United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX Air Division

Technical Support Document 

for

EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

as submitted by the California Air Resources Board

EPA’s Analysis of

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s

Rule 4402, Crude Oil Production Sumps

October 2010

Prepared by Joanne Wells

Approved by Andrew Steckel
2

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

Submitted Rule

 Rule 4402, Crude Oil Production Sumps originally adopted on April 11, 1991 as Rule 

465.2, amended on December 17, 1992, and submitted on August 24, 2007. The 

submittal was determined complete on September 17, 2007. There are no other 

submittals of this rule on which EPA has not acted.

Applicable SIP Rule

 The SIP-approved rule is SJVUAPCD Rule 465.2, Crude Oil Production Sumps adopted 

on April 11, 1991, amended on September 19, 1991 and approved into SIP on December 

13, 1994 (59 FR 64132).

Background

On January 2, 2008 (73 FR 48), EPA published a direct final approval of revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concerned local rules that address 

reduction of animal matter, and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from crude oil 

operations and petroleum refinery equipment, asphalt paving and maintenance, and petroleum 

solvent dry cleaning. The direct final action was published without prior proposal because EPA 

anticipated no adverse comment. The direct final rule stated that if adverse comments were 

received by February 1, 2008, EPA would publish a timely removal in the Federal Register. 

EPA received a timely adverse comment. Consequently, we removed the direct final approval of 

SJVUAPCD Rules 4104, 4402, 4404, 4453, 4454, 4625, 4641, and 4672. (See 73 FR 13440)

In today’s action we are addressing SJVUAPCD Rule 4402. We do not intend to take final action 

based on our January 2008 proposal regarding this rule. As a result, we are not providing a 

thorough summary or reply to comments submitted in response to our January 2008 proposal 

regarding the SJVUAPCD Rule. Generally, the comments included concerns regarding the 

estimated emissions from crude oil sumps, the large number of exemptions in the rule and 

whether this rule complied with the requirements for reasonably available control technology

(RACT) described in CAA Section 182(b)(2) and elsewhere. 

Purposes of Rule and Rule Amendments

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOCs, oxides of 

nitrogen, particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the 

environment. This rule was developed as part of the local agency’s program to control VOC 

emissions. Specifically, Rule 4402 is designed to limit VOC emissions from crude oil 

production sumps. 

Rule amendments include: 

 The rule has been renumbered and the format updated. 

 Rule purpose is added. 

 Definition of VOC is deleted. 

 The exemptions for sumps at petroleum refineries (I.A) and the exemption for pits and 

ponds (I.B) have been moved from Section I (Applicability) to Section 4.0 (Exemptions) 

as sections 4.1.6 and 4.1.7. 
3

Rule Evaluation Criteria 

EPA is primarily using the following three criteria to evaluate Rule 4402.

1. Enforceability – CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted to EPA 

for SIP approval must be clear and legally enforceable. 

2. Anti-Backsliding - CAA §110(l) restricts certain SIP revisions that would relax 

existing SIP-approved requirements. 

3. Rule Stringency – CAA §172(b) and 182(a)(2)(A) require ozone nonattainment 

areas to implement RACT for ozone precursors. The SJVUAPCD regulates an 

extreme 1-hr ozone nonattainment area and an extreme 8-hr ozone nonattainment 

area (see 40 CFR part 81) and must fulfill the requirements of RACT.

 

RACT Discussion

A. SJVUAPCD 2009 RACT Demonstration

On April 16, 2009, SJVUAPCD adopted its “RACT Demonstration for Ozone SIP,” which 

provides the District’s demonstration that RACT is implemented for all appropriate sources. This 

includes several pages discussing Rule 4402. (See Cover and applicable pages attached.) In 

summary, SJVUAPCD states that: 

 The 2007 emissions inventory estimated VOC emissions from crude oil sumps in the 

district at approximately 2.6 tons/day. This updated emissions estimate is based on 

survey data collected from oil producers for 2007. See attachment 3, 2007 Area Source 

Emissions Inventory Methodology, 310- Oil Production Fugitive Losses. 

