FINAL 

2003 AQMP APPENDIX IV-A 

DISTRICT’S 

STATIONARY AND MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL 

MEASURES 

AUGUST 2003 
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

GOVERNING BOARD 

Chairman: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D. 

 Speaker of the Assembly Appointee 

 

Vice-Chair: S. ROY WILSON, Ed.D. 

Supervisor, Fourth District 

Riverside County Representative 

Members:

FRED AGUIAR 

Supervisor, Fourth District 

San Bernardino County Representative 

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH 

Supervisor, Fifth District 

Los Angeles County Representative 

HAL BERNSON 

Councilmember, City of Los Angeles 

Cities Representative, Los Angeles County/Western Region 

JANE W. CARNEY 

Senate Rules Committee Appointee 

WILLIAM CRAYCRAFT 

Councilmember, City of Mission Viejo 

Cities Representative, Orange County 

BEATRICE LAPISTO-KIRTLEY 

Councilmember, City of Bradbury 

Cities Representative, Los Angeles County/Eastern Region 

RONALD O. LOVERIDGE 

Mayor, City of Riverside 

Cities Representative, Riverside County 

LEONARD PAULITZ 

Councilmember, City of Montclair 

Cities Representative, San Bernardino County 

JAMES W. SILVA 

Supervisor, Second District 

Orange County Representative 

CYNTHIA VERDUGO-PERALTA 

Governor’s Appointee 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env. 
CONTRIBUTORS

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env. 

Executive Officer 

Elaine Chang, DrPH 

Deputy Executive Officer 

Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources 

Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E. 

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer 

Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources 

Zorik Pirveysian 

Planning and Rules Manager 

Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources 

Authors/Contributors Reviewers

Jill Whynot - Planning and Rules Manager 

Edward Eckerle - Program Supervisor 

Kathy Hsiao - Program Supervisor 

Julia Lester - Program Supervisor 

Marty Kay - Program Supervisor 

Ed Muehlbacher - Program Supervisor 

Gary Quinn - Program Supervisor 

Naveen Berry - Program Supervisor 

Jonathan Nadler - Air Quality Specialist 

Mike Laybourn - Air Quality Specialist 

Minh Pham - Air Quality Specialist 

Tuyet-Le Pham - Air Quality Specialist 

Ken Ellis - Air Quality Engineer II 

Pamela Perryman - Air Quality Specialist 

Ricardo Rivera - Air Quality Specialist 

Susan Yan - Air Quality Specialist 

 Barbara Baird - District Counsel 

Frances Keeler - Sr. Deputy District Counsel 

 

Production 

Faye Thomas - Secretary 
Table of Contents 

i 

Table of Contents 

SECTION 1 STATIONARY SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES 

Introduction......................................................................................................................................IV-1 

Stationary Source Control Measures ...............................................................................................IV-1 

Coatings and Solvents..........................................................................................................IV-3 

Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Emissions ..........................................................IV-3 

Combustion Sources ............................................................................................................IV-4 

Fugitive Dust Sources..........................................................................................................IV-4 

Miscellaneous Sources.........................................................................................................IV-4 

Compliance Flexibility Programs ........................................................................................IV-5 

District’s Mobile Source Control Measures ........................................................................IV-5 

District’s Long-Term Control Measure ...............................................................................IV-5 

Transportation Conformity Budget Backstop Measure .......................................................IV-5 

Rule Effectiveness ...........................................................................................................................IV-5 

Format of Control Measures ............................................................................................................IV-6 

Control Measure Number ....................................................................................................IV-6 

Title......................................................................................................................................IV-7 

Summary Table....................................................................................................................IV-7 

Description of Source Category...........................................................................................IV-7 

Proposed Method of Control................................................................................................IV-7 

Emissions Reduction............................................................................................................IV-8 

Rule Compliance..................................................................................................................IV-9 

Test Methods........................................................................................................................IV-9 

Cost Effectiveness................................................................................................................IV-9 

Implementing Agency..........................................................................................................IV-9 

References..........................................................................................................................IV-10 

GROUP 1 COATINGS AND SOLVENTS 

CTS-07 Further Emission Reductions from Architectural Coatings and Cleanup 

Solvents [VOC]......................................................................................................IV-11 

CTS-10 Miscellaneous Industrial Coatings and Solvent Operations [VOC] ......................IV-15 

GROUP 2 PETROLEUM OPERATIONS AND FUGITIVE VOC EMISSIONS 

FUG-05 Emission Reductions from Fugitive Sources [VOC].............................................IV-19 
Table of Contents 

ii 

GROUP 3 COMBUSTION SOURCES 

CMB-07 Emission Reductions from Petroleum Refinery Flares [all pollutants] .................IV-23 

CMB-09 Emission Reductions from Petroleum Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units 

[PM10, NH3]..........................................................................................................IV-27 

CMB-10 Additional Reductions for NOx RECLAIM [NOx]................................................IV-33 

GROUP 4 FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES 

BCM-07 Further Emission Reductions from Fugitive Dust Sources [PM10] ......................IV-37 

BCM-08 Further Emission Reductions from Aggregate and Cement Manufacturing 

Operations [PM10].................................................................................................IV-40 

GROUP 5 MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES 

MSC-01 Promotion of Lighter Color Roofing and Road Materials Programs 

[all pollutants] ........................................................................................................IV-45 

MSC-03 Promotion of Catalyst-Surface Coating Technology Programs [O3, CO]..............IV-51 

MSC-04 Emission Reductions from Miscellaneous Ammonia Sources [NH3] ...................IV-54 

MSC-05 Truck Stop Electrification [All Pollutants]............................................................IV-57 

MSC-06 Emission Reductions from Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Stoves 

[PM10] ...................................................................................................................IV-60 

MSC-07 Natural Gas Fuel Specifications [NOx]..................................................................IV-68 

MSC-08 Further Emission Reductions from Large VOC Sources [VOC]...........................IV-71 

PRC-03(P2) Emission Reductions from Restaurant Operations [PM10]...................................IV-74 

PRC-07 Industrial Process Operations [VOC] ....................................................................IV-79 

WST-01 Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste [VOC, NH3]....................................IV-82 

