the General Conformity regulations promulga ted by EPA in 1993 (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W, and 40 CFR Part 93). In general, federal actions must support the goals of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and be shown to not:

∗ Cause or contribute to new violations of any standard;

∗ Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations;

∗ Interfere with the timely attainment or maintenance of any standard

∗ Delay emission reduction milestones; or

∗ Contradict SIP requirements. The General Conformity regulations apply to nonattainment areas where the estimated emissions from the action meet or exceed specified emission rates for each NAAQ.

One of the criteria for determining conform ity for ozone nonattainment areas (40 CFR Part 51.858) is for the District to make a determinati on that the total of the direct and indirect emissions from the General Conformity project does not exceed the emission budget in the SIP.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007EGM-02

IV-A-124 In each of the past several years, the District has been asked to review one to several projects relative to General Conformity. These are gene rally very large projects and it is not always possible for the emissions to be offset. In th is case, District staff must make a General Conformity determination that involves exam ining each emission category for each of the pollutants that are above the specific applicab le thresholds in the General Conformity regulations. This control measure will reduce th e potential uncertainty in determining whether emissions from specific projects are definitively in cluded in projected growth for future years, by establishing a specific budget fo r projects not specifically included in the Plan and emission budgets, and setting up a Mitigation Fee Program for situations that exceed these budgets.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL In order to provide clear General Conformity budgets in the SIP, the District proposes the following approach:

• Establish a percentage of remaining emi ssions from each source category in the 2007 AQMP for each milestone year will be se t aside as emission budgets for projects subject to general conformity, unless certain emissions are explicitly identified in the plan for such purpose;

• Emission budgets are on a first-come-first-serve basis and the District will track all consumption as part of its NEPA review process;

• If project emissions exceeded the budgets for the source category, the portion of emissions exceeding the budgets needs to be fully offset/mitigated;

• If the mitigation measures are not sufficient to offset the emissions, the District Board may make a finding of overall air quality bene fit and allow mitigation fees in lieu of reductions;

• The District will use the fees to invest in emission reduction projects within the affected community, to the extent feasible;

• Surplus reductions to the SIP commitments due to CARB or District regulatory actions can be used as additional budgets for the duration such reductions remain surplus.


### Mitigation Fee Program The concept of the mitigation fee program proposed in this measure is to allow sources to pay a specified dollar per pollutant fee to mitigate re sidual emissions after all reasonably available mitigation measures are implemented. The Distri ct will establish fees per unit of pollutant equivalent to costs of potential emission reduc tion projects necessary to offset the emission impact. Appropriate protocols will be established to quantify and verify emission reductions.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Emission reductions would be sought in order to mitigate emission increases from general conformity projects that have exceeded the budge ts for the source category. Surplus emission reductions achieved, if any, will be incorporated into the SIP inventories through Plan revisions.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007EGM-02

IV-A-125 

### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Compliance with the mitigation measures would be based on monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that have been established in existing source-specific rules and regulations. In addition, compliance would be verified through inspections and other recordkeeping and reporting requirements.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

Cost-effectives for this measure cannot be dete rmined because the mitigation measures and the emission reductions resulting from mitigation fees are not known at this time. However, for both situations the most cost-effective contro l strategy would be sought . The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact a ssociated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has authority to establish an em ission budget, assess mitigation measures, and seek emission reductions through the use of mitigation fees.



### REFERENCES

40 CFR Part 51.858.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007EGM-03

IV-A-126 

### EMISSIONS MITIGATION AT FEDERALLY PERMITTED PROJECTS [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : A LL S OURCES C ATEGORIES

C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED (S EE E MISSIONS R EDUCTION S ECTION )

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background This control measure addresses mitigation measures for Federally permitted projects impacting the District. This need for mitigation was the result of a recently proposed project.

For example, a liquefied natural gas facility ha s been proposed in federal waters offshore of Ventura County. The project is subject to the Deepwater Port Act, and must obtain an air permit from the EPA. While the offshore activ ity is within Ventura County, the Basin is downwind and will be directly impacted by the proposed project. Although the onshore pipeline to be constructed within the jurisdiction of the District is addressed through CEQA, there is a concern about the quality of natural gas as this could significantly affect the District’s progress towards achieving air quality goals in the air Basin (See Control Measure CMB-04).


### Regulatory History See Control Measure 2007 AQMP CMB-04 Natural Gas Fuel Specifications



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The proposed method of control would depend upon the emissions generated from the Federally permitted projects. However, it is expect ed that the control method would rely upon commercially available technologies.

Possible mitigation scenarios include:

• Call for EPA to adopt measures to mitigate st ationary source emission increases in SCAB due to its permitting actions

• If EPA cannot mitigate emission increases through its regulatory actions provide mitigation fees to the District as described in Control Measure EGM-02Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007EGM-03

IV-A-127 • If EPA is not willing to do e ither of these abovementioned approaches, the basin sources would need to offset such increases.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Mitigation measures would be sought in order to reduce emissions generated from federally permitted projects.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Compliance with the mitigation measures would be based on monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that have been established in existing source specific rules and regulations. In addition, compliance would be verified through inspections and other recordkeeping and reporting requirements.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS Cost-effectives for this measure cannot be determined because the mitigation measures are not known. However, the most cost-effective contro l strategy would be sought. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact a ssociated with implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness informati on as it becomes available. For information purposes, the current Carl Moyer uses a cost effective criteria of $14,300 per (NOx + NOG + 20 x PM) and the program has been over-subscribed.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has authority to require mitigati on measures; however, additional legal authority may be needed.



### REFERENCES

40 CFR Part 51.858.

## GROUP 8 District’s Mobile Source Control MeasuresFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-01 (CM #2003FSS-05)

IV-A-128 

### MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL SOURCES [NO X 

### ]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : F EDERAL S OURCES (A IRCRAFT , S HIPS , T RAINS , O THER P REEMPTED S OURCES )
C ONTROL M ETHODS : M ITIGATION F EE P ROGRAM
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED
C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD, U.S. EPA; P OSSIBLY R EQUIRING A DDITIONAL L EGISLATION 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background The primary authority for establishing emission sta ndards for ships, aircra ft, trains, and new offroad farm and construction equipment less than 175 horsepower (HP) is under federal jurisdiction. The District may adopt use or ope rational limitations for such sources. Emissions from these federal sources continue to repr esent a significant and increasing portion of the emissions inventory in the South Coast Air Ba sin. Current emission estimates for aircraft, marine vessels, and locomotives indicate that activity and emissions from these sources will substantially increase in future years. Without adequate controls of these sources, however, the emissions reduction burden would have to be unfai rly shifted to other stationary and mobile sources that have been regulated for many years, seriously jeopardizing the attainment of the 8- hour ozone and PM2.5 standards may not be possible.


### Regulatory History Locomotive, Aircraft, and Ships In 1998, U.S. EPA adopted regula tions affecting all new or remanufactured locomotives after January 1, 2000. Specific emission standards f ound in 40CFR Part 92 depend on the date of manufacturer or remanufacture and the type of duty-cycle, but may go as low as 5.5 g/bhp-hr NOx (Tier 2) and 0.2 g/bhp-hr PM (Tier 2) for line-haul locomotives manufactured on or after January 1, 2005. U.S, EPA is scheduled to propos e new locomotive engine standards (Tier 3) by the end of 2006, for adoption sometime in 2007.

In addition, Measure M14 – National Emission Standards for Locomotives in the 1997 AQMP required low-emission locomotives to completely replace existing locomotives in the Basin by 2010. Control Measure #97M14 applied to all types of locomotives and assumed that U.S. EPA would develop a two-tiered national NOx emissi on standard. In adopting measure M14, ARB assumed that by 2010, locomotive fleets in the Basin will be required to emit a fleet-wide average of no more than the U.S. EPA’s establis hed Tier 2 emission level. To this end, ARB staff developed a Memorandum of Mutual U nderstandings and Agreements (Memorandum) with the California Railroads and the U.S. EPA that was signed in July 1998. TheFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-01 (CM #2003FSS-05)

IV-A-129 Memorandum includes provisions for early intr oduction of clean locomotives in the Basin, which will meet the fleet-wide average target by 2010. In addition to the 1998 Railroad MOU, the state entered into an agreement in 2005 with the two Class 1 Railroads operating in California to monitor and reduce their air pollution associated health risks at 17 rail yards in the
state.
As part of its attainment strategy, the District has adopted three rules applicable to railroads, which will reduce certain pollutants and toxic eff ects of diesel PM. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) established NOx standards in 1997 that apply to marine vessel engines over 130 kW installed on new vessels. IMO standard s became effective in 2005 and applied to new ships manufactured on and after 2000. U.S. EP A adopted emission standards for commercial marine vessels in 1999 (40CFR Part 94). These standards primarily apply to commercial harbor craft since the large engines (i.e., 30 liters per cylinder) used by ocean-going ships are not covered by Part 94. However, the net emission benefit associated with the IMO requirements and EPA regulations are minimal because of their lack of stringency and the slow turnover rate of engines.

Aircraft emissions are regulated by the Intern ational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and U.S. EPA. Current standards (HC, NOx, smoke) are based on engine thrust and vary depending on the engine pressure ratio. These standard s are not expected to achieve any significant reductions in future years because of their lack of stringency. Currently, military aircraft are exempt from these engine standards.

California SIP The existing regulations on federal sources are not expected to result in significant emission reductions in future years. For the PM2.5 a nd 8-hour ozone attainment, additional reductions would be necessary from federally regulated sour ces. Without an assurance that U.S. EPA will identify and commit to additional regulations a nd considering the attainment deadlines of 2015 for PM2.5 and 2021 for ozone, the District is propos ing this Control Measure to ensure federal sources contribute their fair share to achieving federal ambient air quality standards.

The District is currently seeking to obtain broade r legal authority to regulate mobile sources to the extent feasible (e.g., retrofit controls, mitigation fees).



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL As an alternative to stringent national rules a nd to achieve a fair share reduction commitment by federal sources to address unique local needs, this control measure proposes a mitigation fee program for federal sources. The program is to be adopted by U.S. EPA and the mitigation fee to be paid by federal sources through EPA rulemaki ng and/or U.S. EPA grants to the District. The District will use the funds collected to solicit proposals from both federal and non-federal sources to achieve equivalent reductions for SIP purposes. Under this control measure, U.S. EPA would be responsible for reducing NOx em issions from federal sources based on their emission contribution and the overall level of reductions needed for attainment. The estimated mitigation fee is assumed to be comparable to cost of mobile source NOx control technologies.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-01 (CM #2003FSS-05)

IV-A-130 The program would be similar to the District ’s Emission Mitigation Fee Program for Power Producing Facilities (Regulation XX - RECLAIM) initiated in 2002 and to the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program. The RECLAIM Emission Mitigation Fee Program was a program where power producing facilities that exceed annual allocations and met specified applicability requirements in Rule 2004 pay a participation fee to the District for generation of NOx emission reductions by the Dist rict to mitigate emission exceedances. The statewide Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Sta ndards Attainment Program provides grants to offset the incremental cost of projects that re duce emissions of NOx from covered sources in California.

The District could also seek additional legisla tive authority to impose mitigation fees on such sources. Emission fee rates imposed on federal sources will be established based on specific criteria, including but limited to: type of federa l source, emissions inventory, potential reduction opportunities, control cost, and proximity to Envi ronmental Justice (EJ) areas. In addition, a source specific metric for determining a common un it of activity measurements could be used as a basis for establishing the fee rate. In order to en sure that the fee rate is properly adjusted from year to year, a monitoring and reporting pro cedure would be implemented to indicate any changes in the activity measurements or emissi on rates that would aff ect the fee charged to federal sources. Collected fees would be transferred to a special account established for the purposes of funding emission-reduction projects so that program performance can be monitored.

Selection of particular projects to be funded by the Mitigation Fee Program for federal sources would have to adhere to an implementation pr otocol approved by the Governing Board. This protocol will be developed through selective par ticipation and will include specific selection criteria, including but not limited to: quantif iable emission benefits, emission reduction potential, cost-effectiveness, and proximity to a ffected areas (e.g., EJ ar eas). Projects to be funded would have to be approved by the District’s Governing Board.

It is also envisioned that this mitigation fee a pproach would also apply to regional projects that require federal approval (e.g., new port terminal s, airport expansion). As part of the development of this control measure, the Distri ct will evaluate the possibility of establishing a fee program for federally approvable projects where the emissions cannot be adequately mitigated. Fees would be levied on those excess emissions which could not be mitigated.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The 2023 baseline inventory for ships, aircraft, a nd trains is estimated to be approximately 173 tons of NOx per day which is approximately 65 pe rcent of the off-road mobile source inventory and 36 percent of the total NOx inventory in th e Basin. At this time, it is not possible to estimate any emission reductions from this control measure.



### TEST METHODS The appropriate test method(s) would depend on the specific NOx emission reduction projects undertaken.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-01 (CM #2003FSS-05)

IV-A-131 

### COST EFFECTIVENESS

Not Determined.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority under the Lewis Pr esley Air Quality Management Act to collect fees based on emissions. However, implementation of this control measure may require additional legislation unless implemented by U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA would appropriate funding or enable collection of monies in lieu of contro l. The District would then fund cost-effective reduction projects with the collected funds.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-02

IV-A-132 

### EXTENDED EXCHANGE PROGRAM [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : S MALL O FF -R OAD E NGINES (SORE) A ND R ECREATIONAL O UTBOARD E NGINES
C ONTROL M ETHODS : E XCHANGE E XISTING I N -U SE SORE F OR E LECTRICAL E QUIPMENT , OR N EW L OW -E MITTING E NGINES
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ) S EE E MISSIONS R EDUCTION S ECTION
C ONTROL C OST : T HE C OST -E FFECTIVENESS OF T HIS C ONTROL M EASURE W ILL V ARY D EPENDING ON THE T YPE OF E QUIPMENT BUT HAS R ANGED F ROM $800/T ON F OR L EAF B LOWERS TO $10,000 / TON F OR L AWN M OWER E QUIPMENT
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to promot e accelerated turn-over of in-use small off-road engines (SORE) and other engines such as recreational outboard engines through expanded voluntary exchange programs.