 This emissions estimate of 2.6 tons/day is in contrast to SJVUAPCD’s previous 

emissions estimate of 3 to 60 tons/day based on 1990’s data from the Department of Oil, 

Gas, and Geothermal Energy database. This data was largely found to be inaccurate and 

did not account for many closed and inactive sumps. See SJVUAPCD’s RACT 

Demonstration for Ozone SIP for further explanation.

 There are no national guidance (CTG or ACT) or regulation (NSPS, NESHAP, or 

MACT) to help define RACT for this category. 

 Rule 4402 imposes similar requirements to those in Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District (VCAPCD) Rule 71.4. Although VCAPCD’s rule does not allow 1st

stage sumps and SJVUAPCD Rule 4402 does allow 1st stage sumps, SJVUAPCD does 

not believe that Rule 4402 is less stringent. In addition, the 2007 emissions inventory

survey data shows that there are no active 1st stage sumps operating in SJVUAPCD (see 

attachment 3).

 Santa Barbara County (SBCAPCD) is the only other California district that exempts 

small producers of light or heavy crude (less than 150 barrels/day) from regulation. 

SJVUAPCD exempts small producer 2

nd and 3rd stage sumps less than 1000 square feet 

surface area used for only heavy crude oil (small producer is less than 6000 barrels/day at 

all locations in county). SJVUAPCD also exempts very small producers (150 
4

barrels/day) with 2nd and 3rd stage sumps less than 5000 square feet surface area used 

only for heavy crude oil. SJVUAPCD states that their exemptions for small producers are 

similar to the SBCAPCD exemption. 

 Based on low true vapor pressure (TVP) and low emissions from heavy crude, the VOC 

emissions from 2nd and 3rd stage sumps from small and very small producers are 

relatively low and to require them to install and operate a fixed or floating cover would 

not be economically feasible. SJVUAPCD estimated the cost effectiveness of a rigid 

floating cover for a 5000 sq. ft. second stage sump containing heavy crude oil to be 

$64,800 per ton of VOC reduced. (See RACT Demonstration for Ozone SIP, Page 4-79)

 Exemptions for minimal VOC emissions (0.007 lbs/sq.ft./day) and clean produced water 

(35 milligrams/liter) are still appropriate because the emissions are very low and 

installing controls would be economically infeasible. SJVUAPCD states that the cost of 

controlling VOC emissions from these low emission sumps and ponds would be 

significantly higher than the cost of controlling emissions from the heavy crude oils 

sumps ($64,800 per ton of VOC reduced for 2nd stage, as noted above).

B. Requirements found in other California District Rules

The following is a list of more stringent requirements found in analogous rules from neighboring 

agencies: 

 South Coast (SCAQMD) Rule 1176 and San Luis Obispo (SLOCAPCD) Rule 419 

require floating covers to have seals and the gap cannot exceed 1/8” for a cumulative 

length of 97% of the perimeter. Rule 4402 allows a 1 inch gap and does not require 

seals.

 SCAQMD Rule 1176 and SBCAPCD Rule 344 require that fixed covers be equipped 

with an air pollution control (APC) device with a control efficiency of 95% of VOCs. 

Rule 4402 only requires a pressure/vacuum valve set to within ten percent of 

maximum safe working pressure of cover. 

 SCAQMD Rule 1176 requires monthly to annual inspections for leaks and testing 

operation of APC equipment. Rule 4402 does not require inspections. 

 SJVUAPCD Rule 4402 has a large number of exemptions either not found or broader 

and less restrictive than exemptions found in other district rules. These exemptions 

allow uncontrolled VOC emissions from exempted 2nd and 3rd stage sumps and 

ponds. See detailed review of exemptions below. 

 Rule 4402 does not define “intermittent” as used in Section 3.7 definition of Pit or 

place any limit on the amount of time oily water can be kept in an emergency pit 

before it is cleaned up. SLOCAPCD Rule 419 requires clean-up to begin within 24 

hours and limits clean-up to 15 days and SBCAPCD Rule 344 limits use of pits to 

less than 30 days per year. Lack of a time limit would allow uncontrolled emissions 

for an unlimited amount of time. 

C. Discussion of Rule 4402 Exemptions 

Rule 4402 includes a number of exemptions where requirements of the rule do not apply. The 

following is a brief review and discussion of all the exemptions listed in the rule.
5

1. Small producers and very small producers (4.1.1 & 4.1.3):

 Exempts small producer (6000 barrels/day average over 2 years from all operations 

within the county) 2nd and 3rd stage sumps that are less than 1000 sq. ft surface area 

and are only used for heavy crude oil. 