WST-02 Emission Reductions from Composting [VOC, NH3, PM10] ...............................IV-92 

FSS-04 Emission Charges of $5,000 per Ton of VOC for Stationary Sources 

Emitting over 10 Tons per Year [VOC] ................................................................IV-97 

GROUP 6 COMPLIANCE FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM 

FLX-01 Economic Incentive Programs [All Pollutants] .....................................................IV-99 

GROUP 7 DISTRICT’S MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES 

FSS-05 Mitigation Fee Program for Federal Sources [All]..............................................IV-104 

FSS-06 Further Emission Reductions from In-Use Off-Road Mobile Vehicles and 

Equipment [All] ...................................................................................................IV-109 

FSS-07 Emission Fee Program for Port-Related Mobile Sources [All] ...........................IV-112 
Table of Contents 

iii 

GROUP 8 DISTRICT’S LONG-TERM CONTROL MEASURE 

LTM-ALL Long-Term Control Measure [VOC]...................................................................IV-115 

GROUP 9 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGET BACKSTOP MEASURE 

TCB-01 Transportation Conformity Budget Backstop Measure [PM10]..........................IV-119 

SECTION 2 CONTINGENCY MEASURES 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................IV-122 

Contingency Measures.....................................................................................................IV-122

Format of Control Measures ........................................................................................................IV-123 

Control Measure Number ................................................................................................IV-123 

Summary Table................................................................................................................IV-123 

Information Contained in Measures ................................................................................IV-124 

CONTINGENCY CONTROL MEASURES 

CTY-01 Accelerated Implementation of Control Measures [All Pollutants] ....................IV-125 

CTY-04 Enhanced Oxygenated Fuels Content [CO].........................................................IV-128 

CTY-14 Control of Emissions from Miscellaneous Sources 

(Weed Abatement Operations) [PM10]...............................................................IV-132 
SECTION 1 

STATIONARY SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures 

 IV-1 

INTRODUCTION 

This Appendix describes the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (District’s) 

proposed stationary source control measures to be included in the 2003 AQMP. Control 

measures presented in this appendix are based upon a variety of market incentives and 

control strategies that are commercially available and technologically feasible in the next 

several years. These control measures only address stationary sources that are under the 

District’s jurisdiction. Additional stationary source control measures for source 

regulated under CARB are included in Appendix IV-B, Proposed 2003 State and Federal 

Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan. Contingency measures are also 

included in this appendix under Section 2. 

STATIONARY SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES 

The 2003 AQMP includes 24 short-term control measures for stationary and mobile 

sources developed by the District that are expected to be implemented within the next 

several years. One long-term measure for stationary sources is included in the 2003 

AQMP. Stationary source measures contained in the 2003 AQMP include the remaining 

revised and partially implemented measures from the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 

Amendment to the 1997 Ozone State Implementation Plan, with eleven additional new 

control measures. In addition, a new transportation conformity budget backstop measure 

is included in the 2003 AQMP. 

To foster further technology advancement, the District is introducing a “long-term” 

control measure to achieve additional VOC emission reductions from VOC sources 

under the District’s jurisdiction. The District will seek to achieve maximum reduction 

potential from these sources based on technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness. 

It should be noted that the emission reduction targets for the proposed control measures 

(those with quantified reductions) are established based on available or anticipated 

control methods or technologies. However, emission reductions associated with 

implementation of these and other control measures 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. 

Emission reduction associated with the District’s SIP commitment to adopt and 

implement short-term VOC, PM10, NOx, and SOX emission reductions from sources 

under the District’s jurisdiction are shown Table 1. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures 

 IV-2 

TABLE 1 

Short-term VOC, PM10, NOx and SOx Emission Reductions Commitment by SCAQM

 to be Achieved Through Rule Adoption and Implementation 

-2010 Planning Inventory- 

(Tons/Day)

VOC PM10 NOx 

Year Based on Adoption 

Date 

Based on 

Implementati

on Datea

Based on 

Adoption 

Date 

Based on 

Implementati

on Datea

Based on 

Adoption 

Date 

Based on 

Implementati

on Datea

Based on 

Adoption 

Date 

2002 0.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- 2003 16.9 0.6 0.5 --- --- --- --- 2004 2.0 --- 1.7 --- 3.0 --- 2.1 2005 2.0 --- --- 0.16 2.1 --- --- 2006 --- 4.8 --- 0.86 --- --- --- 2007 --- 2.0 --- 0.16 --- 2.1 --- 2008 --- 12.1 --- 0.66 --- --- --- 2009 --- --- --- 0.16 --- --- --- 2010 --- 2.0 --- 0.16 --- 3.0 --- 

Total 21.5 b 21.5 b 2.2 2.2 5.1 5.1 2.1 

a Represents the final, full implementation date; typically a rule contains multiple implementation dates. b An additional 16 tons of reductions associated with implementation of Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Oper

technology assessments in 2003 and 2004 prior to implementation in 2005 and are not included in this value
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures 

 IV-3 

Table 2 shows a summary of the District’s SIP commitment for long-term VOC 

emission reductions. Should there be emission reduction shortfalls in any given year, the 

District would identify and adopt other measures to make up the shortfall. Similarly, 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. 

TABLE 2 

Long-Term VOC Emission Reductions Commitment by SCAQMD to be Achieved Through 

Rule Adoption and Implementation 

-2010 Planning Inventory- 

(Tons/Day)

VOC 

Year Based on Adoption Date Based on 

Implementation Datea

2005 4.0 --- 

2006 10.0 --- 

2007 10.0 3.0 

2008 7.0 10.0 

2009 --- 11.0 

2010 --- 7.0 

Total 31.0 31.0 

a

 Represents the final, full implementation date; typically a rule contains multiple 

implementation dates. 

Coating and Solvents 

The category of coatings and solvents is primarily targeted at reducing VOC emissions 

from VOC-containing products such as coatings and solvents. This category includes 

two control measures that are based on additional emission reductions from architectural 

coating categories and other miscellaneous coating and solvent operations. 

Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Emissions 

This category pertains primarily to operations and materials associated with the 

petroleum, chemical, and other industries. Within this category, there is one control 

measure targeting fugitive VOC emissions associated with petroleum-related operations, 

and chemical products processing, and other manufacturing operations. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures 

 IV-4 

Combustion Sources 

This category includes three measures targeting stationary combustion equipment. 

There are two control measures for the petroleum refinery industry which target VOC 

emissions from refinery flares and PM10 and NH3 emissions from petroleum fluid 

catalytic cracking (FCC) units. In addition, there is one new control measure that seeks 

to further reduce NOx emissions from RECLAIM facilities. 

Fugitive Dust Sources 

This category includes two new control measures which would require further 

reductions in fugitive dust emissions from a variety of sources such as paved and 

unpaved roads, construction and demolition activities, aggregate processing and 

handling facilities, and cement manufacturing operations. Localized controls may be 

introduced in high PM10 areas to ensure attainment demonstration. 

Miscellaneous Sources 

There are a total of twelve control measures in this category. The miscellaneous source 

category includes one control measure that targets PM10 emissions from under-fired 

charbroilers at restaurants. In addition, another measure proposes further control of 

VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial process operations which may or may not 

already be subject to Regulation IV and XI rules. Two control measures are included in 

this category that address VOC and ammonia emissions from livestock waste and 

composting operations. A new control measure is included in this category that seeks to 

further reduce ammonia emissions from a variety of sources including mobile, area and 

stationary sources. In addition, a program is proposed to promote the use of lighter color 

roofing, road materials, or tree planting. Another measure is proposed to reduce ozone 

emissions in the ambient air through the use of catalyst-surface coating technology. This 

measure has a potential to be implemented geographically to reduce ambient ozone 

concentrations. This category also includes a measure that would implement an 

emission charge of $5,000 per ton of VOC for all large VOC sources emitting over 10 

tons per year in the event that federal ambient air quality standard for ozone is not met 

by 2010. One new control measure in this category seeks to reduce the PM10 emissions 

from wood burning fireplaces and wood stoves. An additional measure seeks to specify 

fuel standards for natural gas used in stationary sources as a means of reducing NOx

emissions. The next new control measure in this category seeks to reduce the emissions 

from idling trucks at trucks stops. A final new control measure would require large 

VOC sources to reduce their VOC emissions by implementing feasible measures 

outlined in a facility emission reduction plan. This measure would also seek creditable 

emission reductions to the SIP for improvement in emissions inventory estimates. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures 

 IV-5 

Compliance Flexibility Programs 

This category includes one control measure that enhances regulatory compliance by 

providing additional flexibility and compliance options thereby lowering compliance 

costs and incentivizing early reductions and advancement of clean technologies. 

District’s Mobile Source Control Measures 

The District is proposing three new control measures for mobile sources. One control 

measures seeks to impose a mitigation fee program on federal sources such as planes, 

trains, and ships in order to fund emission reduction projects. The second targets offroad mobile vehicles and equipment where it is determined that additional emission 

reductions are needed to meet the air quality goals of the 2003 AQMP. The final control 

measure in this category seeks to reduce the emissions from on-road and off-road mobile 

sources operating at, and traveling to and from the regional port facilities. 

District’s Long-Term Control Measure 

The District is also proposing a long-term measure in addition to the short-term (defined) 

measures to achieve additional VOC reductions from stationary point and area sources 

under the District’s jurisdiction (i.e., except consumer products and pesticides). 

Transportation Conformity Budget Backstop Measure 

Group 9 contains one new measure that seeks additional primary PM10 emission 

reductions from transportation-related PM10 sources (e.g., paved and unpaved road 

entrained fugitive dust) in order to offset increased emissions from these sources in 

future years. 

RULE EFFECTIVENESS 

The 1990 federal Clean Air Act requires that emissions inventories be adjusted to reflect 

the rule effectiveness. As defined by EPA, rule effectiveness reflects how emission 

reductions due to implementation 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 effectiveness value is used the 

District needs to demonstrate how these emission reductions will be achieved. 

As described below under Rule Compliance and Test Methods, the compliance 

demonstration for each proposed control measure, where the District accounted for 

emission reductions, identifies the compliance mechanisms such as recordkeeping, 

inspection and maintenance activities, etc., and test methods such as District, ARB, and 

EPA approved test methods. The District’s on going source testing and on-site 

inspection programs also strengthen the status of compliance verification. In addition, 

the District conducts workshops, compliance education programs to inform facility 

operators on rule requirements and assist them in performing recordkeeping and self 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures 

 IV-6 

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 measure description is a title, summary table, description of 

source category (including background and regulatory history), 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 control measure number such as “CM 

#2003CTS-07” located at the upper right hand corner 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 description of the abbreviations for each of the 

measure. 

• CTS Coatings and Solvents 

• CMB Combustion Sources 

• FUG Fugitive Emissions 

• MSC Miscellaneous Sources 

• BCM Best Available Control Measures for Fugitive Dust Sources 

• PRC Process Related Emissions 

• WST Waste Related Measures 

• FLX Compliance Flexibility Programs 

• FSS Future Study Strategy 

• LTM Long-Term Measures 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures 

 IV-7 

• TCB Transportation Conformity Budget Backstop Measures 

If the measure is based on a control measure from the 1997 AQMP or the 1999 

Amendment to the 1997 AQMP, the former control measure number is the same, except 

the year designator will be 2003, indicating the 2003 AQMP revision, e.g. CM 

#2003FLX-01 is based on CM #97FLX-01. 

Title

The title contains the control measure name and the major pollutant(s) controlled by the 

measure. Titles that state “Control of Emissions from...” indicate that the measure is 

regulating a new source category, not presently regulated by an existing source- specific 

District rule. Titles that state “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 summarizes the measure that 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. 

Description of Source Category 

This section provides an overall description of the source category and the intent of the 

control measure. The source category is presented in two sections, background and 

regulatory history. The background has basic information about the control measure 

such as the number of sources in the Basin, description of emission sources, and 

pollutants. 