### Background The small off-road engines (SORE) category cons ists of spark ignition engines run on gasoline or alternative fuel such as liquefied petroleu m gas (LPG) or compressed natural gas (CNG), and are rated at below 25 horsepower (19 kW). The SORE equipment category includes handheld and non-handheld lawn and garden equipment such as string trimmers, leaf blowers, lawn mowers, generators, and lawn tractors, as well as other commercial/industrial equipment. This category does not include compression ignition e ngines or recreational vehicles. The vast majority of SORE equipment use gasoline.

Since 2003, the District has sponsored lawn mower buy back programs for residential users of old lawn mowers. This program has resulte d in 11,500 high polluting gasoline-powered lawn mowers taken out of service in 2003-2005, and 4,000 lawn mowers being exchanged in 2006. The program is designed so that an individual tu rns in their old lawn mower in exchange for paying $100 towards a new electric-powered lawn mower. In addition to the lawn mower exchange program, the District has recently spons ored a gasoline-powered leaf blower exchange program targeted at commercial operators. In this program, an individual turns in their old gasoline-powered two-stroke leaf blower in exchange for paying $200 towards a new fourstroke gasoline-powered leaf blower certified to the CARB new engine emission standards. The new four-stroke units are less polluting than the two-stroke units. The leaf blower buy back program has resulted in 1,500 leaf blowers being exchanged.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-02

IV-A-133 

### Regulatory History Since September 2003, CARB has established emissi on standards (exhaust and evaporative) for new SORE engines. However, CARB regulations do not impact existing equipment. As part of its commitment in the 2003 AQMP, in Septem ber 2003, the CARB Board also directed CARB staff to conduct research for potential increased use of electric equipment for small off-road engines. In April 2004, CARB staff reported to the Board that there is a high possibility of increasing the penetration for electric e quipment through voluntary measures, incentive programs, and other consumer awareness programs.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL In order to increase the penetration of electri c equipment or new low emission gasoline-powered equipment, the District is proposing to expand its existing lawn mower/leaf blower exchange program. This expansion will be accomplished by increasing the number of exchange events and available funding for these programs. In addition, other SORE equipment as well as recreational outboard engines used in pleasure craft may also be considered for exchange programs for accelerating the turnover of existing e ngines. In addition to the voluntary program primarily envisioned by the control measure, the District will explore the potential of a mandatory turnover and replacement of older SORE.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION This control measure promotes faster turnover rate of in-use engines to electric versions of the same equipment type or engines that meet th e new low-emission standards. The expected emission reductions for this control measure w ould depend on the number and types of engines participating in the program. The expected a nnual emission reductions would be approximately 8 pounds VOC, 0.05 pounds NOx, and 26 pounds CO for each lawn mower replaced with an electric version; and 19 pounds VOC for each leaf blower replaced with a low-emission gas blower. The estimates for other type of equipment targeted in an exchange program would vary and are not estimated for this control measure.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Due to its voluntary nature, compliance with th e provisions of this control measure is not established. However, the criteria used for pa rticipation in existing exchange programs would be carried over into an expanded program. The t ype of criteria used in the existing exchange programs includes proof of residence, actual equipment operation, and limiting exchanges to one per individual.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness will depend on the types of engines or equipment participating in the exchange program. In the District’s leaf bl ower exchange program, low emission units were offered at a cost of $200 instead of a typical reta il price of $460. The total cost of this program was $225,000 funded through the District’s Air Quality Investment Program (AQIP). The cost effectiveness of this leaf blower exchange program is reported to be $800 per ton.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-02

IV-A-134 In the lawn mower exchange program, electric lawn mowers were offered at $100 instead of at a typical retail price of $285. The total cost of the exchange program for 4,000 lawn mowers in 2006 was $856,000 funded through the Dist rict’s AQIP. The cost effectiveness of this lawn mower exchange program is estimated to be $9,840 per ton.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has successfully implemented volunt ary exchange programs for leaf blowers and lawn mowers since 2003. The extended exchange program is expected to be implemented by the District.



### REFERENCES CARB - The 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan, September 24-25, 2003.

CARB - Staff Report, Potential Electrification Pr ograms for Small Off-Road Engines, April 2, 2004.

CARB - California Code of Regulation, T itle 13, Division 3, Chapter 15, Article 1 – Evaporative Emission Requirements for Off-Road Equipment, September 2003.

CARB - Staff Report – Initial statement of reas ons for proposed rulemaking public hearing to consider the adoption of exhaust and evapora tive emission control requirements for small offroad equipment and engines less than or equal to 19 kilowatts, August 8, 2003.

SCAQMD - Governing Board March 3, 2006 Meeti ng, Agenda #5, Execute Contracts for Rule 2202 AQIP and the 2006 Lawnmower Exchange Program.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-03

IV-A-135 

### BACKSTOP MEASURES FOR INDIRECT SOURCES OF EMISSIONS FROM PORTS AND PORT-RELATED FACILITIES [NOX, SOX, PM]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : P ORTS AND P ORT -R ELATED S OURCES (e.g., M ARINE V ESSELS , L OCOMOTIVES , T RUCKS , C ARGO H ANDLING E QUIPMENT , H ARBOR C RAFT AND S TATIONARY E QUIPMENT )

C ONTROL M ETHODS : P ORT AND P ORT F ACILITY E MISSION C ONTROL P LANS , C ONTRACTUAL R EQUIREMENTS , R ULES , T ARIFFS AND I NCENTIVES /D ISINCENTIVES TO I MPLEMENT M EASURES I NCLUDING :

• A FTERTREATMENT FOR DIESEL EQUIPMENT

• N ON

- DIESEL FUELED EQUIPMENT USING LNG, CNG, FUEL CELLS , ETC

. • L OW SULFUR FUELS

• E MULSIFIED DIESEL FUEL WITH DIESEL OXIDATION CONTROLS

• E LECTRICITY

- POWERED SYSTEMS INCLUDING SHORE POWER FOR MARINE VESSELS

• I NTERNAL ENGINE MODIFICATIONS

• R ETROFIT AND REPLACEMENT OF IN

- USE EQUIPMENT

• A LTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIES SUCH AS BATTERY DOMINANT HYBRID SYSTEM

• V ESSEL SPEED REDUCTION E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): T O B E D ETERMINED
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY TBD TBD TBD NO X R EDUCTION TBD TBD NO X R EMAINING TBD TBD
S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY TBD TBD TBD NO X R EDUCTION TBD TBD NO X R EMAINING TBD TBD

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 SO X I NVENTORY TBD TBD TBD SO X R EDUCTION TBD TBD SO X R EMAINING TBD TBD

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 PM I NVENTORY TBD TBD TBD PM R EDUCTION TBD TBD PM R EMAINING TBD TBD
C ONTROL C OST : T O B E D ETERMINED

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMDFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-03

IV-A-136 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the largest in the nation in terms of container throughput, and collectively are the single largest fixed sources of air pollution in Southern California. Emissions from port-related sources , such as marine vessels, locomotives, trucks, harbor craft and cargo handling equipment, adversel y affect air quality in the local port area as well as regionally. Collectively, port-related sources create more than 100 tons per day of smog- and particulate-forming nitrogen oxides – mo re than the emissions from all 6 million cars in the region. Port sources also release approximately 25% of diesel particulate matter emitted in the SCAB, and marine vessels alone emit 44% of regional SOx — a precursor to particulates. Marine vessels are also virtually the only signi ficant source category with emissions projected to increase in coming years. This is due to substantial increases in projected cargo throughput, and the relative laxity of current emissions st andards for these sources. Without substantial control of emissions from port-related sources, it will not be possible for this region to attain federal ambient air quality standards for ozone or PM2.5. Port sources also contribute to cancer risks. The California Air Resources Board estimates that cancer risks caused by sources in the ports exceed 500 in 1 million for over 50,000 resident s near the ports. Many more persons are affected at lower levels of risk.

In January 2006, the District Board approved th e Chairman’s Clean Port Initiative, including several action items to control criteria pollutantemissions and cancer risks from ports and portrelated facilities. Recognizing the unique legal au thorities and expertise of the ports relating to operations on lands they control, the chairman’s initiative called for the ports to take sufficient and coordinated actions to control emissions . At the time the initiative was announced, the ports had never cooperated to establish a coor dinated, comprehensive plan to control air pollution. The initiative also called for a summit m eeting between the presidents of the harbor commissions and the District board chair, which occurred in March 2006. Following that meeting, the staffs of the two ports met, with participation by the Dist rict, CARB and EPA, and developed a draft San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP). The plan proposes to utilize the authorities of the ports, including power s to establish lease conditions, port rules, tariffs and incentives, to implement emission c ontrol strategies. The CAAP was approved by the harbor commissions in November of 2006.

The Chairman’s initiative also called for the Distri ct to develop and adopt “backstop” rules that would take effect if the ports did not take actions that, in conjunction with standards adopted by CARB, EPA, the District and the International Maritime Organization, would achieve sufficient, timely emission reductions. The goals of the back stop rules would be to (1) achieve reductions in emission from port-related sources to levels needed for attainment of ambient air quality standards, consistent with the AQMP, (2) reduce health risks from toxics to acceptable levels, and (3) prevent increases in health risks and criteria pollutant emissions from port projects

This AQMP measure is intended to achieve the goals described above. This measure is fashioned as a “backstop” so as to allow the ports discretion regarding the manner in which emissions and risks are controlled, and regarding the implementing tools that will be used (e.g. environmental lease conditions, port rules, tariffs or incentives), as long as performance goalsFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-03

IV-A-137 are met. A key element of this measure—th e criteria pollutant emission reduction goals—is taken from the AQMP attainment analysis. Ba sed on computer modeling and other analyses conducted for the AQMP, District staff has qua ntified the emission reductions needed from port-related sources to attain the federal 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards. These emission reduction amounts will be inco rporated into District backstop rules implementing this measure, with a goal of assu ring that such reductions timely occur. In addition, the district expects to seek SIP credit for such reductions.


### Regulatory History Emissions from sources associated with the por ts—marine vessels, harbor craft, cargo handling equipment, locomotives, and trucks—have historically been regulated primarily by international, federal or state authorities. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), an agency of the United Nations, has established NOx emissions limitations and fuel sulfur specifications for oceangoing vessels; the federa l Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted emission standards for new locomotiv es, new trucks and some vessels; and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has adopted standards for new trucks and recently voted to adopt standards for cargo handling equi pment and marine auxiliary engine fuels. Neither federal nor international law explic itly require EPA or IMO regulations to be sufficiently stringent to meet the needs of a pa rticularly polluted region such as South Coast, and the rules adopted by those bodies have not met those needs.

Key regulatory and other actions taken to date are as follows:

 International Maritime Organization Emissions and Fuel Standards. IMO NOx standards for new “Category 3” vessels (including the c ontainer vessels responsible for the greatest share of emissions from local ports) will achie ve only a six percent reduction in emissions. IMO fuel rules allow extraordinarily high leve ls of sulfur content, up to 45,000 parts per million, and actual sulfur content for main engine fuels averages approximately 27,000 ppm.

 EPA Marine Vessel Regulations. The vast majority of oceangoing vessels calling on local ports are foreign flagged. Thei r emissions have not been regulated by EPA. EPA stated several years ago that it would consider adopti ng emission standards for foreign flag vessels in 2007, but there is no guarantee that it will do s o, or that such standards will be adequate for this region. EPA has stated that there is a question regarding its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate foreign vessels. 7 EPA has recently announced it will delay these rules until December 2009.

 EPA Emission Standards for Locomotives . Under current EPA “Tier 2” regulations, the newest locomotives must achieve an approxi mate 57% reduction in NOx emissions. In 2004, EPA stated its intent to propose more st ringent locomotive emission standards, but those regulations have been delayed and there is no assurance that such standards will be

7 As stated by EPA, this is an issue of statutory authority under the Clean Air Act. 68 Fed.Reg. 9759 (February 28, 2003). This is not a question of authority of the United States to control emissions from foreign flag vessels. International law recognizes the authority of a nation to adopt environmental standards for vessels that enter the nation’s ports. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Art. 21.1; Art. 25.2 and Art. 211.3.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-03

IV-A-138 sufficient for this region to achieve healthful levels of particulates, ozone or toxics. EPA recently proposed locomotive rules which will not achieve reductions in South Coast in time for PM2.5 attainment.

 EPA and CARB Emission Standards For Trucks. Adopted standards are stringent, but full benefits are many years away because the sta ndards generally apply only to new units and trucks have long useful lives.

 CARB Marine Auxiliary Engine and Cargo Handling Rules. The majority of marine vessel emissions are created by main propulsion engi nes, but auxiliary engines emissions are important, in part because they occur at dock in closer proximity to persons in and around the port. In December 2005, the CARB Board vot ed to adopt fuel sulfur standards for marine auxiliary engines, including those on foreign flag vessels, in waters out to 24 nautical miles. The rule will limit fuel su lfur to 5,000 ppm, with the potential to require 1,000 ppm sulfur content by 2010 pending a t echnology and fuel availability review. 8 Industry has filed Suit arguing that CARB lacks th e authority to adopt or enforce the rule against foreign flag vessels beyond three miles from the coast, and raising other legal issues. The CARB Board also voted in December to adopt emission standards for cargo handling equipment such as yard tractors.

 MOUs. In 1998, CARB entered into an MOU w ith the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroads which established a fleet average emissions limit for locomotives operating in the South Coast Air Ba sin. The intended effect of this MOU is to accelerate introduction of Tier 2 locomotives ( achieving an approximate 57% level of NOx control) in this region. In June 2005, CARB en tered into a second MOU with the same two railroads that is intended to reduce health ri sks near railyards and is projected by CARB to achieve a 20% reduction in PM emissions. Fi nally, several years ago, the ports, shipping interests, and regulatory agencies entered into a MOU seeking voluntary reductions in vessel speed to reduce NOx emissions.

 SCAQMD Rules Governing Locomotive Idling and Risk Assessment. In 2005 and 2006, the District adopted rules requiring railroads to minimize unnecessary locomotive idling, and to develop emissions inventories and health risk assessments and notify the public of health risks. These rules have been held invalid at th e trial level. The District Board has voted to appeal that court decision.

 Funding Programs. SCAQMD, CARB and EPA have f unded numerous projects to reduce emissions from port-related sources.

