Clarifications Regarding the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan

for the Revoked Federal 1-hr Ozone Standard August 21, 2008

Background

On October 8, 2004 the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) adopted the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration

Plan ( EOADP ), which fulfilled the District’s plan commitment for the federal 1-hr ozone standard as outlined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency (EPA) in their final rule approving the state of California’s reque st to classify the San Joaquin Valley Air

Basin as extreme nonattainment for the federal 1-hr ozone standard (69 FR 20551). Submittal of this plan to EPA also fulfilled on e of three options for fulfilling 1-hr ozone planning requirements as outlined by EPA in their Phase I Implementation Rule for the federal 8-hr ozone standard [40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)]. On Oct ober 28, 2004, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) approved this plan and forwarded it to EPA by the November 15, 2004 deadline established by EPA (69 FR 20551). EPA found the transportation conformity budgets in the plan to be adequate on February 15, 2005 (70

FR 7734). The 2004 EOADP became complete by operation of law on May 15, 2005 (Section 110(k)(b) of the federal Clean Air Act).

On June 15, 2005, EPA’s revocation of the federal 1-hr ozone ambient air quality standard became effective (40 CFR 50.9( b)), as described in the Phase I Implementation Rule for 8-hr ozone (69 FR 23951). On December 22, 2006 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colu mbia Circuit vacated the entire Phase I Implementation Rule for 8-hr ozone, but la ter (June 8, 2007) let stand EPA’s revocation

of the federal 1-hr ozone st andard. In part because of un certainties associated with litigation on the Phase I Impl ementation Rule for 8-hr ozone, and in part because of a collective focus on challenges associated wi th developing state implementation plans (SIPs) for 8-hr ozone and PM2.5, EPA delayed its appr oval action on the 2004 EOADP

. In early 2008, EPA resumed their review of the plan, which was intensified due to a lawsuit filed by the Association of Irri tated Residents and the Natural Resources Defense Council [No. CV 08-022 7-SC (N. D. Cal.)]. This lawsuit seeks to compel the

EPA administrator to take action on three SI P revisions submitted to EPA by the State of California, one of which is the 2004 EOADP (73 FR 39288). EPA developed a proposed consent decree with the plaintiffs and agreed to fulfill its obligations under Section 110(k) of the federal Clean Air Act to act on t he three California SIPs by mutually agreed upon deadlines. EPA has agreed to sign Federal Register notices for the proposed approval actions by October 15, 2008, and to sign Federal Register notices of final actions by January 15, 2009.

After conducting a thorough review of the 2004 EOADP , EPA requested specific information, which if provided by ARB and the District, would facilitate their approval

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP 1San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Polluti on Control District August 21, 2008

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP action on the 2004 EOADP . A June 6, 2008 letter from Deborah Jordan (Director of the Air Division for EPA’s Region 9) to Seyed S adredin (Air Pollution Control Officer for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Dis trict), outlines these information needs. Because many of the items requested by EPA are for recent and updated information

not available at the time the 2004 EOADP was developed, or reflect post-2004 changes in law, regulation or policy, AR B and the District largely view t hem as clarifications to the original plan, and do not consider them as SIP revisions. However, to accommodate EPA’s requests as outlined in the June 6, 2008 le tter, the District is requesting that ARB

transmit the clarifications to EPA, if accepted by the Dis trict Governing Board, for incorporation as par t of the SIP.

The clarifications consist of the following principal components:

• Withdrawal of the Reas onably Available Control Technology (RACT) portion of the plan (Section 4.2.5), which will be fu lfilled when the District addresses the RACT requirements by enhancing the 8-hr ozone RACT SIP (40 CFR 51.912);

• Updated control measure calculations demonstrating actual emission reductions from adopted rules, which provide a surplus of emissions reductions that is more than sufficient to fulfill the long- term measure commitment in the 2004 EOADP

, thus eliminating the need for contingen cy measures to backstop the long-term measure commitment;

• Updated ROP calculations reflecting recent EPA policy decisions regarding emission reductions associated with pr e-1990 motor vehicle emission standards;

and

• Updated contingency measure discussion that reflects the excess reductions not

needed to demonstrate ROP and excess redu ctions from the state’s motor vehicle emission control program. Additi onal reductions are also available from new control measures developed for the 2007 Ozone Plan (addressing the federal 8-hr ozone standard) and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan , that can be used for contingency measures for the 2004 EOADP ; upon adoption, these measures would provide reductions that were not us ed in ROP or attainment demonstration for 1-hr ozone and that would go into effect without further action by the District, ARB or EPA, therefore meeting the definition of contingency measures.