The regulatory history contains information regarding existing regulatory control of the 

source category such as applicable District rules or regulations 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 expected performance for a control option is 

provided, it is intended for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as 

the targeted overall control efficiency for the proposed control measure. The overall 

control efficiency for a control measure should take into account achievable controls in 

the field by various subcategories within the control measure. This type of analysis 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 have 

intentionally identified as many control options as possible to spur further technology 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures 

 IV-8 

development. Therefore, potential control options described in this section do not ensure 

their viability when subject to further technology assessment conducted during the 

rulemaking process. 

In addition to the proposed control 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 flexibility programs currently available, or 

those that will become available in the future from the on-going implementation of 

control measure CM #2003FLX-01. Examples of compliance flexibility programs 

currently available include Rule 2020 – RECLAIM Reserve and the pilot credit 

generation rules under Regulation XVI – Mobile Source Offset Programs. Future 

enhancements to Regulation XVI may include additional opportunities to generate and 

use credits from mobile sources which could advance the utilization of these credit rules 

and other compliance flexibility programs similar to regulation XVI. 

Emissions Reduction 

The emission reductions are estimates based on the baseline inventories prepared for the 

2003 AQMP and are provided in the Control Measure Summary Table. The emissions 

data are based on the annual average inventory 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 NOx) are presented under the Summer Planning Inventory. The emissions section of 

the summary table includes the 1997, 2006, and 2010 inventory. The 2006 and 2010 

emission projections reflect implementation of District adopted rules. Based on the 

expected reductions associated with implementing the control measure, emission data 

are calculated for 2006 and 2010 assuming the implementation 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 development. As demonstrated in previous 

rulemaking, the District is always seeking maximum emission reductions when proven 

technically feasible and cost-effective. For emission accounting purposes, a weighted 

average control efficiency is calculated based on the targeted controls. The concept of 

weighted average acknowledges the fact that a control measure or rule consists of 

several subcategories, the emission reduction potential for each subcategory is a function 

of proposed emission limitation and the associated 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 the current structure of emission inventory reporting 

system, a control measure may partially affect an inventory source category (e.g., certain 

size of equipment 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures 

 IV-9 

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 rule development, the most current inventory will be used. However, for 

tracking rate-of-progress on the SIP emission reduction commitment, the approved 

AQMP inventory will be used. More specifically, emission reductions due to mandatory 

or voluntary, but enforceable, actions will be credited under SIP obligations. 

Rule Compliance 

This section was designed to satisfy requirements in the 1990 Clean Air Act in which 

EPA has indicated that it is necessary to have a discussion of rule compliance with each 

control measure. This section discusses the recordkeeping and monitoring requirements 

envisioned for the control measure. As discussed under this section of the control 

measure, the District would continue to verify rule compliance through site inspections 

and submittal of compliance plans. 

Test Methods 

In addition to requiring recordkeeping and monitoring requirements, EPA has stated that 

“An enforceable regulation must also contain test procedures in order to determine 

whether sources are in compliance.” This section of the measure identifies appropriate 

approved District, ARB, and EPA source test methods. 

Cost Effectiveness 

The Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method is used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of 

each control measure. As control measures undergo the rule making process, more 

detailed control costs will be developed, and therefore, may differ from the data 

presented here. 

The cost effectiveness may overestimate actual levels because the number of affected 

facilities may also include those that presently are not regulated by the District. As 

additional information on costs and more accurate numbers of affected facilities 

becomes available, the cost effectiveness will be revised and analyzed in the 

socioeconomic assessment report of the 2003 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. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures 

 IV-10 

References 

This section identifies directly cited references, or those references used to provide 

general background information. 
GROUP 1 

COATINGS AND SOLVENTS 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-07 

 IV-11 

FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM ARCHITECTURAL 

COATINGS AND CLEANUP SOLVENTS 

[VOC] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS, THINNING AND CLEAN-UP 

SOLVENTS

CONTROL METHODS: NEAR-ZERO OR ZERO-VOC COATING FORMULATIONS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 50.9 32.7 24.0 

VOC REDUCTION 3.3 7.2

VOC REMAINING 29.4 16.8 

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 60.0 38.5 28.3 

VOC REDUCTION 3.9 8.5

VOC REMAINING 34.6 19.8 

CONTROL COST: $20,000 PER TON OF VOC

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

This control measure proposes to further reduce VOC emissions from various architectural 

coating categories and thinning and cleanup solvents used in this industry. This control measure 

was part of the 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP Revision for the South Coast Air 

Basin. 

Background

Architectural Industrial Maintenance (AIM) coatings are used to beautify and protect homes, 

office buildings, factories, and their appurtenances on a variety of surfaces - metal, wood, 

plastic, concrete, wallboard, etc. These coatings are applied to the interior and exterior of 

homes and offices, factory floors, bridges, stop signs, roofs, swimming pools, driveways, etc. 

AIM coatings may be applied by brush, roller or spray gun; by consumers, painting contractors, 

or maintenance personnel. 

Despite existing regulations, AIM coatings still represent one of the largest non-mobile sources 

of VOC emissions in the Basin. Because AIM coating surfaces cannot be painted within an 

enclosure vented to an air pollution control device, the only cost-effective method to control 

VOC emissions from AIM coatings is to reduce the VOC content of the coatings. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-07 

 IV-12 

Control Measure #CTS-07 was included in the 1994 and 1997 AQMPs as well as the 1999 

amendment to the 1997 ozone SIP. This control measure proposed to reduce VOC emissions 

through the establishment of lower VOC-limits and the expansion of the applicability of Rule 

1113. At that time, the proposed reduction target for this control measure was set at 75 percent. 

Control Measure #CTS-07 has been implemented, in part, with the amendments to Rule 1113 in 

1996 and 1999 which have achieved greater than 50 percent emission reduction from this source 

category. 

Regulatory History 

District Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings, was originally adopted on September 2, 1977, to 

regulate VOC emissions from the application of architectural coatings. Since its adoption, the 

rule has been amended numerous times to incorporate more stringent VOC limits as technology 

for lower-VOC coatings has become available. The November 1996 amendment to Rule 1113 

implemented both Control Measure #94CTS-07 and Phase I of Control Measure #97CTS-07. 