 CARB Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement. This plan, adopted in April, 2006, includes a wide ranging set of propos ed control strategies, designed to achieve an 85% reduction in risk from diesel partic ulate matter compared to risks in 2000, and to achieve specified reductions in criteria pollutant emissions. The measures in the plan are described in conceptual terms, and implementi ng agencies generally are not identified. The

8 The District believes that levels lower than 5,000ppm are feasible; the Da nish shipping company Maersk recently announced that it is using fuel with sulf ur content of no more than 2,000 ppm in main and auxiliary engines within 24 miles of the California coast.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-03

IV-A-139 plan recognizes that action by local bodies (suc h as the ports through their lease agreements) is one potential means to implement its measures . CARB staff has also stated its intent to develop proposed rules during 2007 that would, am ong other things, limit fuel sulfur content for vessel main engines and require shore power for ships at dock.

 Port Actions. Both the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have developed emission control programs and plans that will help mitigate air quality impacts. ( E.g. Port of Long Beach Green Port Policy, 9 Port of Los Angeles Clean Air Program 10 ). To date, however, port actions (along with the regulatory and othe r actions described above) have not arrested growth in port emissions. The San Pedro Bay Ports Cl ean Air Action Plan (CAAP) adopted in November, 2006, would substantially reduce emissions at a pace that, for some measures, is faster than proposed and adopted CARB measur es. In addition, as noted earlier, the ports, as landlords to marine terminals and other f acilities, have legal authority to require and incentivize controls in ways that regulatory ag encies do not. There will not, however, be an enforceable obligation for the ports to implem ent the CAAP unless a mechanism such as the backstop rules envisioned by this measure is adopted.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The goal of this measure is to establish, and ensure achievement of, the following standards:

• Port Standards. Control emissions from port-related sources sufficiently to—

o reduce year 2014 and 2023 emissions of NO x, SOx and PM to implement the AQMP strategy to attain federal PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone ambient air quality standards,

o ensure interim progress by reducing year 2011 NOx, SOx and diesel PM emissions to 2001 levels,

o by 2020, further control diesel PM sufficiently to reduce health risk from the ports by at least 85% compared to 2000 levels,

o if necessary, continue progress to reduce cancer risk from diesel PM to a lower level to be determined through rulemaking.

• Project Standards. Assure that approvals of port projects will—

o implement all measures needed to achieve the Port Standards, and

o prevent significant increases in NOx, SOx, PM, and health risk from diesel PM. This control measure will be implemented thr ough District rules directed at the ports or operators of port facilities (e.g. marine terminal s and railyards). These “backstop” rules will become effective if the ports or facilities do not take actions sufficient to achieve the port and project standards. More specific descriptions of the standards and backstop rules are set forth below:

9 http://www.polb.com/environment/green_port_policy.asp
10 http://www.portoflosangeles. org/environment_air.htmFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-03

IV-A-140 1. Backstop of Port Standards for Nonattainment Pollutants
Summary : This rule will establish enforceable nona ttainment pollutant emission reduction goals for the ports in order to implement the Air Qua lity Management Plan (AQMP). This “backstop” rule will come into effect if aggregate emissi ons from port sources exceed specified emissions targets. If emissions do not exceed such targ ets, the ports and source operators will have no control obligations under this rule.
Elements of Rule:
Emissions Targets: In developing the year 2007 revision to the AQMP, District staff has identified emission reductions from port-related sources that are necessary to timely attain federal PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone standards. In doing so, staff has considered analyses of needed regional emissions reductions, c ontrol factors and schedules in CARB’s Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement, the draft San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan, and other information. Based on such information, staff has calculated mass emissions targets for NOx, SOx, and diesel PM for the ports. The emissions targets are for the years 2014 and 2020—the years in which attainment must be demonstrated for the PM2.5 and “8-hour” ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As part of this rulemaking, staff will also calculate triennial mass emi ssion milestones for years beginning in 2008 that are reasonable to achieve the emissions targets. In order to assure early progress, and consistent with goals stated in CARB’s Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement , the milestones for the year 2011 will be below emissions in the year 2001.
Scope of Emission Included. Emissions from all sources associated with each port, including equipment on port property, marine vessels trave ling to and from the port while in California Coastal Waters, locomotives and trucks traveling to and from port-owned property while within the South Coast Air Basin.
Trigger Causing Backstop Rule Regulatory Requirements to Come Into Effect. Emissions exceeding a target or triennial milestone, as de termined by the District Executive Officer in consideration of annual port emission inventories and any other relevant data.
Requirements if Backstop Triggered. Two options for structuring this backstop rule will be considered during rulemaking. The first focuses obligations on operators of terminals and other facilities at the ports; the second focuses obligations on the ports themselves.
Option 1: Facility Plans. If this backstop rule is triggered for a port, emission reduction requirements will be established fo r each facility at the port that will, in aggregate, be sufficient to bring the port in to compliance with the target or milestone within a timeframe specified in the rule. The emission reduction requirements will be allocated among port facilities by the port (with District approval), or the port may refer the issue to the District Executive O fficer to decide based on activity level and level of control at each facility. Each f acility operator will then be required by the backstop rule to submit to the District a plan including measures sufficient to timely achieve the required emission reductions. The operator may choose what measures toFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-03

IV-A-141 include and what sources to control, but th e measures must provide assurance that the required emissions reductions will be achieved. During rulemaking, other options to achieve emission reductions will be evaluated such as, but not limited to a mitigation fee program, accelerated emission reductions, et c. Failure to implement the approved plan would be a violation of this rule by the facility operator.
Option 2: Port Plan. If this backstop rule is triggered for a port, that port shall submit an Emission Control Plan to the Dist rict. The plan shall include measures sufficient to bring the port back into co mpliance with the emissions target or milestone within a timeframe specified in the rule. Failure to implement the plan would be a violation of this rule by the port.
2. Backstop of Port Standards for Health Risk
Summary. This rule will establish enforceable requirements to control diesel particulate matter sufficiently to reduce health risks by at leas t 85% by 2020, and to further reduce emissions if necessary to achieve acceptable levels of health ri sk. This “backstop” rule will come into effect if a port does not adopt and implement a plan suffi cient to reduce port risks, or if risks exceed milestones.
Elements of Rule

Risk Reduction Milestones. In developing this rule, the District will establish triennial risk reduction milestones for the ports necessary to assure that, by the year 2020, health risks from diesel particulate matter will be reduced by 85% compared to risks in 2000. The scope of the health risk and health risk milestones including the sources, TACS, etc will be discussed during rulemaking. Risk reduction milestones will be stated in a form determined during rulemaking, and may be a percentage risk reduction, a risk level, an amount of diesel PM emission reduction, or other form. Depending on the form of the risk reduction milestones, the ports will be required to submit triennial reports to verify progress. During rulemaking, the District will also consider wh at, if any, additional emissions reductions will be necessary to achieve acceptable levels of health risk.
Trigger Causing Backstop Rule Regulator y Requirements to Come Into Effect. Failure of a port to implement a plan of measures that pr ovide assurance of achieving the 85% standard, or emissions exceeding a triennial milestone as determined by the District Executive Officer in consideration of periodic port emission inventories and any other relevant data.
Requirements if Backstop Triggered. This rule will be implemented in a fashion similar to one of the two options stated above under Backstop of Port Standards for Nonattainment Pollutants, except that emissions or risk control requirements would be established based on the risk reduction goals of this rule. Duri ng rulemaking, other options to achieve emission reductions will be evaluated such as, but not limited to a mitigation fee program, accelerated emission reductions, etc.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-03

IV-A-142 3. Backstop of Port Project Standards
Summary. This rule will establish requirements for ne w port projects in order to (1) prevent significant increases in NOx, SOx and PM, and health risk from diesel PM, and (2) ensure that port projects implement all control measures need ed to achieve the Port Standards described elsewhere in this measure. This “backstop” rule will come into effect if a port approves a project that does not assure that the project standards in this measure will be met.
Elements of Rule
Applicability . This rule will apply to projects on port land for which a CEQA document such as an Environmental Impact Report, Environmental Impact Statement or mitigated negative declaration is prepared and/or terminal and railyard capacity expansions, lease approvals and lease modifications.
Project Standards. The following standards will be proposed for adoption:

1. Risk Limits. Incremental health risks caused by emissions from facilities affected by a project may not exceed pre-project risks by more than the following:

• Maximum Individual Cancer Risk: 10 in a million.

• Noncancer Acute and Chronic Hazard Index: 1.0

2. Nonattainment Pollutant Limits. Emissions from a port facility affected by a project may not exceed pre-project emissions by amount s that exceed a specified level such as the District's CEQA significance thresholds unless—

• maximum available controls are employed by sources that operate at, or to and from, the facility, and

• feasible mitigations are provided for any emissions increases.
During rulemaking, the district will also consider whether or not to require that emissions increases be offset.

Contribution to Emissions and Risk Reductions. The project approval must contain terms providing reasonable assurance that projected em issions from the new or modified facility will, in conjunction with projected emissions fr om the rest of the port, allow the port to achieve the emissions targets and milestones established as Port Standards under this

measure. Trigger Causing Backstop Rule to Come Into Effect. Port approval of a project that does not comply with the standards in this rule, as determined by the District Executive Officer.
Requirements if Backstop Triggered. If triggered, the backstop rule comes into effect for the project that triggered it. Such project may not commence construction unless the Executive Officer determines that the project will comply with the requirements of this rule.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-03

IV-A-143 

### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure will depe nd on the type of control strategy implemented through each proposed rule. Compliance will be required through compliance plans, and enforced through inspections by District inspectors.



### TEST METHODS The appropriate test methods will depend on th e specific emission reduction projects undertaken and will be specified in each proposed rule. In general, the District, CARB and EPA test methods will be used, as well as manufacturer’s data.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. The District will analyze the potential cost impact associated w ith implementing this control measure and will provide cost effectiveness information as it becomes available.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has authority to adopt regulations to reduce or mitigate emissions from indirect sources, i.e. facilities such as ports that attract on and off-road mobile sources, and has certain authorities to control emissions from off-road mobile sources themselves. These authorities (which are further discussed in Addendum A of the Board Letter for Agenda Item 24, January 6, 2006 District Board meeting) include the following:

Indirect Source Controls. State law provides the District aut hority to adopt rules to control emissions from “indirect sources.” The Clean Air Act defines an indirect source as a “facility, building, structure, installation, real property, road or highway which attracts, or may attract, mobile sources of pollution.” 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(5)(C); CAA § 110(a)(5)(C). Districts are authorized to adopt rules to “re duce or mitigate emissions from indirect sources” of pollution. (Health & Saf. Code § 40716(a)(1)). The South Coast District is also required to adopt indirect source rules for areas where th ere are “high-level, localized concentrations of pollutants or with respect to any new s ource that will have a significant impact on air quality in the South Coast Air Basin.” (Health & Saf. Code § 40440(b)(3)).
Nonvehicular (Off-Road) Source Emissions Standards. Under California law “local and regional authorities,” including the ports and the District, have primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than motor vehicles. (Health & Saf. Code § 40000). Such “nonvehicular” sources include marine vessels, locomotives and other nonroad equipment. CARB has concurrent author ity under state law to regulate these sources. The federal Clean Air Act preempts states and local governments from adopting emission standards and other requirements for new loco motives (Clean Air Act § 209(e); 42 U.S.C.§ 7543(e)), but California may establish and en force standards for other nonroad sources upon receiving authorization from EPA ( Id .). No such federal authori zation is required for state or local fuel, operational, or mass emission limits for marine vessels, locomotives or other non-Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-03

IV-A-144 road equipment. (40 CFR Pt. 89, Subpt. A, App.A; Engine Manufacturers Assn. v. Environmental Protection Agency , 88 F.3d. 1075 (DC Cir. 1996)).
Fuel Sulfur Limits. With respect to nonroad engines, including marine vessels and locomotives, the District and CARB have concurrent authority to establish fuel limits, such as those on sulfur content. As was noted a bove, fuel regulations for nonroad equipment are not preempted by the Clean Air Act a nd do not require EPA authorization.
Operational Limits. The District has authority under stat e law to establish operational limits for nonvehicular sources such as marine vessels, locomotives, and cargo handling equipment (to the extent cargo handling equipment is “nonvehicular”). As was discussed above, operational limits for nonroad equipment are not preempted by Clean Air Act. In addition, the District may adopt operational limits for moto r vehicles such as indirect source controls and transportation controls without receiving an authorization or waiver from EPA. A trial court has recently rules that the District lacks authority under state law to regulate locomotives. The District Board has voted to appeal this decision. In implementing the above authorities, the Distri ct would need to consider limitations imposed by federal law.



### REFERENCES SCAQMD, Clean Port Initiative Workplan, January 2006; Addendum A

CARB, Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy fo r the California State Implementation Plan, May 2003.

Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, Dr aft San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan, June 2005

CARB Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement, April 2006

No Net Increase Task Force, Report to Mayor Hahn and Councilwoman Hahn, June 2005.

CARB Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessm ent Study of the Ports of Los Angeles an Long Beach, April 2006Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-04

IV-A-145 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM THE CARL MOYER PROGRAM [NO X 

### AND PM]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : O N -R OAD AND O FF -R OAD D IESEL V EHICLES AND E QUIPMENT C ONTROL M ETHODS : C ARL M OYER P ROGRAM

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023

NO X I NVENTORY 553.4 392.3 309.3

NO X R EDUCTION 7.5 12.9

NO X R EMAINING 384.8 296.4

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023

NO X I NVENTORY 555.6 393.6 310.5

NO X R EDUCTION 7.5 12.9

NO X R EMAINING 386.1 297.6

A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023

PM2.5 I NVENTORY 26.2 16.3 12.2

PM2.5 R EDUCTION 0.2 0.4

PM2.5 R EMAINING 16.1 11.8
C ONTROL C OST : $14,300 PER T ON I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to con tinue the use of the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program to re duce air pollution emissions by facilitating the move to cleaner-burning engines in both on-road and off-road vehicle fleets. The Carl Moyer Program encourages early introduction of clean air technology into the on-road and off-road vehicle fleets by providing funds to help purchas e new vehicles or new engines (repowers) and for installation of retrofit units on older engine s. This includes funding for technologies that reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) caused by the combustion of diesel fuel in engines.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-04

IV-A-146 

### Background In fiscal year 1998-99, the Califor nia State Legislature created the Carl Moyer Program, named in honor of a key figure in developing state ai r quality measures, to facilitate the move to cleaners-burning engines, which otherwise would have taken decades.

The program continues to drive early introduc tion of clean air technologies, and includes funding for measures that reduce NOx, VOC, and PM caused by the combustion of diesel fuel and gasoline in on-road vehicles and off-road e ngines. The program also funds aftertreatment devices such as diesel oxidation catalyst and PM filters.