In addition to the above items, EPA in July 2008 identified one additional clarification item requiring updating:

• Motor vehicle emission data showing downward trends for all years in the planning horizon covered by the 2004 EOADP , not just the ROP and attainment

years.

The following paragraphs discuss each of these in more detail.

2San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Polluti on Control District August 21, 2008

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

The 2004 EOADP was intended to meet the RACT requirements as outlined in EPA’s final rule approving California’s request to recl assify the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to

extreme nonattainment for the f ederal 1-hr ozone standard (70 FR 20551-20552), as well as prior Federal Register rulemakings regarding severe nonattainment (67 FR 61784). In developing its Phase 2 Implement ation Rule for the federal 8-hr ozone standard (published November 29, 2005 and effective January 30, 2006), EPA articulated new and more robust interpretations of RACT requirements first presented in

the 1990 amendments to the feder al Clean Air Act. These interpretations included development of a RACT SI P to be submitted to EPA by September 15, 2006. The District developed its RACT SIP in 2006 and the District Governing Board adopted it on August 17, 2006 and transmitted it promptly to ARB for submittal to EPA. ARB submitted the adopted RACT SIP to EPA on January 31, 2007 as part of a package of

five California RACT SIPs. This RACT SIP reflected a major source cutoff of 25 tpy, which was the major source cutoff in effe ct for the SJVAB under state law (California Health and Safety Code 42504) at the ti me of RACT SIP development. The 2007

Ozone Plan prepared subsequent to the RACT SIP identified a need for future emission reductions to come from advanced technology, thereby necessitating the reclassification

of the SJVAB to extreme nonattain ment for 8-hr ozone, which has a major source cutoff of 10 tpy. Consequently, upon EPA issuance of a final rule approving the request to reclassify the SJVAB to extreme nonattainment for the federal 8-hr ozone standard, the District is required to revise the RACT SIP to re flect a major source cuto ff of 10 tpy. In anticipation of this action, the District began wo rk on revising the RACT SIP in the fall of
2007. In December 2007, the District issued a revised Draft RACT SIP reflecting the lower major source cutoff and also incor porating new Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) issued by EPA. The District is now working with EPA to finalize this RACT SIP

that will reflect extreme nonattainment for th e federal 8-hr ozone standard and will fulfill applicable CTG requirements.

Because EPA has stated that t he RACT discussion in the 2004 EOADP is not approvable under EPA’s post-2004 RACT implement ation, the District is hereby formally withdrawing the RACT portion of the 2004 EOADP (Section 4.2.5) and will fill the resulting 1-hr ozone RACT gap with the revised 8-hr ozone RACT SIP now under development. EPA and the District agree that this approach is the best use of agency resources in fulfilling federal Clean Air Act requirements.

Rate of Progress (ROP) and Updated Emission Reductions

The District has prepared and submitted to EPA all required federal 1-hr ozone Rate of Progress (ROP) documentation. The Distr ict has adopted and implemented the control

measure commitments in the 2004 EOADP (Table 4-1 of the 2004 EOADP ). Analysis

of actual emission reductions obtained durin g the rule development process shows that

the District was able to secure emission reduct ions greatly exceeding those predicted in

the 2004 EOADP , even after accounting for the differ ent emission inventories used in

3San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Polluti on Control District August 21, 2008

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP 4 plan development vs rule development. Tabl e 1 shows the analysis of predicted vs. actual reductions for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ni trogen oxides (NOx)

emissions for each of the District control measures in the 2004 EOADP . Results indicate that the rule development process

• Met the plan’s commitment for VOC reductions and obtained over 6 tpd of

excess reductions above and beyond those predicted.

• Met the plan’s commitment for NOx reductions and obtained over 16 tpd of excess reductions above and beyond those predicted.

ROP and Updated Pre-1990 Motor Vehicle Standards

In Table 2, the District is providing an additional ROP analysis using U.S. EPA’s nowpreferred methodology (related to pre-1990 adjustments) that demonstrates sufficient

emission reductions to satisf y the ROP requirement, relyi ng only on the emission control program as it existed when t he Valley’s 2004 SIP was submi tted, with at minimum three percent surplus reductions to satisfy t he contingency measure requirement. This additional analysis successfully demonstrates that ROP is achieved and that sufficient surplus emission reductions occur to satisf y the contingency meas ure requirements of

the Act.