 Also exempts very small producer (300 barrels/day average over 2 years from all 

operations in the county and only 50 barrels/day per lease) 2nd and 3rd stage sumps 

that are less than 5000 sq. ft. surface and that are solely used for heavy crude oil. 

 The only other California district rule found that exempts small producer 2

nd & 3rd

stage sumps is SBCAPCD Rule 344 which exempts small producers (less than 150 

barrels/day average over 1 year) with no restriction on surface area of sump or type of 

crude oil.

 SBCAPCD Rule 344 also exempts any 2nd or 3rd stage sump less than 1000 sq. ft 

surface area.

 SLOCAPCD Rule 419 exempts pits, ponds, and sumps less than 100 sq. ft. surface 

area. 

 In the RACT Demonstration, SJVUAPCD estimates the cost effectiveness for 

controlling the emissions from a 5000 sq. ft 2nd stage sump containing heavy crude oil 

to be about $64,800 per ton of VOC reduced and that the cost per ton would be even 

higher for 3rd Stage sumps. The district then concludes that due to economic 

infeasibility, they believe that these exemptions for small and very small producers 

are still appropriate. (See page 4-79 of SJVUAPCD RACT Demonstration for Ozone 

SIP)

2. 2

nd and 3rd stage sumps used solely for clean produced water containing less than 35 mg/l 

VOCs (4.1.2). 

 SCAQMD, VCAPCD, and SLOCAPCD rules exempt sumps used for wastewater that 

do not exceed 5 mg/l of VOCs. 

 SJVUAPCD’s RACT analysis states that the emissions from clean produced water 

are significantly less than heavy crude and the cost for controlling emissions from 

these low emission sumps would be significantly higher per ton of VOC reduced than 

for heavy crude oil sumps. Due to this higher cost, it would be economically

infeasible to control these emissions and therefore this exemption is appropriate. 

3. Any sump with estimated emissions of 0.007 lbs/sf-day or less as established by ARB 

flux-box method (4.1.4).

 Emissions of 0.007 lbs/sf-day is slightly lower than the uncontrolled emissions factor 

for light crude from 3rd stage sumps (0.008 lbs/sf-day), and slightly higher than the 

emission factor for 3rd stage sumps for heavy crude oil (0.005 lbs/sf-day). 

 Therefore, it is likely that 3rd stage light crude oil sumps would not be exempt, but 3rd

stage heavy crude oil sumps could be exempt. We do not know if this exemption is 

used by any crude oil producers at this time.

 SJVUAPCD states in their RACT analysis that controlling emissions from these low 

emission sumps would be economically infeasible as stated above for sumps 

containing only clean produced water. 

 No other California district rule was found to have a similar exemption. 

4. Any sump used less than 7 days in one month and not more than 21 days per year (4.1.5). 

 No other districts were found to have a similar exemption.

5. Sumps at petroleum refineries (4.1.6)
6

 Sumps located at petroleum refineries are exempt.

 Rule 4402 is intended to control emissions from crude oil production sumps and is

not meant to address sumps at petroleum refineries.

6. Pits or Ponds (4.1.7)

 Pits by definition in Rule 4402 are used only intermittently or for emergency

collection of crude oil and water and not for oil water separation. 

 SBCAPCD exempts pits used for emergencies that are used less than 30 days per year 

and VCAPCD also exempts emergency pits.

 SLOCAPCD exempts emergency pits if cleanup is implemented within 24 hours and 

is completed within 15 days. 

 Ponds by definition in Rule 4402 are used only to store clean produced water (less 

than 35 mg/l VOCs) and not used for separation of oil and water. 

 SCAQMD and other air districts set the limit for clean water at 5 mg/l of VOCs.

 We understand that many ponds in the San Joaquin Valley have been closed under 

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) order, but other ponds continue to 

operate in the district. (See Attachment 5)

 These ponds can cover many acres and handle a large volume of oily wastewater (as 

much as a million gallons per day). For example, see RWQCB Order No. R5-2002-

0223, Waste Discharge Requirements for Valley Waste Disposal Company, Broad 

Creak No. 2 Facility (Attachment 4). Emissions from these ponds are not included in

SJVUAPCD’s current VOC emissions estimate (2.6 ton/day) for crude oil sumps 

because they are exempt. It is not known if the VOC emissions from the ponds are 

significant or not. The ponds that initially receive wastewater from oil production 

would have the highest VOC concentrations and are of particular concern. 