A variety of vehicle classes and types are funded under the Carl Moyer Program to help purchase new vehicles or new engines/repowers and for installation of retrofit units on older engines. New vehicles and engines must achieve a 30 percent reduction, and repowered vehicles and retrofits must achieve a 15% re duction of NOx emissions compared to current emission standards. New engines should be CARB-certified and retrofits should be CARBverified. Projects reducing PM a nd/or VOC are also eligible for funding provided they are costeffective. Alternative fuel engines, such as those using compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane and electricity will be given preference for funding if less polluting. Cleaner diesel engines may also be considered in the off-road category.

Vehicles and equipment funded must remain in ope ration for at least three years, and 75 percent of their use must be within the South Coast Ai r Basin. All potential projects must meet costeffectiveness requirements to be eligible for funding consideration.

The Carl Moyer Program under its new guidelines also includes “Fleet Modernization” and “Light-Duty Vehicle Repair a nd Scrapping” programs. The fleet modernization Program replaces pre-1990 heavy-duty diesel vehicles with 2006 and newer diesel or 2004 and newer natural gas vehicles. The Light-Duty Vehicl e Repair and Scrapping Program identifies high polluting light-duty vehicles with remote sens ing and offers repair or scrapping options.


### Regulatory History

In addition to the legislature introducing th e Carl Moyer Program, SB 1107 and AB 923 were passed with support from the business community, environmental groups, and public agencies which provide a long-term source of funding for the expansion of the Carl Moyer Program.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The proposed control measure is based on the implementation of the Carl Moyer Program by the District. The measure proposes to take credit for the emission reductions achieved through past and future projects funded under this program for SIP purposes, in two phases. Examples of projects include on-road heavy-duty vehicle modernization, installation of retrofit units, engine repowers, and remote sensing and repair or early retirement. Phase I of this control measure is based on the projects implemented from 1998 to 2006. Emi ssion reductions from Phase I are estimated at 4.2 tons per day of NOx and 0.1 ton per day of PM2.5 in 2014 and 6.2 tons per day of NOx and 0.2 ton per day of PM2.5 in 2023 based on Carl Moyer Program’sFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-04

IV-A-147 emission quantification protocols taking into account CARB’s baseline adjustments for these projects. The remaining reductions for Phas e I are reflected in the 2007 AQMP as baseline inventory adjustments.

Phase II of this measure is based on future reduc tions to be achieved from the implementation of new projects under the Carl Moyer Program. These reductions were estimated based on the committed level of funding for this Program a nd a conservative cost-effectiveness assumption of $14,300 per ton specified in the Carl Moye r Program guidelines (although existing projects have substantially lower cost-effectiveness). Th e reductions are estimated to be 3.3 tons per day of NOx and 0.1 ton per day of PM2.5 in 2014, and 6.6 tons per day of NOx and 0.2 ton per day of PM2.5 in 2023. These reductions are reflect ed under the proposed mobile source control measures to avoid double counting. Emission re ductions associated with both Phase I and Phase II are shown in the Summary Table.

Every three to five years, emission reducti ons from projects funded under the Carl Moyer Program will be quantified, verified, and incorporat ed in the revised baseline emissions as part of SIP Revision process.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION

The emission reductions from Phases I and II of th e control measure are reflected in the Control Measure Summary Table. In addition, the impl ementation of Light-Duty Vehicle Repair and Scrapping will start generating VOC emission reductions.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS The District has developed policies and procedur es to ensure that this control measure is successfully implemented. In addition to the District's requirements for program implementation, the District adheres to CARB's Carl Moyer Guidelines. Because the Carl Moyer Program is implemented by a partne rship of CARB and the District, CARB has oversight authority to ensure that funds are e xpended as required by the Health and Safety Code and to ensure that the Carl Moyer Program Guid elines are met. CARB is required to audit the District's program by reviewing the District's solicitation, evaluation, selection, contract, and invoicing process. CARB staff also visits a sa mple of funded projects to ensure that public funds are used to pay for qualifying project s that are operating and obtaining emission reductions. The District’s implementation of th e Carl Moyer Program is outlined in Appendix IV-B-3 of the Final AQMP.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost effectiveness of this control measur e is based on the Carl Moyer Program guidelines which establish an upper limit of $14,300 per ton.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has authority to implement this control measure, and CARB has oversight authority.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-05

IV-A-148 

### AB 923 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE HIGH-EMITTER IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM [VOC, NOX, CO]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : G ASOLINE

- AND D IESEL -P OWERED O N -R OAD L IGHT -D UTY V EHICLES U P TO 8500 L BS

. GVWR
C ONTROL M ETHODS : R EMOTE S ENSING TO I DENTIFY H IGH E MITTING V EHICLES
WITH R EPAIR AND R ETIREMENT C OMPONENT E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 301.1 108.7 73.2 VOC R EDUCTION 0.9 0.7 VOC R EMAINING 107.8 72.5

NO X I NVENTORY 326.4 102.0 52.1 NO X R EDUCTION 0.4 0.5 NO X R EMAINING 101.6 51.6

CO I NVENTORY 3099.1 1115.8 650.2 CO R EDUCTION 11.2 13.0 CO R EMAINING 1104.6 637.2

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY (S UMMER FOR VOC AND NO X ; W INTER FOR CO) 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 302.3 112.9 77.2 VOC R EDUCTION 0.9 0.8 VOC R EMAINING 112.0 76.4

NO X I NVENTORY 311.4 97.3 49.8 NO X R EDUCTION 0.4 0.4 NO X R EMAINING 96.9 49.3

CO I NVENTORY 3049.5 1093.8 635.0 CO R EDUCTION 10.9 12.7 CO R EMAINING 1082.9 622.3

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : S OUTH C OAST A IR Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT D ISTRICTFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-05

IV-A-149 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to implement a control strategy for purposes of identifying high emitting vehicles and augmenting the current Smog Check program applicable to gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles up to 8,500 lbs. gross vehicle weight (GVW). These vehicles include passenger cars, vans, and light-duty pick-up trucks.


### Background Light-duty vehicles are major contributors of ai r pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin. While vehicle miles traveled increased more than 50% over the last 20 years, vehicle emissions have dropped by a factor of almost three due to incr easingly stringent vehicle emission standards. Yet, the light and medium duty vehicle fleet continues to contribute more than a third of the Basin’s total emissions of ozone and particulat e matter forming pollutants in part due to high emitting vehicles. Studies show that the highest emitting 10% of the light duty fleet contribute well over 50% of the fleet’s total emissions of ozone and particulate matter forming pollutants emphasizing the need to identify and repair th ese high emitting vehicles to ensure further emission reductions from the light duty vehicle fleet.

Motor vehicle emissions progressively increase as vehicle’s age and accumulate mileage. The causes of these emissions increases are numerous, but can be broadly categorized in terms of normal deterioration of properly functioning on- board emission control system components, emission control system malfunctions due to desi gn flaws and/or lack of proper maintenance, and tampering. In recognition that emission reductions could occur through regular emission testing of vehicles and repairing those vehi cles with high in-use emissions, Smog Check programs have been established in an attempt to en sure that vehicles stay clean as they age, but room for improvements in such programs exist.

Recent studies involving roadside pull-over testi ng have concluded that repairs on vehicles failing smog check tests may not be lasting th e full biennial cycle and may be operating on roadways as high emitters prior to the next smog check test requirements. A remote sensing program can identify these high emitting off-cycle ve hicles and offer incentives to either repair such vehicles or offer incentives to retire such vehicles.


### Regulatory History On September 23, 2004, the Governor signed AB 923 (Firebaugh) which resulted in a significant increase in incentive funding for progr ams that achieve emission reductions from vehicular sources and off-road engines. The le gislation identified and emphasized that in-use higher emitting vehicles are sources that need add itional scrutiny and control in part because of their large contribution to the fleet’s total emissi ons. To address this, the District has developed and will be implementing, under the AB923 program, a pilot program to identify and repair or retire high emitting on-road vehicles.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-05

IV-A-150 

### PROPOSED METHODS OF CONTROL Remote Sensing To Identify High Emitting Vehicles and Require Off-Cycl e Repairs or Vehicle Retirement – Currently, California vehicles less than 8,500 lbs. GVW are required to undergo Smog Check testing every two years or upon change of a vehicle’s ownership. Recent studies have indicated that repairs done in conjunction with the Smog Check Test Program do not last the entire biennial cycle and result in high emitting vehicles being driven on California roadways. The implementation of a remote se nsing program as a component to California’s Smog Check Program will also capture those vehi cles that circumvent California’s Smog Check program through various techniques such as clean piping (using the clean tailpipe exhaust of one vehicle for another). The use of remote sensing programs identifying high emitting vehicles will also result in off-cycle repairs and encour age vehicle retirement of identified high emitting vehicles. The current Consumer Assistan ce Program (CAP) operated by BAR encourages vehicle retirement for on-cycle (those vehicles with in 3 three months of its smog check test due date) vehicles that cannot pass the Smog Check Te st. Vehicles identified as high emitters that are off-cycle to the smog check test are not eligible under the CAP program implemented by BAR and the State of California. This contro l measure would apply only to those vehicles identified as high emitters that are off-cycle to California's Smog Check Program. The benefits to the program would be the off-cycle repair or vehicle retirement occurring prior to the next smog check emission test.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS Identification of high-emitting light- and medium -duty vehicles would result in estimated annual average emission reductions of VOC a nd NOx are 0.9 and 0.4 tons per day by 2014, and 0.7 and 0.5 tons per day by 2023.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS CARB is using the Carl Moyer $14,300 per ton thres hold to calculate the cost effectiveness of the pilot program. In designing and developing a pilot program for purposes of identifying high emitting vehicles through remote sensing technology and the subsequent repair or retirement of high emitting vehicles, the cost effectiveness es timates for the program range from below the $14,300 per ton threshold at the low end and ju st above the $14,300 per ton threshold at the highest end. Because this program is solely reliant on a volunteer participation rate by the consumers, the exact cost effectiveness of the pr ogram is difficult to assess prior to the program implementation. In recognition of the program being a pilot program, CARB recognized this as a pilot program and has accepted the cost effectiv eness analysis as being within the acceptable range of the $14,300 per ton threshold.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The implementing agencies would be the South Coast Air Quality Management District under the auspices of AB 923 and guidelines set fort h by CARB for the Light-Duty Vehicle Program.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-05

IV-A-151 

### REFERENCES

Gross Emitting Vehicles: A Review of the L iterature, June 2004, UC Davis-Caltrans Air Quality Project, Task Order No. 27, Prepared for The California Department of Transportation. http://aqp.engr.ucdavis.edu/Documents/Gross%20Emitter%20Lit%20Review%20v11%5B1%5 D.doc

Smog Check Program Evaluation Project, Prepar ed for CARB and BAR, Prepared by Sierra Research, Presented to California IM Review Committee, October 24, 2006 http://www.imreview.ca.gov/presentations/p_heirigs_sierra_res_10.24.06.pdf

Various Remote Sensing studies identified through Coordinating Research Council (CRC) “Recent Reports and Study Results” at website http://www.crcao.com/reports/recentstudies00-02/recent_reports_and_study_results.htm

“US Remote Sensing Legislation” http://www.rsd-remotesensing.com/legislation.aspFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-06

IV-A-152 

### AB 923 MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLE HIGH-EMITER IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM [VOC, NOx, CO]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : G ASOLINE

- AND D IESEL -P OWERED M EDIUM -D UTY V EHICLES W ITH GVWR B ETWEEN 8,500 AND 14,000 L BS

. C ONTROL M ETHODS : R EMOTE S ENSING TO I DENTIFY H IGH E MITTING V EHICLES WITH R EPAIR AND R ETIREMENT C OMPONENT E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 22.0 9.6 7.0 VOC R EDUCTION 0.5 0.6 VOC R EMAINING 9.1 6.4

NO X I NVENTORY 39.9 27.7 20.5 NO X R EDUCTION 0.5 0.7 NO X R EMAINING 27.2 19.8

CO I NVENTORY 233.6 70.3 41.4 CO R EDUCTION 5.6 6.2 CO R EMAINING 64.7 35.2 S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY (S UMMER FOR VOC AND NO X ; W INTER FOR CO) 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 20.8 9.1 6.7 VOC R EDUCTION 0.5 0.6 VOC R EMAINING 8.6 6.1

NO X I NVENTORY 38.7 27.1 20.0 NO X R EDUCTION 0.5 0.7 NO X R EMAINING 26.6 19.3

CO I NVENTORY 233.6 70.8 41.7 CO R EDUCTION 5.6 6.3 CO R EMAINING 65.2 35.4

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : S OUTH C OAST A IR Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT D ISTRICT ( MAY REQUIRE STATE LEGISLATION )Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-06

IV-A-153 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to implement a control strategy for purposes of identifying high emitting medium-duty vehicles and augmenting the current Smog Check program applicable to gasoline- and diesel -powered vehicles between 8,500 and 14,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight (GVW). These vehicles include medium- and light-heavy-duty pick-up trucks, vans, and delivery trucks. The existi ng Smog Check Program only includes vehicles up to 10,000 lbs. GVW and therefore a segment of the applicable vehicles are not currently subject to any in-use test program for gaseous pollutants.


### Background Medium- and light-heavy-duty vehicles are major contributors of air pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin. While light-duty vehicle em ission standards have dropped by a factor of almost three due to increasingly stringent ve hicle certification standards, the medium-duty vehicle certification standards have not seen such a precipitous drop. This combined with the vehicle miles traveled increasing by more than 50% over the last 20 years and the fact that California’s Smog Check Program only include s vehicles weighing up to 10,000 lbs. GVW, thereby excluding a sub-portion of this category to no in-use testing requirements, suggests that there may be a significant component of the me dium-duty vehicle fleet that contribute a far greater share of the Basin’s total emission of oz one and particulate matter forming pollutants. Studies show that the highest emitting 10% of the light- and medium-duty fleet contribute well over 50% of the fleet’s total emissions of ozone and particulate matter forming pollutants emphasizing the need to identify and repair th ese high emitting vehicles to ensure further emission reductions from the medium-duty vehicle fleet.

Motor vehicle emissions progressively increase as vehicle’s age and accumulate mileage. The causes of these emissions increases are numerous, but can be broadly categorized in terms of normal deterioration of properly functioning on- board emission control system components, emission control system malfunctions due to desi gn flaws and/or lack of proper maintenance, and tampering. In recognition that potential subs tantial emission reductions could be generated by regularly emission testing in-use vehicles and repairing those vehicles with high in-use emissions, Smog Check programs have been establis hed in an attempt to ensure that in-use vehicles stay clean as they age, but room for improvements in such program exist.