This amendment lowered the VOC limits for some coating categories based on the concept of 

coating reformulation, increased the VOC limit for other coating categories, and addressed 

issues raised since the amendments of September 6, 1991. The amendment to Rule 1113, 

adopted on May 14, 1999, implemented Phase II of the Control Measure #97CTS-07 by 

lowering interim and final VOC limits for new and existing coating categories. 

Following the adoption of the 1999 amendments, three lawsuits were filed against the District 

relative to Rule 1113 which were subsequently consolidated as one matter by the court. 

Ultimately, the appellate court ruled that the May 14, 1999, amendments were improperly 

adopted due to inadequate noticing of the public hearing. On December 6, 2002, in response to 

the ruling from the appellate court, the May 14, 1999, amendments were readopted following 

proper procedures along with changes resulting from the new proposed compliance dates of 

January 1, 2003, and January 1, 2004, for the interim rule limits as well as other clarifying 

changes. 

Subsequent to the May 14, 1999 amendments to Rule 1113, CARB developed a revised 

suggested control measure (SCM) in June 2000 for architectural coatings that was largely based 

on the interim limits and the averaging provision of Rule 1113. The SCM, which has January 1, 

2003 as the main compliance date for most coating categories, has been adopted by 16 of the 35 

local air districts in California. 

U.S. EPA finalized a national architectural coatings rule in September 1998. The National Rule 

went into effect throughout the country, including all California districts, on September 13, 

1999. The National Rule contains over 20 categories that are not typically included in district 

rules. In addition, for many of the categories that are in both the district rules and the National 

Rule, the National Rule has definitions that differ significantly from those of the district rules 

and VOC limits that generally are equal to or less stringent than existing district rules. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-07 

 IV-13 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

Implementation of Phase 3 of Control Measure CTS-07 will rely on near-zero or zero VOC 

formulations for several architectural coating categories including, but not limited to, cleanup 

and thinning solvents, clear wood finishes, exterior opaque stains, semi-transparent stains, 

sanding sealers, and waterproofing sealers. Control Measure CTS-07(P3), presented here, seeks 

to achieve the emission reductions necessary to attain the same level of remaining emissions as 

set forth in the 1999 Amendments to the 1997 Ozone SIP. On-going technical evaluation of 

coating performance and research to further develop low-VOC and/or low-reactive coating or 

clean-up materials can provide further reduction opportunities. The District will work in 

coordination with CARB and other interested stakeholders when exploring further reductions 

from reactivity-based approaches. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

The estimated emission reductions for 2006 and 2010 are summarized in the Control Measure 

Summary. The 2010 emission inventory (summer planning inventory) for this category is 

estimated to be 28.3 tons of VOC per day. Control Measure #2003CTS-07 (P3) is estimated to 

achieve 8.5 tons of VOC per day reduction from this baseline. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

This control measure would incorporate rule compliance requirements similar to those identified 

in Rule 1113. 

TEST METHODS 

Test methods include the following: 

• U.S. EPA Reference Method 24, Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A 

- Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density Volume Solids, and 

Weight Solids of Surface Coatings. District Section III, Method 22, Determination of 

Exempt Compounds; 

• ASTM Test Method D1613-85 - Determination of Acid Content of Coating; 

• District Method 303, 304, 311, and 

• District Methods 19 and 22 - Laboratory Methods of Analysis for Enforcement SamplesSection III, Determination of Exempt Compounds Content. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure is calculated to be approximately $20,000 per ton. 

This value is based on an incremental reformulation cost of $8.00 per gallon for the 

architectural coating categories targeted by this control measure. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-07 

 IV-14 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY/SCHEDULE 

The District has authority to regulate VOC emissions from architectural coating categories. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-10 

 IV-15 

MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL COATINGS AND SOLVENT 

OPERATIONS 

[VOC] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL COATINGS AND SOLVENT 

OPERATIONS

CONTROL METHODS: STEP I: INVENTORY AND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

STEP II: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL 

STRATEGIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, NEAR-ZERO 

OR ZERO-VOC COATING AND SOLVENT FORMULATIONS AND 

ADD-ON CONTROLS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 13.7 13.9 15.2 

VOC REDUCTION 0.9 2.8

VOC REMAINING 13.0 12.4 

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 14.5 14.9 16.3 

VOC REDUCTION 0.9 3.0

VOC REMAINING 14.0 13.3 

CONTROL COST: UP TO $13,500 PER TON OF VOC 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Control Measure #CTS-10 is a new control measure that seeks to reduce emissions from sources 

under Control Measure #99 ADV-CTS, which was part of the 1999 Amendment to the 1997 

Ozone SIP Revision for the South Coast Air Quality Basin, as well as other sources that may or 

may not already be subject to Regulation IV or Regulation XI rules. Control Measure #99 

ADV-CTS included miscellaneous industrial coating and solvent operations. 

Background 

Consistent with state and federal law, the District maintains an emissions inventory for a wide 

variety of source categories and industries. The emissions inventory for the Basin includes 

nearly 180 different major source categories and, within these major categories, there are 

multiple source categories that are further defined. The miscellaneous industrial coating and 

solvent operations targeted for this control measure represent all industrial coating and solvent 

categories covered under Regulation IV and Regulation XI rules as well as other miscellaneous 

source categories that are not yet regulated. In addition, Level II contingency control measures 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-10 

 IV-16 

identified in the 1997 AQMP (presented in the next table) will also be evaluated under this 

control measure. 