Rule Evaluation

A. Enforceability and Anti-Backsliding

The amendments to this rule are largely administrative, do not substantively change or relax 

requirements, but make the rule slightly clearer and more consistent with other SJVUAPCD 

rules. The rule is generally enforceable, although several test methods are outdated and/or 

inappropriate. 

B. RACT

We concur with SJVUAPCD’s analysis that Rule 4402 imposes some requirements that are 

similar to the requirements found in other California district rules for controlling VOC emissions 

from crude oil sumps. However, SJVUAPCD has not adequately demonstrated that Rule 4402 

implements RACT in light of the more stringent requirements found in these rules from other 

California air districts, some of which are in attainment or are designated as moderate 

nonattainment for ozone. 

C. Rule Deficiencies

The following deficiencies preclude full approval of Rule 4402 into the SIP.
7

1. SJVUAPCD should strengthen these requirements to help implement RACT or demonstrate 

why such improvements are not appropriate in light of analogous requirements in 

neighboring districts.

a. Section 5.1.2 allows a 1 inch gap and does not require seals for rigid floating covers. In 

contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(e)(2)(B)(vi) and SLOCAPCD Rule 419 D.2.e. require rigid 

floating covers to have seals, the gap cannot exceed 1/8” for a cumulative length of 95% of 

the perimeter, and no single gap may exceed 1⁄2 inch.

b. Section 5.2.5 requires fixed covers to be equipped with a pressure/vacuum valve set to within 

ten percent of maximum safe working pressure. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(2)(A)(ii) 

and (6)(A) and SBCAPCD Rule 344 D.2.b.2 require that fixed covers be equipped with a 

95% efficient Air Pollution Control (APC) device. 

c. Rule 4402 does not require periodic inspection of covers and APC equipment to ensure 

proper operation. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(f)(C) requires periodic leak inspection 

and APC testing. 

d. Rule 4402 has exemptions that are more broad than those found in other district rules. 

SJVUAPCD should analyze whether these exemptions continue to be appropriate. This 

analysis should consider more current cost data than used in the 2009 RACT Analysis, and 

should consider alternative disposal methods (e.g., underground injection, tanks, or 

additional pretreatment) in addition to sump and pond covers. The following exemptions are 

of particular concern:

 Uncontrolled VOC emissions from exempted 2nd and 3rd stage sumps. Section 4.1.1 

exempts operations less than 6000 barrels per day with sumps less than 1000 sf and 

section 4.1.3 exempts operations less than 300 barrels per day with sumps less than 5000

sf from substantive requirements. No other neighboring districts allow exemptions for 

small producers except for SBCAPCD Rule 344, which is more restrictive. 

 Section 4.1.7 exempts ponds of “clean produced water” with less than 35 mg/l VOC from 

Rule 4402 requirements. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(i)(5)(J), VCAPCD Rule 71.4 

C.1.c and SLOCAPCD Rule 419 C.4 exempt wastewater sumps only where the 

VOC/ROC content does not exceed 5 mg/l at the inlet. Of particular concern are VOC 

emissions from the ponds that initially receive the oily wastewater from oil production 

facilities. Alternatives including additional pretreatment to lower the VOC content and 

other disposal methods such as underground injection should be evaluated.

e. Rule 4402 does not limit the time that oil or oily water can be kept in an emergency pit. In 

contrast, SLOCAPCD Rule 419 C. 2 requires clean-up to begin within 24 hours and finish 

within 15 days. 

f. Rule 4402 allows 1st stage sumps. In contrast, SBCAPCD Rule 344 and VCAPCD Rule 71.4 

do not allow the operation of 1st stage sumps. 

g. Provisions should be added in Rule 4402 or Rule 4623 (Storage of Organic Liquids) that 

ensure that tanks used to replace the 1st stage crude oil sumps have adequate VOC controls. 

We understand that many 1st stage sumps have already been replaced with tanks; the district 

should ensure that emission controls for all these tanks are adequate.