However, recent studies involving roadside pull- over testing have concluded that repairs on vehicles failing smog check tests may not be las ting the full biennial cycle and may be operating on roadways as high emitters prior to the next smog check test. A remote sensing program can identify these high emitting off-cycle vehicles and o ffer incentives to either repair such vehicles or offer incentives to retire such vehicles.


### Regulatory History On September 23, 2004, the Governor signed AB 923 (Firebaugh) which resulted in a significant increase in incentive funding for progr ams that achieve emission reductions from vehicular sources and off-road engines. The le gislation identified and emphasized that in-use higher emitting light-duty vehicles are sources that need additional scrutiny and control in part because of their large contributi on to the fleet’s total emissions. To address this, CARB adoptedFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-06

IV-A-154 guidelines to achieve additional emissions reductions from the light-duty vehicle sectors. This proposal would require that current legislati on (AB 923) be expanded to include medium-duty vehicles from 8,500 lbs to 14,000 lbs GVW and specify that these vehicles be included in the high-emitter identification program under the Ca rl Moyer Program. AB 923 funds could be used to provide financial assistance in the repair or replacement of the high-emitting vehicle.



### PROPOSED METHODS OF CONTROL Remote Sensing To Identify High Emitting Vehicles and Require Off-Cycl e Repairs or Vehicle Retirement – Currently, California vehicles less th an 10,000 lbs. GVW are required to undergo Smog Check testing every two years or upon change of a vehicle’s ownership. Recent studies have indicated that repairs done in conjunction with the Smog Check Test Program do not last the entire biennial cycle and result in high emitting vehicles being driven on California roadways. The implementation of a remote se nsing program as a component to California’s Smog Check Program will also capture those vehi cles that circumvent California’s Smog Check program through various techniques such as clean piping (using the clean tailpipe exhaust of one vehicle for another). The use of remote sensing programs to identify high emitting vehicles will allow for also result in off-cycle repairs a nd encourage vehicle retirement of identified high emitting vehicles. The current Consumer Assistance Program (CAP) operated by BAR encourages vehicle retirement for on-cycle (those vehicles within 3 three months of its smog check test due date) vehicles that cannot pass th e Smog Check Test. Vehicles identified as high emitters that are off-cycle to the smog check test are not eligible under the CAP program implemented by BAR and the State of California. This control measure would apply only to those vehicles identified as high emitters that ar e off-cycle to California's Smog Check Program. The benefits to the program would be the off-cy cle repair or vehicle retirement occurring prior to the next smog check emission test.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS Identification of high-emitting medium-duty vehicl es with gross vehicle weight from 10,001 to 14,000 lbs. would result in estimated annual average emission reductions of VOC and NOx are 0.5 and 0.5 tons per day by 2014, and 0.6 and 0.7 tons per day by 2023.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS CARB is using the Carl Moyer $14,300 per ton thres hold to calculate the cost effectiveness of the pilot program. In designing and developing a pilot program for purposes of identifying high emitting vehicles through remote sensing technology and the subsequent repair or retirement of high emitting vehicles, the cost effectiveness es timates for the program range from below the $14,300 per ton threshold at the low end and just above the $14,300 per ton level at the highest end. Because this program is solely reliant on a volunteer participation rate by the consumers, the exact cost effectiveness of the program is difficult to assess prior to the program implementation. In recognition of the program being a pilot program, CARB recognized this as a pilot program and has accepted the cost effectiv eness analysis as being within the acceptable range of the $14,300 per ton threshold.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-06

IV-A-155 

### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The implementing agency would be the South Co ast Air Quality Management District under the auspices of AB 923. The Carl Moyer guidelin es set forth by CARB for Light- and MediumDuty Vehicle Program would need to be amended to incorporate vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating from 8,500 to 14,000 lbs.



### REFERENCES

Gross Emitting Vehicles: A Review of the L iterature, June 2004, UC Davis-Caltrans Air Quality Project, Task Order No. 27, Prepared for The California Department of Transportation. http://aqp.engr.ucdavis.edu/Documents/Gross%20Emitter%20Lit%20Review%20v11%5B1%5 D.doc

Smog Check Program Evaluation Project, Prepar ed for CARB and BAR, Prepared by Sierra Research, Presented to California IM Review Committee, October 24, 2006 http://www.imreview.ca.gov/presentations/p_heirigs_sierra_res_10.24.06.pdf
Various Remote Sensing studies identified through Coordinating Research Council (CRC) “Recent Reports and Study Results” at website http://www.crcao.com/reports/recentstudies00-02/recent_reports_and_study_results.htm

“US Remote Sensing Legislation” http://www.rsd-remotesensing.com/legislation.aspFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-07

IV-A-156 

### CONCURRENT REDUCTIONS FROM

GLOBAL WARMING STRATEGIES [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : S TATIONARY AND M OBILE S OURCES OF F UEL C OMBUSTION

C ONTROL M ETHODS : C ONCURRENT R EDUCTIONS FROM G LOBAL W ARMING S TRATEGIES

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): S EE E MISSION R EDUCTION S ECTION

C ONTROL C OST : T O B E D ETERMINED

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB, CEC, PUC, AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY

This control measure seeks to claim concurrent SIP reductions from all fuel combustion source global warming strategies related to fuel efficiency improvements and renewable energy

sources. 

### Background

There is broad scientific consensus that th e increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere will lead to global c limate change in this century. The industrial revolution and the increased consumption of foss il fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, wood, coal, etc.) have contributed to substantial increase in at mospheric levels of greenhouse gases primarily carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrof luorocarbons. These gases trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere, like a blanket, causing the atmospheric temperatures to rise. Over time, the increased temperature could result in climat e change effects such as raising sea levels, altering precipitation patterns, and changing wa ter supplies and crop yields. Global warming could also adversely affect human health, harm wildlife, and damage fragile ecosystems. Higher atmospheric temperatures would also result in more emissions, increased smog levels, and the associated health impacts.


### Regulatory History

In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order #S-3-05 which established the following greenhouse gas targets:

By 2010, Reduce to 2000 Emission Levels By 2020, Reduce to 1990 Emission Levels By 2050, Reduce to 80% Below 1990 LevelsFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-07

IV-A-157 The emission levels in California were estimated to be 426 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 1990, 473 million metric tons CO2 equiva lent for 2000, 532 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2010, and 600 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2020. The Governor’s goals for emission reductions were estimated to be approximately 59 and 174 million tons CO2 equivalent by 2010 and 2020, respectively.

The Executive Order created the Climate Acti on Team, with the California Environmental Protection (Cal/EPA) as the lead responsible fo r coordinating efforts from multiple agencies including California Air Resources Board (C ARB), California Energy Commission (CEC), Resources Agency and Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Business, Trans portation, & Housing (BT&H), and Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). The mission of the Climate Action Team was to develop and implement emission reduction strategies to achie ve the Governor’s greenhouse gas targets; and to submit a progress report to the Governor and the legislature on a biannual basis, starting in 2006.

The Climate Action Team’s report, published in March 2006, recommends 46 specific emission reduction control strategies for greenhouse gas. Many of the strategies also reduce ozone, criteria and toxic pollutants. Table 3 provides a summary of 11 control measures that were adopted by various state agencies and are underwa y. These measures were estimated to provide approximately 22 million tons CO2 equivalent in emission reductions in 2010, and 68 million tons CO2 equivalent in emission reductions in 2020, which were about half way towards meeting the Governor’s goals.

As shown in Table 4, the motor vehicle standard s would provide the largest emission reductions about 30 millions tons CO2 equivalent reductions in 2020. Two other key strategies in the state are the Energy Efficiency Programs and the Rene wable Portfolio Standard which contributed about 16 and 11 millions tons CO2 equivalent reductions in 2020. The 11 control strategies already adopted only provide less than half of the emission reductions needed for California, which are 22 millions ton and 68 million tons reduction in 2010 and 2020 respectively. Table 1 contains a list of additional control measures recommended by the Climate Action Team that need to be adopted in the next two years to achieve the Governor’s emission reduction goals. A brief explanation of the 11 control measures alr eady adopted and underway is presented below.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-07

IV-A-158 TABLE 3 Emission Reduction Strategies Underway in California a

Agency Strategies Emission Reductions (Million Tons CO 2 ) 2010 2020 CARB Vehicle Climate Change Standards 1 30 Diesel Anti-idling 1 1.2 CPUC Accelerated Renewable Portfolio Std to 33% by 2020 (including load-serving entities [LSE]) 5 11

California Solar Initiative (Million Solar Roofs) 0.4 3 Investor Owned Utility Energy Efficiency Programs 4 8.8

CIWMB Achieving 50% Statewide Recycling Goal 3 3 CEC Building Energy Efficiency Standards 1 2 Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards 3 5 Fuel-efficient Replacement Tires & Inflation Programs 1.5 1.5

BT&H Green Buildings Initiative 0.5 1.8 CARB Hydrogen Highway Included b
Total Potential Emission Reductions 22 68 a) Climate Action Team 2006 Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature b) The emission benefits of Hydrogen Highway have been captured in other programs such as the motor vehicle regulations and the green building initiative.

Motor Vehicle Standards (CARB) Regulations were adopted by the CARB in Sept ember 2004 in response to the requirements in Assembly Bill 1493, Pavley, Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002. The regulations apply to new passenger vehicles and light duty trucks be ginning with 2009 model year through 2016 model year. The ARB analysis indicated that these regulations would result in 30 millions tons CO2 equivalent emission reductions by 2020.

Diesel Anti-Idling (CARB) In July 2004, the ARB adopted a measure to limit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle idling which will reduce climate change emissions by 1.2 millions tons CO2 equivalent by 2020.

Renewable Portfolio Standard (CPUC and CEC) The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), estab lished in 2002, requires that all load serving entities achieve a goal of 20 percent of retail elect ricity sales from renewable energy sources by 2017. The Governor has increased this goal to 33 percent renewable which was adopted by CPUC and CEC in 2005 as described in the 2005 En ergy Action Plan II. The two agencies have already commenced review of the legal, regulat ory, and infrastructure changes necessary to achieve the Governor’s goal. It was estimated th at this measure would result in 11 millions tons CO2 equivalent emission reductions by 2020.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-07

IV-A-159 California Solar Initiative (CPUC) The Governor has initiated a goal of installation 1 million solar roofs or an equivalent 3,000 MW by 2017 on new and existing residential, commercial and industrial properties, increase the use of solar thermal systems to offset the increasing demand for natural gas, use of advanced metering in solar applications, and creation of a funding source that can provide rebates over 10 years through a declining incentive schedule. In August 2006, the CPUC further outlined a detailed plan to implement this $2.9 billion Ca lifornia Solar Initiative over a 10-year period. This plan will be administered through Pacifi c Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company and th e San Diego Regional En ergy Office. It was estimated that this measure would result in 3 millions tons CO2 equivalent emission reductions by 2020.

Investor-Owned Utility Energy Efficiency Program (CPUC) In September 2004, the CPUC adopted emission reduction targets for the investor-owned utility energy efficiency programs through 2013 and set savi ngs targets for both electricity and natural gas. It was estimated that this measure would result in 8.8 millions tons CO2 equivalent emission reductions by 2020.

Achieving 50% Statewide Recycling Program (CIWMB) Achieving the State’s 50 percent recycling goa l was established by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989. Currently a diversion rate of 48 percent has been achieved on a statew ide basis. This measure reduces the greenhouse gas emissions associated with energy used fo r material extraction and production as well as methane gas emissions from landfills. The CIWM B estimated a reduction of approximately 3 millions tons CO2 equivalent in 2020.

Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CEC) Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the CEC to adopt and periodically update (i.e. every three years) its building energy efficiency standards which apply to newly constructed buildings, and additions to or alterations to existing buildings. Recent policies have placed priority on and established specific goals for updating of the standards promoting the combination of solar photovoltaic and high-e fficiency buildings and addressing demand response. The CEC estimated a reduction of appr oximately 2 millions tons CO2 equivalent in 2020.

Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (CEC) Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the CEC to adopt and periodically update its appliance energy efficiency standards that apply to devices and equipment using energy that are sold or offered for sale in California. New standards for a variety of appliances were adopted in December 2004. Some standards under consideration in December 2004 were delayed to further consider manufacturer comments. The CEC estimated this program would provide a savings of approximately 5 millions tons CO2 equivalent in 2020.

Fuel-Efficient Replacement Tires and Inflation Programs (CEC) State legislation, Chapter 912, Statutes of 2001, encourages the production and use of fuelefficient tires and directed the CEC to inve stigate, recommend, and implement measures to improve fuel-efficiency of vehicle tires and to set mandatory fuel efficiency standard for allFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-07

IV-A-160 after-market tires sold in California. The CEC estimated this program would provide a savings of approximately 1.5 millions tons CO2 equivalent in 2020

Green Buildings Initiative (BT&H) Governor Schwarzenegger’s Green Building Execu tive Order, S-20-04, calls for a reducing of energy use in public and private buildings by 20 percent by the year 2015, as compared with 2003 levels. The Executive Order requires state ag encies to take specific actions with stateowned and -leased buildings, and contains various strategies and incentives to encourage private building owners and operators in order to achieve the 20 percent target. Preliminary estimates for this control measure are approximately 1.5 millions tons CO2 equivalent emission reductions in 2020.