Table of Level II 

VOC Contingency Control Measures from 1997 AQMP 

AQMP Measure 

Number 

Title Pollutant 

CTS-02A Emission Reductions from Electronic Components 

Manufacturing 

VOC 

CTS-02D(1) Further Emission Reductions from Marine Coating 

Operations (Rule 1106) 

 VOC 

CTS-02D(2) Further Emission Reductions from Pleasure Craft Coating 

Operations (Rule 1106.1) 

 VOC 

CTS-02G Further Emission Reductions from Paper, Fabric, and Film 

Coating Operations (Rule 1128) 

 VOC 

CTS-02I(1) Further Emission Reductions from Screen Printing 

Operations (Rule 1130.1) 

 VOC 

CTS-02J Further Emission Reductions from Wood Products (Rule 

1136) 

 VOC 

CTS-02K Further Emission Reductions from Aerospace Assembly 

and Component Manufacturing Operations (Rule 1124) 

 VOC 

CTS-02L Further Emission Reductions from Motor Vehicle 

Assembly Line Coating Operations (Rule 1115) 

 VOC 

PRC-02 Further Emission Reductions from Bakeries (Rule 1153) VOC 

PRC-05 Emission Reductions from Malt Beverage Production 

Facilities and Wine or Brandy Making Facilities 

 VOC 

The objective of this control measure is to further assess emissions from miscellaneous 

industrial coating and solvent operations. An inventory and technical assessment will be 

conducted to seek further emission reduction opportunities from these categories. The 

assessments will identify those emissions within these source categories that can be controlled 

in a cost-effective manner under an existing rule or regulation or those emissions that require 

the development of new rules. Based on the results of the assessments, the District will develop 

and implement specific strategies (e.g., reformulation, control equipment, etc.) to reduce VOC 

emissions. Some of the solvent operation categories that need to be further assessed include, 

but are not limited to, aerospace handwipe operations, lubricants (e.g., diluted with mineral 

spirits and vanishing oils), and use of alcohol or other solvents in manufacturing and clean room 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-10 

 IV-17 

maintenance. Other categories such as janitorial supplies, aerosols, and other consumer 

products are under CARB’s jurisdiction. 

Regulatory History 

Currently, the District has a number of specific rules for various categories of coatings and 

solvents. The source categories under this control measure represent a wide variety of industrial 

coating and solvent operations. The type of operation, industry, and size of the source would 

determine which rule(s) or regulation(s) that these sources would be regulated under. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

Based on current information regarding miscellaneous industrial coatings and solvents, this 

control measure would be implemented in two steps. The first step represents assessment of 

various industrial coatings and solvents categories to determine where additional emission 

reductions may be feasible. Based on the results of the first step, the appropriate control 

strategies to reduce VOC emissions beyond existing rules and regulations would be developed, 

based on near-zero or zero-VOC coating and solvent formulations and technologies (e.g., waterbased, UV coatings, powder coatings, add-on controls). Implementation of this control measure 

is expected to be conducted in several separate rulemaking phases with an overall VOC 

reduction target of three tons per day by 2010. 

Significant advancements have been made relative to the development and application of zeroor near-zero VOC coating formulations. Powder coatings, UV coatings for various substrates, 

zero-VOC interior flat architectural coating materials, as well as waterborne lacquers for wood 

products, are examples of technological advancements that have developed over the 5 to 10 

years. Also, since this control measure is partially targeting small and unpermitted sources, in 

addition to the proposed control methods, innovative implementation mechanisms are also 

needed to successfully carry out the control program. Reactivity issues for VOC-containing 

materials associated with this control measure will also be reviewed. The District will work in 

coordination with CARB and other interested stakeholders when exploring further reductions 

from reactivity-based approaches. 

Potential control strategies from source categories affected by this measure would also include 

the re-examination of the exemptions from the source specific rules under Regulation XI as well 

as a comparison of the VOC limits from other districts. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

The estimated emission inventory and emission reductions are summarized in the Control 

Measure Summary. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

Rule compliance would be similar to compliance requirements under Regulation XI - Source 

Specific Rules. Recordkeeping and monitoring requirements would be similar to Rule 109. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CTS-10 

 IV-18 

TEST METHODS 

Test methods include the following: 

• U.S. EPA Test Methods 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D, measurements of ventilation rate in a hood or 

enclosure and District Method 1.1, measure of traverse points; 

• U.S. EPA Reference Method 24, Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A 

- Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density Volume Solids, and 

Weight Solids of Surface Coatings. District Section III, Method 22, Determination of 

Exempt Compounds; 

• U.S. EPA Test Method 25, 25A, or District Method 25.1 for the determination of total 

organic compound emissions; 

• ASTM Method D2879; 

• ASTM Method D-1078-78, Standard Test Method for Distillation Range of Volatile Organic 

Liquids; 

• ASTM Test Method D1613-85 - Determination of Acid Content of Coating; 

• District Method 303, 304, 313, 308, 311, and 313; and 

• District Methods 19 and 22 - Laboratory Methods of Analysis for Enforcement SamplesSection III, Determination of Exempt Compounds Content. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been specifically determined, but is 

expected to be no more than $13,500 per ton of VOC reduced. The District will continue to 

analyze the potential cost impact associated with implementing this control measure and will 

provide specific cost effectiveness information as it becomes available. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY/SCHEDULE 

The District has authority to regulate VOC emissions from industrial coating and solvent 

operations. 
GROUP 2 

Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Sources 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003FUG-05 

 IV-19 

EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM FUGITIVE SOURCES 

[VOC] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES

CONTROL METHODS: STEP I: CHARACTERIZATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF 

EMISSIONS

STEP II: TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AND 

IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL STRATEGIES INCLUDING, BUT 

NOT LIMITED TO, ADD-ON CONTROLS, IMPROVED 

INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS, AND PROCESS 

CHANGES

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 18.2 16.7 14.8 

VOC REDUCTION 1.1 2.0

VOC REMAINING 15.6 12.8 

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 18.3 16.9 15.0 

VOC REDUCTION 1.1 2.0

VOC REMAINING 15.8 13.0 

CONTROL COST: UP TO $13,500 PER TON OF VOC 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Control Measure #FUG-05 is a new control measure that groups together three control measures 

that were part of the 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP Revision for the South Coast Air 

Basin. The control measures combined herein include: Control Measure #99FUG-04 – Further 

Control of Emissions from Fugitive Sources; Control Measure #99FUG-05 – Further Emission 

Reductions from Large Fugitive VOC Sources; and, Control Measure #99ADV-FUG – LongTerm Control for Fugitive Emissions. 

The emission sources targeted under this control measure include a variety of fugitive emissions 

sources including, but not limited to, oil and gas production facilities, petroleum and chemical 

products processing and transfer facilities, refinery terminals, and other sources contributing to 

fugitive emissions. 