2. The following revisions are needed to improve rule clarity and enforceability consistent with 

CAA section 110(a).

a. Please remove the language at the end of Section 5.3 that states “If replacement tank 
8

exclusively serves identical function of sump replaced, permitting of such tank shall not 

be considered an emission change for the purposes of Rule 2201 (New and Modified 

Source Review Rule)”. Any exemptions to NSR requirements should be evaluated in the 

context of SJVUAPCD’s NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and incorporated within the 

NSR program only if appropriate. Such exemptions should not be in source specific 

prohibitory rules like Rule 4402. 

b. Revise section 6.2 Test Methods to remove and/or replace inappropriate or outdated test 

methods such as 6.2.1 ARB Method 432, which is designed for paints and coatings and 

not oily wastewater. We also recommend adding EPA Test Method 21 in section 6.2 for 

determining leaks. 

c. Update the definition of clean product water (Section 3.1) replacing outdated EPA Test 

Methods 4.13.2, 418.2 and 8240 that used CFC-113 as the extraction solvent. The new 

test methods using non-CFC extraction solvents are EPA Method 1664A and EPA 

Method 8260. See guidance documents referenced below.

d. Please revise section 6.1 (Recordkeeping) to:

 Add requirement for facilities to keep records of all inspections for leaks and testing 

of APC devices (for example, see SCAQMD Rule 1176 (g) (1)). 

 Add requirement to document use of emergency pits, including when use started, 

clean-up started and clean-up finished. 

 Require documentation justifying any exemptions claimed under section 4, including 

4.1.7, which exempts pits and ponds. 

 Add requirements to verify the sump surface area and the annual production rates for 

both the small producers and very small producers in section 6.1.1. 

 Add requirement to keep all records for at least two, and preferably five years.

EPA Action

The revisions to submitted Rule 4402 are largely administrative changes that marginally improve

the SIP, but the deficiencies discussed above preclude full approval. As a result, EPA staff

recommends a simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval of the August 24, 2007 

submittal of SJVUAPCD Rule 4402 pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA as amended in 1990. 

If finalized as proposed, the rule deficiencies identified above would trigger CAA Section 

110(m) sanction and Section 110(c) federal implementation plan (FIP) obligations because the 

San Joaquin Valley is an extreme nonattainment area for ozone and is required to implement 

RACT. 

 

EPA Recommendations

The following revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are recommended as 

improvements when this rule is amended.

1. We suggest deleting section 7.0 Compliance Schedule since it is no longer applicable.

2. We suggest increasing the requirements for testing wastewater at each inlet to the clean 

produced water ponds from annually to least quarterly to ensure ongoing compliance with 

wastewater VOC limits.

3. Rule 4402 does not include controls for crude oil well cellars. We suggest that 

SJVUAPCD evaluate whether to include requirements for controlling emissions from 

crude oil well cellars in Rule 4402 or as a separate rule. 
9

Guidance and Policy Documents

Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate rules and RACT requirements 

consistently include the following:

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern 

RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987).

2. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, U.S. 

EPA, 40 CFR part 51.

3. Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).

4. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA (May

25, 1988). [The Bluebook]

5. Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA 

Region 9 (August 21, 2001). [The Little Bluebook]

6. RACT Qs & As-Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): Questions and 

Answers, EPA, William T. Harnett, May 18, 2006.

7. Clean Water Act Analytical Methods, Method 1664A, Oil and Grease

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/method/oil/oilfaq.html

8. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) Method 

8260, U.S. EPA. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/online/index.htm

Attachments

1. Submitted SJVUAPCD rules plus applicable SIP SJVUAPCD rules.

2. 2009 RACT SIP, SJVUAPCD (April 16, 2009). [Cover plus sections relevant to 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4402].

3. 2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology: 310-Oil Production Fugitive 

Losses, SJVUAPCD Rev. Date: 23 Jan 09.

4. Order No. R5-2002-0223, Waste Discharge Requirements for Valley Wastse Disposal 

Company,, Broad Creek No. 2 Facility, Midway-Sunset & Buena Vista Oil Fields, Kern 

County, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region.

5. Record of telephone conversation, between Joanne Wells, EPA, and Doug Wachtell, 

RWQCB, 5/26/10.