To provide more background on the above topic, recent EPA policy changes reduce the

creditable emission reductions in itially attached to California’s mobile source emission control programs for the purposes of demonstrating ROP. Although this recent change in policy is in dispute, the r eductions from existing measures in effect at the time of plan adoption and as computed under the new policy are adequate to meet ROP and contingency requirements. As part of the Clar ifications package, the District is providing an additional ROP analysis using U.S. EPA’ s now-preferred methodology (related to pre-1990 adjustments) that demonstrates sufficient emission reductions to satisfy the ROP requirement, relying only on the emission control program as it existed when the

2004 EOADP was submitted, with at minimum th ree percent surplus reductions to satisfy the contingency measure requiremen t. The federal Clean Ai r Act requires the exclusion of emission reductions from pre- 1990 motor vehicle measures in emission reduction progress calculations in air qualit y plans. While the 2004 EOADP properly

excluded those reductions from the ROP demonstration, in 2007, EPA began implementing a new policy t hat reduced the emission impac t of California’s post-1990 motor vehicle emission control programs in that calculation. This new 2007 policy effectively changes the ROP calculati on from what was presented in the 2004 EOADP

. However, the emission reduction surplus in the ROP calculations in the 2004 EOADP were sufficiently large that they coul d absorb this change while still meeting ROP targets and providing adequate su rplus reductions for cont ingency measures. This surplus is due to the aggressive emission redu ctions achieved by District and ARB rules and regulations in effect at t he time of adoption of the 2004 EOADP . The new 2007 EPA policy affects progress demonstrations fo r many California SIPS (1-hr and 8-hr ozone), and ARB staff is formally disputing the revised EPA policy and has entered into a dialogue with EPA to resolve the dispute.Table 1 Status of Implementation: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2004 Extreme OzoneAttainment Plan “New Measure” CommitmentsNOx Control MeasuresControlMeasureIDPollutantRule #DescriptionCommitment(2010 - tpd)AchievedEmissionReductions(2010 - tpd)LocalAdoptionCNOx9310Fleet rule - School buses0.11.621-Sep-2006DNOx9510, 3180Indirect SourceMitigation *4.04.015-Dec-2005ENOx4307Small Boilers (2 -5 MMBTU)1.05.120-Apr-2006GNOx4352Solid fuel boilers0.00.018-May-2006HNOx4702Stat. IC engines8.016.818-Jan-2007INOx4309CommercialDryers1.00.715-Dec-2005NNOxNew 4308Water Heaters 0.075 -20.20.820-Oct-2005QNOx4103Open Burning1.11.717-May-2007SNOx4703Sta. Gas Turbines0.61.917-Aug-2006NOx totals16.032.6* The District staff tracks reductions from ISR and reports them to the Governing Board on an annual basis. The 2007-2008 ISRannual report shows 5.7 tpd of NOx reductions for theyear, which already exceeds the plan commitment of 4 tpd in 2010.District staff believes that it is on track to meet its 2010reduction commitment. However, to be conservative,District staff estimates achievement of the 2010 commitment without additional surplus reductions from this rule.Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP5on Control DistrictAugust 21, 2008Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP6Table 1(Continued)VOC Control MeasuresControlMeasureIDPollutantRule #DescriptionCommitment(2010 - tpd)AchievedEmissionReductions(2010 - tpd)LocalAdoptionAVOC4409Oil & Gas Fug.4.75.120-Apr-2005BVOC4455Ref. & Chem Fug.0.20.320-Apr-2005FVOC4694Wineries0.70.815-Dec-2005JVOC4565Composting/Biosolids0.10.315-Mar-2007KVOC4602Automotive Coating0.11.021-Sep-2006New4612(note: rule is also listed in M belowfor solvents only)20-Sep-2007LVOC4570CAFO Rule15.817.715-Jun-20064662Org. Solvent Degreasing4663Org. Sol. Cleaning4603MetalParts/Products4604Can and Coil Coating4605AerospaceCoating4606Wood Products Coating4607GraphicArts4612AutomotiveCoating4653AdhesivesMVOC4684PolyesterResinOperation1.33.120-Sep-2007OVOC4401Steam-Enhanced Oil-well1.40.314-Dec-2006PVOC4651Soil Decontamination<0.050.020-Sep-2007QVOC4103Open Burning2.93.917-May-2007RVOC4682Polymeric Foam Mfg.0.10.120-Sep-2007TVOC4621 & 4624Gasoline storage+ Trans.0.91.920-Dec-2007UVOCNewAviation Fuel Transf<0.05VOC totals28.234.5San Joaquin Valley Unified Air PollutiSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Polluti on Control District August 21, 2008