Background 

Control Measure #99FUG-04 targeted VOC emission reduction from fugitive sources from 

petroleum- and chemical-related industries in general, including refineries, oil and gas 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003FUG-05 

 IV-20 

production fields, natural gas processing plants and pipeline transfer stations. Control Measure 

#99FUG-04 also called for an emissions inventory evaluation for these sources and the 

development of control options, if necessary. 

Control Measure #99FUG-05 focused on reducing emission from the top 100 noncoating/solvent-related VOC-emitting facilities. The type of facilities targeted under this 

control measure included: gasoline refineries and terminals, oil and gas production facilities, 

chemical plants, and manufacturing facilities. In 1993, the population of facilities targeted in 

this control measure constituted only two percent of the total population of stationary point 

sources while contributing approximately 34 percent of the total VOC emissions inventory from 

stationary point sources. 

Control Measure #99ADV-FUG was a long-term control measure included in the 1999 

amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin and was intended to further 

reduce emissions from the source categories described in the control measures described above. 

Regulatory History 

Fugitive emissions are currently regulated under various AQMD rules including Rules 461 – 

Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing, 462 – Organic Liquid Loading, 463 – Storage of Organic 

Liquids, 1173 – Control 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. 

Rule 1178, adopted in December 2001, implemented Control Measures #99FUG-03 – Further 

Emission Reductions from Floating Roof Tanks and portions of #99FUG-04 and Phase I of 

Control Measure #99FUG-05. Rule 1178 would achieve, upon full implementation, VOC 

emission reductions of 1.4 tons per day by reducing evaporative emission losses and minimizing 

leaks from external floating roof tanks, internal floating roof tanks, fixed roof tanks and 

pressure-vacuum vents at specified petroleum facilities. 

Proposed Rule 1173, was amended in December 2002, to implement the remainder of Control 

Measure #99FUG-04 and Phase II of Control Measure #99FUG-05. These amendments further 

reduce fugitive VOC emissions from components at petroleum facilities and chemical plants by 

requiring an inspection and repair program for heavy liquids (that are currently exempt), and 

reducing the leak thresholds and time to repair components in light liquid service. The 

amendments also required the monitoring and reporting of releases from pressure relief devices. 

The amendments are expected to achieve reductions of 0.57 tons of VOC per day. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

This measure will implement CM#99 ADV-FUG, the remaining portion of CM#99 FUG-04, 

and CM#99 FUG-05 (P2) and (P3). 

This control measure will be implemented in two steps: 1) the development of data to 

characterize and quantify fugitive VOC emissions from the petroleum, chemical-related 

industries, and other manufacturing and 2) the assessment of technology to determine the 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003FUG-05 

 IV-21 

availability and feasibility of technological solutions and the design and implementation of costeffective control options that would further reduce fugitive VOC emission from these industries. 

Potential controls include, but are not limited to, enhanced inspection and maintenance 

programs, leakless valves, vapor recovery devices, and control equipment (e.g., for tank 

degassing). 

The emission reductions associated with the December 6, 2002 amendments to Rule 1173, will 

be credited toward the reductions targeted in this control measure. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

Emission inventory and estimated reductions are summarized in the Control Measure Summary. 

The proposed control measure is expected to achieve at least two tons per day VOC reductions 

in 2010. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

Rule compliance would be similar to compliance requirements under existing Rules 461, 462, 

463, 1173, 1176, and 1178. Recordkeeping and monitoring requirements would be similar to 

Rule 109. 

TEST METHODS 

Test methods include the following: 

• U.S. EPA Method 18 – Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emission by Gas 

Chromatography, for use in Determining Efficiency of Vapor Recovery Systems. 

• U.S. EPA Test Method 21 - Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds Leaks, for use in 

Determining Vapor Tightness. 

• U.S. EPA Test Method 25 – Determination of Total Gaseous Non-methane Organic 

Emissions as Carbon. 

• U.S. EPA Test Method 25A – Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using 

a Flame Ionization Analyzer. 

• ASTM Method 1078 – Organic Liquid Storage for use in determining the true vapor pressure 

limits. 

• ASTM Method D-1078-78, Standard Test Method for Distillation Range of Volatile Organic 

Liquids; 

• SCAQMD Test Method 25.1 - Determination of Total Gaseous Non-Methane Organic 

Emissions as Carbon. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003FUG-05 

 IV-22 

• SCAQMD Test Method 50.1 – Determination of Total Non-Methane Organic Vapors from 

Organic Loading and Storage, for use in Determining Efficiency of Vapor Recovery 

Systems. 

• SCAQMD Test Method 303 – Determination of Exempt Compounds, for use in Determining 

Exempt Compounds 

• SCAQMD Test Method 315 – Determination of Hydrogen Sulfide Mercaptan in Oil and 

Sludge Samples, for use in Determining Hydrogen Sulfide Concentrations in Crude Oils. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been specifically determined, but is 

expected to be no more than $13,500 per ton of VOC reduced. The overall cost effectiveness of 

Rule 1178 was estimated at $9,600 to $11,000 per ton VOC emissions reduced which is 

assumed to be at the high end of the likely cost-effectiveness of Control Measure FUG-05. The 

cost-effectiveness of Rule 1173 amended on December 6, 2002, was estimated to be 

approximately $150 per ton of VOC reduced. This value represents a weighted average of the 

costs of the control requirements, with the greatest weight afforded to additional inspection and 

maintenance programs set forth in the amendments. 

The District will continue to analyze 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 authority to regulate fugitive VOC emissions sources. 
GROUP 3 

Combustion Sources 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CMB-07 

 IV-23 

EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY FLARES 

[ALL POLLUTANTS] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: REFINERY FLARES

CONTROL METHODS: STEP I—INVENTORY ASSESSMENT 

STEP II—DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF 

CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006* 2010* 

SOX INVENTORY 4.4 4.3 4.3 

SOX REDUCTION 2.1 2.1

SOX REMAINING 2.2 2.2 

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

* Only SOx emissions are estimated, however there will be concurrent VOC, NOx, CO, and PM10 emission reductions from this control measure. 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

This control measure is intended for flares at refineries and is not intended for flares at landfills 

or POTWs. Blowdown systems are designed and installed at petroleum refineries to provide for 

safe containment or safe release of liquids and gases that must be vented. These systems are 

used for emptying and venting vessels during scheduled maintenance and turn-around or during 

emergency upsets. Such systems generally consist of a series of venting manifolds which lead 

from the process equipment to a blowdown recovery subsystem (e.g., storage tanks) and flares. 