Hydrogen Highway (CARB) The California Hydrogen Highway Network (CA H2 Net) is a state initiative to promote the use of hydrogen as a means of divers ifying the sources of transportation energy. The CA H2 Net requires the utilizing of at least 20 percent rene wable resources in the production of hydrogen to reduce climate change emissions as well as criteria and toxic pollutants. The emission reductions of this program are captured in other programs such as the motor vehicle regulations.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-07

IV-A-161 TABLE 4 Emission Reduction Strategies for Adoption in Next 2-Years

Agency Strategies Emission Reduction (Million Tons CO 2 ) 2010 2020 CARB Other New Light Duty Vehicle Technology Improvements 0 4

HFC Reduction Strategies 2.7 8.5 Transport Refrigeration Units, Off-road Electrification, Port Electrification (ship to shore) <1 <1

Manure Management 1 1 Semi Conductor Industry Targets 2 2 Alternative Fuels: Biodiesel Blends <1 <1 Alternative Fuels: Ethanol <1 3.2 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Reduction Measures 0 3 Reduced Venting and Leaks in Oil and Gas Systems 1 1 CEC Cement Manufacturing <1 <1 Municipal Utility Energy Efficiency Programs/ Demand Response 1 5.9

Municipal Utility Renewable Portfolio Standard <1 3.2 Municipal Utility Combined Heat and Power 0 <1 Municipal Utility Electricity Sector Carbon Policy 3 9 Alternative Fuels: Non-Petroleum Fuels TBD TBD CPUC Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) Additional Energy Efficiency Programs and Demand Response NA 6.3

IOU Combined Heat and Power Initiative 1.1 4.4 IOU Electricity Sector Carbon Policy 1.6 2.7 CIWMB Landfill Methane Capture 2 3 Zero Waste—High Recycling 3 Water Depart Water Use Efficiency 0.4 1.2

Forestry Depart. Forest Management 1-2 2-4

Forest Conservation 4.2 8.4 Fuels Management/Biomass 3.4 6.8 Urban Forestry 0 3.5 Afforestation/Reforestation 0 12.5 BT&H Measures to Improve Transportation Energy Efficiency 1.8 9

Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation 5.5 18 Conservation tillage/cover crops TBD TBD Enteric Fermentation <1 <1 Transportation Policy Implementation TBD TBD Total Potential Emission Reductions 39 197Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-07

IV-A-162 AB32 codifies the State goal by requiring the St ate GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions which will be phased in starting on 2012. AB32 also directs CARB to deve lop appropriate regulations and establish a mandatory reporting system for tracking and monitoring GHG. The bill specifically requires the CARB to:

• By January 2008, adopt regulations to mandato ry require reporting and verification of statewide greenhouse gas emissions, and to m onitor and enforce compliance with this program, starting with the sources or categorie s of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions (e.g. electric generation, coal, oil and gas plants);

• By January 2008, determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level was in 1990 which must be achieved by 2020 as directed by the Governor in 2005;

• On or before June 2007, publish and make availa ble to the public a list of discrete early action greenhouse gas emission reduction measures that can be implemented prior to January 2011; and on or before January 2010, adopt regulations to implement these measures to achieve maximum technologically feasible and cost effective emission reductions;

• On or before January 2011, adopt greenhouse ga s emission limits and additional measures, above and beyond the measures identified in 2007, which may include market-based compliance mechanisms, to achieve the statewide greenhouse gas emission limits and statewide reductions.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL

Achieving reduction targets specified in AB 32 would require significant development and implementation of energy efficiency technologies and extensive shifting of energy production to renewable sources, as outlined in Tables 3 and 4 above. In addition to reducing GHG emissions, such strategies could concurrently re duce emissions of criteria pollutants associated with fossil fuel combustion.

This measure proposes to quantify the concurrentemission reductions associated with Statewide GHG programs targeted at stationary and mobile sources in the Basin working with various state agencies.

Once quantified, these reductions will be incorporat ed in the revised baseline emissions as part of the SIP revision process.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION

Every three to five years, concurrent emissi on reductions associated with implementation of global warming strategies will be quantified and incorporated in the revised baseline emissions as part of the SIP revision process.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007MOB-07

IV-A-163 

### REFERENCES

Assembly Bill 32, Nunez, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

California Public Utilities Work Plan, January 2006.

California Solar Initiative, FACT Sheet, August 24, 2006.

Climate Action Team Final Report to the Governor and Legislature, March 2006.

Energy Action Plan II, California Energy Commission and Public Utilities Commission, September 2005.

Executive Order S-3-05 by the Governor of the State of California.

State Agency Work Plan, February 2006.

State Chronological Actions to Address Global Climate Change, March 2006

## SECTION 2 CONTINGENCY MEASURESFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-164 

### INTRODUCTION This appendix contains the contingency contro l measures for the 2007 AQMP. Both the state and federal Clean Air Acts require that the AQM P contain contingency measures in the event that the District fails to either achieve interim emission reduction goals or maintain adequate progress towards attainment of ambient air quality standards.

The expected progress in meeting the AQMP atta inment goals, measured in terms of emission reductions, is verified through the annual a uditing program called the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) program. In the event the RFP shows that the implementation of the AQMP is not providing adequate progress and the interim em ission reduction goals have not been met, the District must take action to br ing forward measures that are scheduled for later adoption or implementation, or to implement certain “conti ngency” control measures. The contingency measures contained in this appendix are designed to ensure that an appropriate level of emission reductions progress continues to be made. In addition, these contingency measures are control options that could be instituted in addition to, or in place of, the AQMP control measures.


### Contingency Measures The 2007 AQMP contains 4 contingency control measures. Although implementation of these measures is expected to reduce emissions, ther e are issues that limit the viability of these measures as AQMP control measures at this time. Issues surrounding these measures include, but are not limited to the availability of District resources to implement and enforce the measure, cost-effectiveness of the measure, pot ential adverse environmental impacts, potential economic impacts, effectiveness of emission reduc tions, and availability of methods to quantify emission reductions. Table 5 lists the contingency control measures and adoption/implementation issues associated with the measure. The responsibility to adopt and implement the measures falls on the District, ARB, and EPA.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-165 

### TABLE 5
Contingency Control Measures

AQMP Measure Number Title

CTY-01 Offsetting the Potential Emission Increase Due to the Change in Natural Gas Specifications [NOx]

CTY-02 Clean Air Act Emission Fees for Major Stationary Sources [VOC and NOx]

CTY-03 Banning Pre-Tier 3 Off-Road Diesel Engines During High Pollution Days [NOx, VOC, and PM]

CTY-04 Accelerated Implementation of CARB's Mobile Source Control Measures [All Pollutants]



### FORMAT OF CONTROL MEASURES Included in each control measure description is a title, summary table, description of source category, proposed method of control, estimated emission reductions, rule compliance, test methods, cost effectiveness, and references. The type of information that can be found under each of these subheadings is described below.



### Control Measure Number Each control measure is identified by a cont rol measure number (such as “CM #2007CTY-01”) located at the upper right hand corner of every page. “CM #” is the abbreviation for “control measure number” and is immediately followed by the year of the AQMP revision (such as “2007” for 2007). The next designation represents the source category or control measure type; for example “CTY” represents contingency measure.



### Summary Table

Each measure contains a table that summarizes the measure and is designed to identify the key components of the control measure. The table contains a brief explanation of the source category, control method, emission reductions, control costs, and implementing agency.

Although initial assessments to identify the potentia l magnitude of emission reductions and cost effectiveness of these measures may have b een conducted, fully quantified emission reductions and control cost are not included at this time. If these measures should undergo rulemaking and as additional data and information becomes available, the emission reductions and cost effectiveness of these measure will further be assessed and fully quantified.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-166 

### Information Contained in Measures Similar to the stationary source control measur es in Section I of this appendix, each of the measures contain the following sections:

• Description of Source Category provides an overall description of the source category, number of sources in the Basin, description of emission sources, and regulatory history.

• Proposed Method of Control includes applicable emission control technologies, expected performance such as projected control efficiency, and current applications.

• Emission Reductions and Cost Effectiveness: As previously indicated, emission reductions and control costs associated with th e measures are not included in this appendix. As the more data and information becomes available regarding quantification of potential emission reductions, these measures will be updated.

• Rule Compliance and Test Methods refers to the applicable monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements envisioned to ensure compliance. The test method section refers to appropriate approved District, A RB, and EPA source test methods.



### • Implementing Agency is the agencies responsible for implementing the control measure. Also included in this section is a description of any jurisdictional issues that may affect the control measures implementation.

## Contingency MeasuresFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTY-01

IV-A-167 

### OFFSETTING THE POTENTIAL EMISSION INCREASE DUE TO THE CHANGE IN NATURAL GAS SPECIFICATIONS [NO X 

### ]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : NO X RECLAIM F ACILITIES C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS

E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): S EE E MISSIONS R EDUCTION S ECTION C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The background, regulatory history, and other details pertaining to the change in natural gas specifications is described in Control Measure #2007CMB-04.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL In conjunction with Control Measure CMB- 04, any potential increase in NOx emissions attributable to natural gas quality needs to be mitigated within the same time frame. RECLAIM allocations could be considered for further reductions to mitigate this potential increase in emissions. As described in CM B-04, natural gas with higher heating value would potentially increase NOx emissions from natural gas combustion equipment.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Emission reductions may be needed based on the potential emission increase identified pursuant to Control Measure CMB-04. Based on Control Measure CMB-04 further analysis would be needed to assess the magnitude of this potential increase in NOx emissions.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS Compliance with the provisions of this c ontrol measure would be based on monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that have been established in either the RECLAIM program or existing source specifi c rules and regulations. In addition, compliance would be verified through inspections and other recordkeeping and reporting requirements.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY The District has the authority to regulate emissions from stationary sources.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTY-01

IV-A-168 

### REFERENCES Health and Safety (H&S) Code: §§ 40913, 40914, 40920.5, § 40406 and § 40440 (b)(1)

14 California Code of Regulations, section 15364

See Control Measure 2007#CMB-04 for further referencesFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTY-02

IV-A-169 

### CLEAN AIR ACT EMISSION FEES FOR MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES [VOC AND NOx]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : S TATIONARY S OURCES OF VOC A ND NO X W ITH P OTENTIAL TO E MIT O VER 10 T ONS PER Y EAR
C ONTROL M ETHODS : E MISSION F EES
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED
C ONTROL C OST : S EE C OST E FFECTIVENESS S ECTION
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD



### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Regulatory History
This control measure was first introduced in the 1994 AQMP and then carried over to the 1997 AQMP and then the 2003 AQMP.

If a severe or extreme area fails to attain th e 8 hour standard by the statutory date, the area must implement a measure requiring major st ationary sources to either reduce their emissions to 80% of what they were in the attainment year, or pay an annual fee of $5,000 (adjusted for inflation) for each ton in excess of 80% of the baseline (2024).
The $5,000 (1990 dollars) per ton fee applies to every "major stationary source" of VOC emissions, whether permitted or not. The definiti on of major stationary source is any source with a "potential to emit" of 10 tons per year, not just sources with actual emissions of ten tons per year. Therefore, the fee should be based on total actual emissions, not just permitted emissions. However, fugitive emissi ons are not included in determining potential to emit (PTE) unless the sources is one of th e types of facilities lis ted in 40 CFR Part 70, section 70.2. If the facility is already a majo r source, then fugitive emissions would be included in its total emissions. If the fac ility has taken a synthetic minor permit limiting them to less than 10 tpy, then these facilities would not be subject to the fee.

It should also be noted, pursuant to section 182( f) of the federal Clean Air Act, the plan provisions required under this subpart, which includes the fee, which are applicable to major stationary sources of VOC as well as major st ationary sources of NO x. That is, unless EPA finds that additional reductions of NOx would not contribute to attainment. Since the Final 2007 AQMP proposes a NOx-heavy strategy, it is a ssumed that the fee applies to major NOx sources as well.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTY-02

IV-A-170 

### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL

The l990 federal Clean Air Act requires that the AQMP include all control measures, means or techniques, including economic incentives such as fees, as may be necessary to reach attainment. Further, the Act requires that a ll stationary sources of VOC emissions (with PTE greater than 10 tons per year) in an extr eme nonattainment area that has failed to attain the ambient air quality standard for ozone pay a fee as a penalty for such failure (Title I, Section 185).

This control measure proposes that if the fe deral ambient air standards are not met by the year 2024, the District shall impose an emi ssions fee of $5,000 (1990 dollars) per ton of VOC and NOx, separately, emitted by each majo r source in excess of 80 percent of the sources baseline emissions. The fee rate will be adjusted to reflect increases in Consumer Price Index since 1990 and annually to reflect increas es in the CPI. The fee shall be paid for each calendar year after the year 2024 and until the area meets the 8-hour ozone standard. This fee will be in addition to the annual emission fee required by District Rule 301.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION Implementation of this measure is expected to result in emission reductions as facilities seek to further reduce emissions to reduce the fees proposed by this measure. Projected emission reductions are uncertain at this time, and require further analysis.



### TEST METHODS The EPA and AQMD approved test methods for this measure include:

EPA METHOD 24 – DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE MATTER CONTENT,WATER CONTENT, DENSITY, VOLUME SOLIDS, AND WEIGHT SOLIDS OF SURFACE COATINGS

EPA METHOD 25 – DETERMINATION OF TOTAL GASEOUS NONMETHANE ORGANIC EMISSIONS AS CARBON

EPA METHOD 7E – DETERMINATION OF NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES (INSTRUMENTAL ANALYZER PROCEDURE)

AQMD METHOD 25.1 – DETERMINATION OF TOTAL GASEOUS NONMETHANE ORGANIC EMISSIONS AS CARBON

AQMD METHOD 25.3 – DETERMINATION OF LOW CONCENTRATION NONMETHANE NON-ETHANE ORGANIC COMP OUND EMISSIONS FROM CLEAN FUELED COMBUSTION SOURCES

AQMD METHOD 100.1 – INSTRUMENTAL ANALYZER PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUOUS GASEOUS EMISSION SAMPLINGFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTY-02

IV-A-171 Additional or alternative test methods, prot ocols and guidelines may be used provided they are approved by EPA, ARB and AQMD.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost-effectiveness of this measure is estimated to be not to exceed $5,000 (1990 dollars)/ton of VOC or NOx. It is assumed that a facility would opt to pay fees if on-site controls exceed $5,000 (1990 dollars)/ton.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY This measure will be implemented to give a ffected sources the option of reducing their emissions to 80% of baseline emissions or pa ying the fee on every ton above 80%. As such, the District has authority under H & S 40001 (rules to attain standards) to implement this

measure.



### REFERENCES South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 301 - Permit Fees. Amended June 1993.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTY-03

IV-A-172 

### BANNING PRE-TIER 3 OFF-ROAD DIESEL ENGINES DURING HIGH POLLUTION DAYS [NOX, PM, VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : O FF -R OAD C ONSTRUCTION , I NDUSTRIAL E NGINES C ONTROL M ETHODS : R EPLACE OR R ETROFIT O LDER E NGINES TO T IER III E QUIVALENT OR B ETTER E MISSIONS ( TONS /D AY ): N OT D ETERMINED C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD


### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY The purpose of this control measure is to ban the operation of Tier 0, Tier 1 and Tier 2 offroad diesel engines (larger than 25 horsepower) during high pollution days.