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP Table 2 San Joaquin Valley Rate of Progress (ROP) With California Pre-1990 Motor Vehicle Control Program Adjustments Using adopted measures only (Summer Planning tons per day)

1990 2008 2010

Baseline ROG 633.2 369.4 362.7 California Pre-1990 Adjustment 0.0 120.1 123.8

RACT Corrections 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adjusted 1990 Baseline ROG in milestone year 633.2 513.1 509.4

ROP commitment for ROG reductions from new measures 0 0 0 Required % change since previous milestone year (ROG or NOx) compared to 1990 51% 6%

Required % change since 1990 (ROG or NOx) 51% 57% Target ROG levels 251.4 219.0 Apparent shortfall in ROG 118.0 143.7 Apparent shortfall in ROG, % 23.0% 28.2% ROG shortfall previously provided by NOx substitution, % 0 23.0% Actual ROG shortfall, % 23.0% 5.2%

Baseline NOx 805.1 411.0 384.5 California Pre-1990 Adjustment 0.0 114.0 116.6 Adjusted 1990 Baseline NOx in milestone year 805.1 691.1 688.5

ROP commitment for NOx reductions from new measures 0 0 0 Change in NOx since 1990 280.1 304.0 Change in NOx since 1990, % 40.5% 44.2% NOx reductions since 1990 already used for ROP substitution and contingency through last milestone year, % 0.0% 26.0%

NOx reductions since 1990 available for ROP substitution and contingency in this milestone year, % 40.5% 18.2%

Change in NOx since 1990 used for ROG substitution in this milestone year, % 23.0% 5.2%

Change in NOx since 1990 available for contingency in this milestone year, % 3.0% 3.0%

Change in NOx since 1990 surplus after meeting substitution and contingency needs in this milestone year, % 14.5% 12.9%

ROP shortfall, if any 0.0% 0.0%

ROP Met? YES YES Contingency Met? YES YES

Section 182(g) of the federal Clean Air Act requires nona ttainment areas to determine if they have achieved the emission reductions identified during previ ous three-year ROP intervals as being needed to meet the ROP milestones for the in tervals in question. The District has complied with this requiremen t. Of principal interest to the 2004 EOADP are the ROP milestone years of 2002, 2005, 2008 and the attainment year of 2010. The District’s Section 182(g) report for the 2002 milestone year is presented in Section 7.6.2

of the 2004 EOADP , which shows that reductions achiev ed their targets. For the 2005 ROP milestone year, the District sent to EPA, through ARB, a milestone compliance demonstration report showing that the District met its 2005 ROP emission reduction

7San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Polluti on Control District August 21, 2008

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP targets. 1 The next required Section 182(g) m ilestone compliance demonstration report is for calendar year 2008 and is due to EPA by March 31, 2009.

Contingency Measures As noted above, contingency measure require ments refer to those needed for ROP and attainment milestones [Sections 127(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)] as well as the need for longterm measure contingencies [Section 182(e)(5)] . The ROP analysis submitted with this Clarification Package and discussed above s hows that excess emission reductions were available from adopted measures at the time of plan devel opment to meet the ROP and attainment contingency requirements. In addition, the state’s motor vehicle emission control program provides excess r eductions that can be used for attainment year contingencies (see next section).