### Background Off-road heavy-duty construction and industrial equipment account for 19% and 7% of the total NOx and PM emissions, respectively, in 2014. At least 60% of today’s heavy-duty construction equipment fleets were manufactured before 1988 and not subject to new engine standards. In their study, CARB indicated that large old diesel off-road equipment remains in use for long periods of time, sometimes up to 60 years. This long life means that cleaner engines are introduced to the fleet at a very slow rate. Therefore, further emission reductions could be achieved by banning the ope ration of the older engines and accelerating the introduction of cleaner engines and emissions control technologies.


### Regulatory History The Federal Clean Air Act prohibits states from adopting emission standards from new engines used in construction and farming equipment less than 175 horsepower. Diesel engines greater than 175 horsepower are re gulated by CARB. In August 1998, U.S. EPA adopted new emission standards pertaining to o ff-road diesel engines. Subsequently, in January 2000 and in December 2004, CARB adopted amendments to existing California emission standards to harmonize with the fede ral requirement. These amendments included a tiered approach starting from 1996 for Tier 1 to 2008-2012 for Tier 4.

CARB is currently proposing to establish dec lining fleet average emission levels for offroad equipment over 25 horsepower as stated in Control Measure, ARB-OFRD-04, Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment, of the Propos ed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan, January 31, 2007. The ow ners have the flexibility of swapping, purchasing newer cleaner engines, adding emission control devices to older engines, or even just restricting unnecessary equipment idling. CARB estimates that this measure would reduce NOx emissions by 13.8 tons per day, VOC emissions by 2.2 tons per day, and PM2.5Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTY-03

IV-A-173 emissions by 2.5 tons per day by 2014; and 13.2 tons per day, VOC emissions by 2.1 tons per day, and PM2.5 emissions by 1.7 tons per da y by 2020. CARB staff is currently in the process of developing a statewide regulation to im plement this measure. The District is also proposing a complementary strategy for this source category to achieve additional reductions (refer to SC-OFFRD-01.)



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL

In the event the SCAB fails to attain th e PM2.5 standard by 2015, the District will propose to ban the use of pre-Tier 3 off-road diesel engines during high pollution days.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION The emission reductions from this control measure have not yet been determined. They will be assessed once ARB-OFRD-04 & SC-OFFRD-01 measures are implemented.



### RULE COMPLIANCE Compliance with this control measure would be through monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the District regulations.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY Under state law the District has authority to establish operational requirements for nonvehicular sources (nonroad sources) such as off-road construction and industrial equipment, to the extent not preempted under federal law (Health & Safety Code Section 39002). This control measure would be implem ented by the District using this authority and/or its authority to reduce emissions from indirect sources (Health & Safety Code Section 40716). While the District does not belie ve this would be necessary, if necessary, the District would seek authority from the EPA.



### REFERENCES CARB Proposed State Strategy for California’ s 2007 State Implementation Plan, January 31, 2007.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTY-04

IV-A-174 

### ACCELERATED IMPLEMENTATION OF CARB’S MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
S OURCE C ATEGORY : O N -R OAD AND O FF -R OAD M OBILE S OURCES
C ONTROL M ETHODS : A LL A VAILABLE C ONTROL M ETHODS
E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ): R EDUCTIONS A S E STIMATED I N CARB’ S C ONTROL M EASURES W ILL B E A CCELERATED B Y O NE Y EAR
C ONTROL C OST : C OSTS A S E STIMATED I N CARB’ S C ONTROL M EASURES W ILL O CCUR O NE Y EAR E ARLIER
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : AQMD


### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background CARB’s draft proposed state strategy includes a number of control measures for mobile sources and consumer products based on all available control technologies which are proposed to be implemented between 2007 a nd 2020. CARB includes 12 control measures for these categories as identified in Appendix IV-B-1. The intent of this contingency control measure is to accelerate the implementation schedule of those measures by one year.


### Regulatory History CARB has the responsibility for developing th e state strategy component of the AQMP’s overall control strategy.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL

In the event the District or Air Resources Boar d determines that the Basin failed to either achieve interim emission reduction goals or maintain adequate progress towards attainment of the PM2.5 and the 8-hour ozone standard, th e District requests that CARB accelerate its adoption and implementation schedule for the remaining mobile source control measures in the 2007 AQMP by one year. Upon determining that an RFP milestone target has not been reached, or the District fails to demonstrate a ttainment for applicable air quality standards, the District will request that CARB accelerate the adoption and/or implementation of the remaining control measures that have not ye t been adopted or fully implemented to the extent feasible. Accelerating the implemen tation schedule, although feasible, may require additional staffing resources and added implementation costs.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A CM #2007CTY-04

IV-A-175 

### EMISSIONS REDUCTION

The emission reductions from the accelerated schedules of CARB’s proposed control measures will be equivalent to those emi ssion reductions projected for each individual control measure for the same milestone year and will not be altered by a change in the implementation date.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS Accelerating the implementation schedule may cha nge the cost effectiveness associated with each measure.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

CARB



### REFERENCES CARB Proposed State Strategy for California’ s 2007 State Implementation Plan, January 31, 2007.

# ATTACHMENT A

TO FINAL 2007 AQMP APPENDIX IV-A

EVALUATION OF CONTROL MEASURES

PROPOSED BY OTHER DISTRICTS/STATESFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-176 In an effort to ensure that all feasible measures are incorporated in the 2007 AQMP, in addition to the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Demonstration included in Appendix VI, staff has also reviewed and ev aluated control measures proposed by other districts and states for inclusion in their respective SIPs. Specifically, staff evaluated control measures being considered by the ai r pollution control districts of San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Metropolitan and San Francisco Bay Area in California as well as control measures being considered by Texas a nd Midwest States. This attachment provides a summary of this evaluation. In general, the rules and regulation already adopted or control measures proposed by the District as part of the 2007 AQMP are equivalent or greater stringency than the control measures being cons idered by these areas. District staff commits to closely monitor the evolution, adoption and subsequent implementation of these control measures by their respective areas and states. In the event there are any more stringent elements than those incorporated in District pr ograms that emerge from this process that are feasible and cost-effective for this District, staff commits to pursue their inclusion into the District’s future rulemaking activities.

A summary of the control measures and the pro cess of developing these control measures in other air districts is provided below and is summarized in Table A-1 of Attachment A.

San Joaquin Valley Area The San Joaquin Valley is classified as a “S erious” non-attainment area and is required to meet the 8-hour ozone standards by June 2013. As discussed in their final draft plan, published in January 29, 2007, the San Joaquin Valley District took various steps to generate concepts for control measures such as investigating control strategies and measures in other districts and agencies, analyzing all district rules affecti ng NOx and VOC to assess possibilities for strengthening and expanding th eir applicability, and conducting Town Hall meetings to gather ideas from the public. Af ter considering a variety of factors, including technological feasibility and practicality of emission controls, emission inventories, emission reductions, control costs, rate and tim ing of emissions reductions, the San Joaquin Valley District published a final draft list of c ontrol measures consisting of 19 measures that could be reasonable developed and implemente d by the 2012 date based on current available existing technologies. In addition, San Joaqui n Valley District also introduced 20 control

measures 11 where further feasibility studies are need ed since information has not yet been available to satisfactorily evaluate a particular control. The list of 19 measures that could be implemented in San Joaquin Valley area by year 2012 is shown in Table A-1 of Attachment A – Control Measures from Ot her Districts. The San Joaquin Valley area included all of CARB’s proposed control measures to reduce m obile source emissions in their final draft AQMP. Cost-effectiveness data was not provided in their plan.

11 Twenty measures required further studies identified by the San Joaquin Valley APCD are: ICE Electrification & Pump Efficiency, Prescribed Burning, Oil Production Sumps, Heavy Crude Oil Components, Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Small Boilers, Wine Fermentation & Storage, Asphalt Roofing Pesticide Fumigation Chambers Dryers, Asphalt Paving, Bakeries, POTW Water Treatment, Reduction of Animal Matter, Refinery Turnaround Units, Refinery Vacuum Devices, and Refinery Wastewater Separators.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-177 As shown in Table A-1 of Attachment A – Cont rol Measures from Other Districts, District staff includes all feasible control measures that are also included in the San Joaquin Valley’s 2007 AQMP, except the control measure for wine fermentation and storage since there is no such facility in the District.

In addition, since the South Coast Basin is cla ssified as Severe-17 for ozone non-attainment (potentially will be bumped-up to “Extreme”) , the SCAQMD’s draft plan includes more stringent control measures than San Joaquin’ s draft plan as discussed in Appendix VI – Reasonable Available Control Measures (RACM) Demonstration.

Sacramento Metropolitan The Sacramento regional area is classified as a “Serious” non-attainment area and is required to meet the 8-hour ozone standards by June 2013. As discussed in their draft plan, the Sacramento district took various steps to ge nerate concepts for control measures such as investigating control strategies and measures in other districts and agencies, analyzing all District rules affecting NOx and VOC to assess possibilities for strengthening and expanding their applicability, and conducting public meetings. After considering a variety of factors, including technological feasibility a nd practicality of emission controls, emission inventory of the source category and emission re ductions, control costs, rate and timing of emissions reductions, the Sacramento regional ar ea published a draft list of control measures consisting of 10 measures for stationary and area sources and several voluntary measures for mobile sources as shown in Table A-1 of Att achment A. The Sacramento area includes all CARB’s proposed control measures to reduce mob ile source emissions in their plan. Costeffectiveness for stationary source control meas ures was estimated to be in a range of $1,000 - $18,000 per ton of emissions reduced.

As shown in Table A-1 of Attach ment A, District staff includes all feasible control measures that are also included in the Sacramento’s 2007 AQMP. In addition, as discussed in Appendix VI – Reasonably Available Control M easures (RACM) Demonstration, it contains additional control measures that are not included in the Sacramento’s draft plan.

San Francisco Bay Area With respect to 8-hour ozone standards, the Bay Area is classified as “Marginal” and is required to meet the 8-hour standards by June 2007. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy to demonstrate how the San Francisco Bay Area w ould achieve compliance with the state onehour air quality standard for ozone as expeditiously as practicable. The control strategies to meet the one-hour ozone standards would be re lied upon in the transition to meet the 8-hour ozone standards. After carefully reviewi ng and analyzing a list of 390 control measure suggestions (not including transportation contro l measures), the Bay Area finalized a list of 38 control measures for their 2005 AQMP including:

• 15 measures for stationary sources as s hown in Table A-1 of Attachment A with cost effectiveness reported from $800 per ton to $22,000 per ton emission reducedFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-178 • 4 control strategies for mobile sources , including diesel equipment idling model ordinance, green contracting model ordina nce, low-emission vehicle incentives, and vehicle buy-back program, with estimated cost effectiveness ranging from $500 per ton to $40,000 per ton emission reduced

• 19 transportation control measures that cover the full spectrum of transportation strategies, including bus transit, rail transit, ferry service, carpooling and vanpooling, bicycle and pedestrian enha ncements, land use programs, pricing measures, traffic management, employer programs and youth programs, and public education and episodic measures. The estimated cost-effectiveness of the transportation measures was not provided.

The Bay Area relied on CARB’s proposed control measures to reduce mobile source emissions and committed to further study 20 additional control measures in the 2006-2007 time frame including areas such as refinery wa stewater treatment, commercial charbroilers, cooling towers, adhesives and sealants, architectural coatings and episodic measures.

As shown in Table A-1 of Attach ment A, District staff includes all feasible control measures that are also included in the Bay Area’s plan; and as discussed in Appendix VI – Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Demonstr ation, it also contains additional control measures that are not included in the Bay Area’s plan.

State of Texas The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) contracted with the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCT COG) to evaluate and quantify potential control measures to develop the 8-hour ozone SIP for the Dallas-Forth Worth (DFW) and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) areas . The NCTCOG subcontracted with two consultants, Environ International and the Si erra Nevada Air Quality Group, to perform the strategy development work. An initial master list consisted of 1,050 potential control strategies was developed. After a series of public meetings and further evaluation (based on criteria such as permanent, quantifiable, en forceable, surplus, practicality, likely public acceptance, timing of implementation to meet January 2009 attainment date, emissions benefit, and cost effectiveness), the NCTCOG settled on a final list of 61 control measures shown in Table A-1 of Attachment A including the following:

• 17 control measures for point and area sources, which focus on NOx reductions more than VOC reductions, including furt her reductions for boilers, internal combustion engines, kilns, electric genera tion units, cold cleaning, architectural and industrial coatings, and area source credits for energy conservation and efficiency. Cost-effectiveness was estimated to be from $100 - $20,000 per ton emission reduced.

• 11 non-road mobile strategies including ai rcraft emission standards, California portable engine rule, incentives for emi ssion reductions with public funding, freight rail infrastructure improvements, hybrid-electric locomotives, lawn mower replacement program, limitations on idling of heavy-duty construction equipment, locomotive idling restrictions, rail efficiency, and Tier II standards for locomotives.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-179 Cost effectiveness was reported to be from $1,000 - $51,914 per ton emission reduced. 32 on-road mobile strategies, including trans portation control measures, such as adopting California vehicle standards, additional taxi fleet emissions testing, Texas repair and replacement assistance program, California low-emitting vehicle II standards, CARB 2007 on-highway diesel engine standards, heavy-dut y and light-duty idling restriction, speed limit decrease for heavy-duty diesel trucks, expande d I/M to include diesel vehicles, higher vehicle occupancies, idle reduction infrastr ucture, intelligent transportation systems, freeway and arterial bottleneck programs, bi cycle and pedestrian programs, congestion (value) pricing, drive-thru service restrictions, parking cash-out, pay-as-you-drive, transit off-peak pass, traffic signal improvements, and fare-free transit-system-wide on ozone action days. Cost effectiveness was estimated to be from minus $137,883 (savings) to $106,686 per ton emission reduced.