The 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan all contain control measures that the District is committed to adopting and that were not used in demonstrating ROP or

attainment in the 2004 EOADP . For these reasons, the reductions from the post-2004 plans meet the definition for contingen cy measures, provided the timing of the 2007

Ozone Plan and 2008 PM2.5 Plan reductions is helpful for 1-hr ozone milestones (i.e., the reductions occur in time to help meet 1- hr ozone milestones for RO P or attainment). Inspection of Table 6-1 in the 2007 Ozone Plan shows that District control measures will achieve about 2.3 tpd of NO x reductions in 2008, and 4.4 tpd in 2011 (expressed as summer emissions). The 2008 reductions woul d represent contingency reductions for the 2008 ROP milestone, and later reductions through 2011 would represent contingency reductions for attainment. Inspection of Table 6-3a in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan

shows annual NOx reductions of about 2.4 t pd in 2009, 3.2 tpd in 2010, and 4.3 tpd in

2011. Because these PM2.5 Plan reductions are from the sa me control measures as

those used from the 2007 Ozone Plan , the reductions are not cumulative. For the purposes of this Clarifi cation documentation, the PM2.5 Plan reductions will be used since they reflect a more up to date inventory. Thus the 2008 PM2.5 Plan provides attainment year conti ngency reductions of about 4.3 tpd of NOx.

In regards to the need for contingency measur es for long-term or advanced technology measures, District rulemakings reduce emissi ons to a sufficient level to fulfill the advanced technology or long-term contingency measure requirement. In other words, the District’s adopted rules from t he control measures in the 2004 EOADP exceed predictions of reductions by over 16 tpd of NOx and over 6 tpd of VOC; this excess more than covers the long-term measure reducti ons of 5 tpd of NOx and 5 tpd of VOC. Because these rules have been adopted locally and submitted by the State to U.S. EPA for inclusion into the SIP as required by se ction 182(e)(5), there is no need for additional contingency measures to satisf y the 182(e)(5) require ments. The specific requirement for contingency measures to backstop t he long-term measure commitments under Section 182(e)(5) of the federal Clean Ai r Act has been met because of the District adoption of rules that completely fu lfill the long-term measure commitment.

1 Letter from Scott Nester, Director of Planning to Ca therine Witherspoon, Executive Officer, California Air
Resources Board, March 30, 2006.

8San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Polluti on Control District August 21, 2008

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP Motor Vehicle Emission Trends

Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the f ederal Clean Air Act requires nona ttainment areas classified as severe or above to adopt and submit tran sportation control measures sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from grow th in vehicle miles traveled or number of vehicle trips and to provide for ROP. EPA's in terpretation of this provision allows areas to satisfy the requirement if they demonstrate that emis sions from motor vehicles decline each year through the attainment year--see EPA's General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Ai r Act Amendments of 1990, April 16, 1992 (57

FR 13522). While the 2004 EOADP shows a decline in motor vehicle emissions from the base year through the attainment year (Table 3-1), it only does so for ROP years and the attainment year. Table 3 below presents data for the intervening years and

further illustrates the downward trend in emissions. In addition, the table shows that existing motor vehicle emissions standards and normal fleet turnover combine to produce a significant surplus in emission redu ctions in 2011 beyond the levels assumed in the attainment demonstration (an additional 10 tpd of NOx and 5 tpd of VOC (ROG) from 2010 to 2011, as shown belo w in Table 3). As stated above, this reduction helps to fulfill the requirement for contingen cy measures for the attainment year.

Table 3 Baseline Motor Vehicle Emissions, 1 2000-2010 (San Joaquin Valley, Summer Pl anning, in tons per day)

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

ROG 115 107 100 93 88 82 77 72 67 63 59 54

NOx 223 218 211 201 192 184 176 166 157 148 137 127

1 Emissions shown here are from the CCOS emission inventory, v2.11_RF932PEI. Table 3-1 in the

2004 EOADP presents output from that inventory fo r the year 2000 and t he milestone years of

2008 and 2010. Emissions shown in this enclosure do not include reductions from new measure

commitments in the 2004 EOADP

.

Conclusions

Much of the updated information gathered and dev eloped for this Clarification package reflects the difficult work accomplished by the District and ARB in aggressively reducing emissions of ozone precursors in the time frame since the 2004 EOADP was developed and adopted. Virtually all of the updates confirm the approvability of the various components of the plan. Emission reductions exceed predictions, federal ROP milestones have been met, and all of the pl an commitments, including sufficient emission reductions for contingency measur es, have been met. The one exception is the RACT section, which was intended to m eet RACT requirements specified by EPA at

the time but does not meet EPA’s new and enhanced interpretation of RACT requirements in the federal Clean Air Act. Consequently, the District is formally withdrawing the RACT element of the 2004 EOADP , thus creating a federal 1-hr ozone RACT gap that will be filled by submitting to EPA a revised 8-hr ozone RACT SIP.

9San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Polluti on Control District August 21, 2008

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP This page intentionally blank.

10