The TCQE selected a subset of 61 control m easures proposed by NCTCOG to include in the proposed 2007 8-Hour SIP for Dallas-Fort Wo rth (DFW) and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HVB) metropolitan area. The TCQE chose to focus on measures that can be implemented by 2009 which can provide quantifiable NOx reductions from major sources such as power plants, boilers, internal combustion engines, and cement kilns units. For VOC reductions, the TCQE focused in under-estimated and under-reported sources such as storage tank’s roof landing, flash emissions, degassing of st orage tanks, transport vessels, and marine vessels. For on-road and off-road mobile source control measures, the TCQE recommended to adopt California mobile source standard s and supported several voluntary measures proposed by the SCAQMD. The TCQE rejected all the control measures that were not included in the SCAQMD’s 2007 AQMP based on th e reasons that these measures either would not accelerate the attainment date, were not enforceable, emission reductions could not be quantified or would not be significant, or would potentially have adverse impacts. As shown in Table A-1 of Attachment A, th e SCAQMD’s Final AQMP includes all control measures that are recommended by the TCQE for the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HVB) metropolitan areas in their 2007 draft AQMPs.

Midwest States The five states of the Midwest Regional Pl anning Organization (RPO), including Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio, ar e considering adopting additional control measures as part of their planning to achieve regional haze goals and to attain the ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standa rds (NAAQS). The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) issued a contr act to MACTEC Engineering and Consulting to identify and evaluate candidate control measures to support the state’s air quality planning activities. Under this contract, MACTEC was tasked to identify candidate control measures for regional haze, PM2.5, and ozone; collect information to support the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) engineer ing analysis required by the regional haze rules; conduct a technical and economic assessment of available control measures; and conduct a comprehensive assessment of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and NOx.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-180 MACTEC carefully reviewed hundreds of control measures and recommended a preliminary list of 70 control measures. After further analyses using criteria such as costs for implementation, and timing to implement the control measures to meet the attainment dates, MACTEC finalized a list of 17 control strategies focusing on further control electric generating units; industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers; petroleum refineries; iron and steel plants, Portland cement plants, ch emical plants, industrial surface coating, industrial solvent cleaning (degreasing), arch itectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings; printing presses; portable fuel cont ainer, auto refinishing, consumer solvents, gasoline dispensing facilities; asphalt paving; ga soline highway vehicles, diesel trucks and non-road engines. Cost-effectiveness of the control measures was reported from $200 - $20,000 per ton VOC reduced, $700 - $4,493 per ton NOx, and $800 - $6,912 per ton SOx.

As shown in Table A-1 of Attachment A, Distri ct staff includes all control measures that are suggested by the Midwest RPO to their five st ates including Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-181 TABLE A-1

Control Measures from Other Districts

This table lists the proposed control meas ures developed by San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, Bay Area, North Central Texas Council of Governments, and Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) or Midwest Regional Pl anning Organization (Midwest RPO) for their respective ozone plans. The District’s current rules and regulations have equivalent or greater stringency than other agencies’ rules and regula tions and proposed control measures in their respective SIPs with few exceptions, and as discusse d in Appendix VI, the District commits to monitor the rule development of other agencie s and, if necessary, further study and reevaluate the feasibility, costs and cost effectiveness, and air quality benefits of further controls.

Control Measure Concept 2007 AQMP Control Measure 2 San Joaquin’s Control Strategies for Stationary Sources 1 Develop alternatives for open burning BCM-04 Increase best management practices and add-on control for confined animal facilities MCS-07
Lower NOx standards for boilers, steam generators and process heaters rating 2-5 mmbtu/hr (potentially 9ppmv with low NOx and 6 ppmv with SCR and SNCR) MCS-07

Promote the use of electric heaters to replace boilers, steam generators and process heaters from 2-5 mmbtu/hr by incentives FLX-01
Lower NOx standards for boilers, steam generators and process heaters rating more than 5 mmbtu/hr to 6 ppmv potentially ppmv with SCR and SNCR MCS-07

Lower NOx standards for stationary gas turbines by 50% (current at 5 ppmv-50 ppmv for gas-fueled turbines, 3 ppmv for units >10 MW combined cycle, 25 ppmv -50 ppmv for liquid fueled turbines) MCS-07

Promote electrification and accelerate replacement of ICEs less than 50 bhp by incentives FLX-01
Lower NOx limit for glass melting furnaces (SCR technology) MCS-07 Lower NOx limit for residential water heaters based on South Coast Rule 1121 limit and accelerate replacement with electric units through incentives FLX-01

Develop Alternative Compliance Programs for previously regulated sources where additional controls are determined to be extremely expensive (e.g. large boilers) FLX-01

Further control on composting and biosolids, implementing BACT and other districts measures. MCS-07
Composting Green Waste MCS-04 Note: 1) San Joaquin Valley developed a nd included 19 control measures as shown in this table for their 2007 AQMP; and identified additional 20 areas that would require further st udies that would be conducted in 2008-2012; 2) In Control Measure MCS-07, the District commits to monitor the rule development of other agencies, and conduct further analysis to determine the feasibility, air quality benefits, and incremental costs/cost effectiveness of further controls if needed. In Control Measure FLX-01, the District proposes to implement a Carl Moyer-type incentive program for stationary sources.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-182 TABLE A-1 (continued)

Control Measures from Other Districts

Control Measure Concept 2007 AQMP Control Measure 2 Polystyrene Foam Operations – Lower VOC limits or increase control efficiency of control equipment. MCS-01 MCS-07 Wine Fermentation and Storage No Source Flares Control – incorporating experiences from BAAQMD and SCAQMD rules Existing rule in place
Soil Decontamination – Increase overall capture and control efficiency and eliminate allowances for aeration MCS-07
Gasoline Storage & Transfer – Removal of exemptions, increase inspection frequency, increase control efficiency, and implementing other measures MCS-07

Aviation Fuel Transfer – Reduce emissions associated with loading/unloading and fugitive emissions associated with aviation fuel transfer and storage MCS-07

Architectural Coatings Rule – Lower VOC limits to match those in other districts such as SCAQMD and where possible provide incentives for non-use of high VOC coatings during high ozone days. SC-LTM-03

Solvent Cleaning Operations – Lower allowable VOC content to match other air districts MCS-07
Adhesives – Lower certain VOC limits, increase control efficiency requirements to 95%, require use of HVLP spray equipment. MCS-07
Sacramento’s Control Strategies for Stationary Sources Architectural Coatings –Lower VOC limits SC-LTM-03 Automotive Refinishing – Lower VOC limits MCS-07 Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning – Lower VOC limits MCS-07 Graphic Arts–Lower exemption level & cleaning solvent limits MCS-07 Natural Gas Production and Processi ng – Establish leak inspection frequencies and repair periods FUG-01
Unspecified Coatings - Impose VOC limitations for coating operations that have not been cove red by the existing rules, establish requirements for transfer efficiency, surface preparation and cleanup MCS-07

Asphalt Concrete - Low NOx burners/Flue gas re-circulation MCS-07 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters – Lower standards MCS-07 IC Engines - High percentage of the engines are registered as emergency power backup. Require installation of new emissions reduction technologies MCS-07

Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers – Establish limit for units from less than 75,000 btu/hr – 1 mmbtu/hr. MCS-07

Note: 2) There are two general District’s control measures in this table: a) Control Measure MCS-07 – Application of All Feasible Measures in which the District commits to monitor the rule development of other agencies, and conduct further analysis to determine the feasibility, air quality benefits, and incremental costs/cost effectiveness of further controls if needed.; and b) Control Measure FLX-01 – Economic Incentive Programs in which the District proposes to implement a Carl Moyer-type incentive progr am for stationary sources.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-183 TABLE A-1 (continued)

Control Measures from Other Districts

Control Measure Concept 2007 AQMP Control Measure 2 Bay Area’s Control Strategies for Stationary Sources Auto Refinishing - Reduce VOC limits for some coating categories MCS-07 Graphic Arts Operations - Reduce VOC limits for flexographic ink and clean up solvent MCS-07
High Emitting Spray Booths - Require additional controls on spray booths that emit >20 tons per year MCS-07
Polyester Resin Operations - Reduce allowable monomer content for some types of polyester resins MCS-07
Wood Coating Operations - Reduce VOC limits for some coating categories MCS-07
Flares - Minimize flaring MCS-07 Gasoline Bulk Terminals and Plants - Require automatic shutoff and backpressure monitors, set more stringent leak, emission standards MCS-07
Marine Loading Operations - Control additional categories, set more stringent leak standards and/or control housekeeping emissions MCS-07
Organic Liquid Storage - Tighten existing requirements and/or control lower vapor pressure liquids MCS-07
Pressure Relief Devices - Improve enforceability of rule MCS-07 Wastewater Systems - Control emissions from wastewater collection systems MCS-07
Industrial, Institutional and Commercial Boilers - Extend existing limits to smaller boilers and/or set a more stringent standard MCS-07
Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers - Require new, small boilers and large water heaters to meet NOx limits MCS-07
Stationary Gas Turbines - Implement BARCT NOx limits on existing turbines MCS-07
Energy Conservation - Educate government, industry and the public in energy efficient choices MCS-03
North Central Texas’s Control Strategies

• Stationary Sources Adopt BARCT to existing sources and BACT to new sources of electric generating units, boilers, petroleum refineries, iron/steel plants, Portland cement and chemical plants MCS-07

Architectural & Industrial Coatings MCS-01 Area Source Credit for Energy Conservation and Efficiency MCS-03 Cold Cleaning Regulations MCS-07 Commercial and Consumer Products Requirements MCS-07 SC-LTM-03 Note: 2) There are two general District’s control measures in this table: a) Control Measure MCS-07 – Application of All Feasible Measures in which the District commits to monitor the rule development of other agencies, and conduct further analysis to determine the feasibility, air quality benefits, and incremental costs/cost effectiveness of further controls if needed.; and b) Control Measure FLX-01 – Economic Incentive Programs in which the District proposes to implement a Carl Moyer-type incentive progr am for stationary sources.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-184 TABLE A-1 (continued)

Control Measures from Other Districts

Control Measure Concept 2007 AQMP Control Measure 2 Fuel Hose Permeation None Glycol Dehydrators MCS-07 NOxEAT Software None Boilers & Heaters (All types) MCS-07 Stationary IC Engines MCS-07 Kilns (e.g. lime, aggregate, brick, Portland cement) MCS-07 Alternate Energy Sources to Reduce Emissions from Electricity Generation FLX-01

• Mobile Sources Aircraft Emissions Standards EPA’s Jurisdiction California Portable Engine Rule Existing Rule Emission Reduction Contract Incentives with Public Funding Enhanced TERP Program – provide funds for HHDT retrofit/replacement MOB-04
Freight Rail Infrastructure Improvements TCM Lawn Mower Replacement Program MOB-02 Limitations on Idling of Heavy-Duty Construction Equipment ARB-OFFRD-04 Locomotive Idling Reductions Existing Rule 3502 Hybrid-Electric Locomotives ARB-OFFRD-02 SC-OFFRD-04 Tier II Locomotive Emission Standards ARB-OFFRD-02 SC-OFFRD-04 1974 and Older Model Year Vehicles I/M Exemption ARB-ONRD-01 Additional Taxi Fleet Emissions Testing ARB-ONRD-01 AirCheck Texas Repair and Replacement Assistance Program None Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs TCM California Low Emitting Vehicle (LEV) II Standards Existing Std CARB 2007 On-Highway Diesel Engine Standards Existing Std Clean Fleet Vehicle Procurement Po licy/Clean Fleet Program ARB-ONRD-04 Congestion (Value) Pricing None Drive-Thru Service Restrictions None ETR-Best Workplaces Program TCM ETR-Transit Subsidy Programs TCM ETR-Vanpool/Carpool Programs Existing Program Expanded I/M to Include Diesel Vehicles ARB-ONRD-01 Freeway and Arterial Bottleneck Program TCM Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Restriction and Policy Existing Std Higher Vehicle Occupancies TCM Idle Reduction Infrastructure Existing Program Note: 2) There are two general District’s control measures in this table: a) Control Measure MCS-07 – Application of All Feasible Measures in which the District commits to monitor the rule development of other agencies, and conduct further analysis to determine the feasibility, air quality benefits, and incremental costs/cost effectiveness of further controls if needed.; and b) Control Measure FLX-01 – Economic Incentive Programs in which the District proposes to implement a Carl Moyer-type incentive progr am for stationary sources.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-A

IV-A-185 TABLE A-1 (continued)

Control Measures from Other Districts

Control Measure Concept 2007 AQMP Control Measure 2 Intelligent Transportation Systems TCM Light-Duty Vehicle Idling Restriction and Policy None Military Ground Equipment Emissions Testing None Lower Reid Vapor Pressure ARB-ONRD-03 Traffic Signal Improvements TCM Transit Off-Peak Pass TCM Stricter I/M Policy Enforcement ARB-ONRD-1 Speed Limit Decrease for Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks None Parking Cash-Out None Pay-As-You-Drive None Fare-Free Transit, System-Wide on Ozone Action Days None Midwest RPO’s Candidate Control Strategies for Stationary Sources Adopt BARCT to existing sources and BACT to new sources of electric generating units, boilers, petroleum refineries, iron/steel plants, Portland cement and chemical plants On-going Program MCS-07
Cold cleaning – Establish above RACT standards for degreasing, cold cleaning (vapor pressure maximum of 1 mm Hg at 68 degrees F & VOC limit of 0.21 lb/gal) Vapor degreasers - Expand MACT standards to all vapor degreasers, regardless of solvent types Existing Std
Lithographic printing - Adopt 90% control efficiency and more stringent VOC limits (e.g. SCAQMD limits) for inks, coatings and fountain solutions MCS-07

Rotogravure and flexographic printing - Adopt MACT standards for control equipment, 100% capture efficiency, 92% overall control efficiency for publication, 95% for other gravure and flexo MCS-07

Petroleum Tanks - Lower tank size applicability for petroleum external floating roof tanks and fixed roof tanks (e.g. include 10,000 gallons tanks) and make requirements more stringent MCS-07

Automotive Coating and Refinishing – Increase RACT stringency 100% capture and 95% control efficiency MCS-07
Metal Can Coating – Increase RACT stringency 100% capture, 97% control for new sources, and 95% for existing. MCS-07
Paper and other web surface coating – Lower VOC limit to 2.2 lbs/gal or increase RACT stringency to 100% capture, 90 % -95% control MCS-07

Wood furniture coating – Adopt SCAQMD VOC limits and revisit the exemption level Existing Std

Note: 2) There are two general District’s control measures in this table: a) Control Measure MCS-07 – Application of All Feasible Measures in which the District commits to monitor the rule development of other agencies, and conduct further analysis to determine the feasibility, air quality benefits, and incremental costs/cost effectiveness of further controls if needed.; and b) Control Measure FLX-01 – Economic Incentive Programs in which the District proposes to implement a Carl Moyer-type incentive progr am for stationary sources.