Flares are incendiary devices which ensure safe combustion of waste gases when the blowdown 

volume exceeds the storage capacity of the recovery subsystem. Thus, they provide the last 

opportunity to treat blowdown gases before they are released into the atmosphere. 

The completeness of combustion in flares is determined by flame temperature, residence time in 

the combustion zone, turbulent mixing of the components to complete the oxidation process, 

and available oxygen for free radical formation. If the combustion is complete, there is greater 

than 98 percent VOC destruction (EPA, April 1991) and the VOCs are converted to carbon 

dioxide and water. However, if there is incomplete combustion, some of the VOCs remain 

unaltered or are converted to other organic compounds (e.g. aldehydes or acids). In addition to 

VOCs being emitted during incomplete combustion, the flaring process can emit SOx, NOx, CO, 

and PM10.

Regulatory History 

Measure A15 of the 1982 AQMP Revision proposed increasing the use of blowdown recovery 

systems to reduce emissions from flare operations. Measure A15 was originally scheduled for 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CMB-07 

 IV-24 

adoption in 1985. Consideration of adoption, however, was postponed to provide additional 

time to collect background information regarding flare operations and alternative control 

options. The ARB, the District, and other local air pollution control districts have worked to 

collect this information. 

In 1984, the ARB contracted with CH2M Hill, an engineering firm, to evaluate the feasibility of 

continuously monitoring petroleum refinery flare emissions. Based on CH2M Hill’s analysis 

and public testimony, the ARB has determined that monitoring devices are technologically 

feasible, available, and economically reasonable to identify and record continuously the on/off 

status of refinery flares to determine refinery flare emissions. The ARB also directed its staff to 

work with local districts to develop rules requiring the use of these devices and to encourage 

districts to require refiners to provide grab sample composition analysis of flare feed stream 

gases. In 1986, the ARB handed this project over to the local air pollution districts. 

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBAPCD) adopted Rule 359, Flares and 

Thermal Oxidizers, on June 28, 1994. The rule requires flare operators to minimize flare gas 

volume, use technology standards on open flares and limit fuel sulfur content for outer 

continental shelf (OCS) sources. It also requires reduction in planned flaring and limits 

emissions for thermal oxidizers. 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 60.18, Revision 1987, sets New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) for flares that operate continuously or for emergency purposes. The NSPS for new flare 

systems is a 98 percent combustion efficiency. The Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT) Guidelines listed as “Achieved in Practice, or Contained in EPA Approved SIP” for 

refinery flares are: ground level, shrouded and steam assisted. 

In January 1998, the District Governing Board adopted Rule 1118 – Emissions from Refinery 

Flares in order to implement Step 1 of Control Measure #97CMB-07. Rule 1118 required 

petroleum refinery operations to monitor, record, and report data on gas flaring operations. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

This measure would consist of a two-step approach. During Step I, data collected from 

implementing Rule 1118 would be evaluated and assessed to develop an accurate emissions 

inventory from flare operations. The District is currently in the process of implementing Step I. 

Emission data from the implementation of Rule 1118 has been received and is being evaluated 

to determine the source of emissions and to develop an emissions inventory. 

If flare operations are determined to represent a significant source of emissions, Step II of the 

control measure will be implemented. Step II will consist of a thorough investigation of control 

options to identify the most feasible and cost-effective control strategies available to reduce 

emissions from refinery flares. The District will work with refineries to identify appropriate 

control options. Control options could include physical modifications and improvements to 

operation and maintenance procedures to prevent or minimize upset conditions. Control options 

may also include implementation of flaring minimization plans. Regardless of the control 

option, the District will ensure that safety considerations are taken into account. Completion of 

Steps I and II are expected to occur by 2004. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CMB-07 

 IV-25 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

The emissions inventory for SOx is shown in the summary table. Based on preliminary data, it 

is estimated that this control measure will result in an overall reduction of 50% through better 

management practices to minimize unnecessary flaring. There will also be concurrent emission 

reductions in VOC, NOx, CO, and PM10. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

Compliance with this control measure would depend on the control requirements for flare 

operations developed in Step II. Implementation of proposed control could be either through a 

source specific rule or MOU with individual facilities to seek maximum emission reductions 

while considering potentially unique operating constraints. 

TEST METHODS 

Any source test (or monitoring) shall follow EPA or approved District guidelines or Test 

Methods. Alternate guidelines may be used, provided they are first approved by the EPA, ARB, 

and the District. Source test methods used for Rule 1118 compliance would be applicable under 

this control measure. These include: 

• The higher gross heating value of bent gasses shall be determined by ASTM Method D 

2382-88, ASTM Method D 3588-91, or ASTM Method D 4891-89 

• The total sulfur content shall be determine by District Method 307-91 or ASTM Method D 

5504-94 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. 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 emissions from petroleum refinery flares. 

REFERENCES 

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. Proposed Rule 359 Staff Report. June 24, 

1994. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Air Quality Management Plan. October 

1982. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, OAOPS Control Cost Manual (Fourth 

Edition), Chapter 7: “Flares,” April 1991. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measures CM #2003CMB-07 

 IV-26 

Western States Petroleum Association. Meeting with SCAQMD. June 28, 1994
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-09 

 IV-27 

EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM PETROLEUM FLUID 

CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS 

[PM10, NH3] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: PETROLEUM REFINERY FCCUS

CONTROL METHODS: CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR PARTICULATE MATTER AND 

PRECURSORS OF PARTICULATE MATTER SUCH AS SOX AND 

AMMONIA (E.G., DRY OR WET ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS 

(ESP), SOX REDUCING CATALYSTS, WET SCRUBBERS, SELECTIVE OR NON-SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR

OR NSCR), BAGHOUSES, ALTERNATIVES TO AMMONIA 

INJECTION, AND/OR FEED HYDRODESULFURIZATION). 

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

PM10 (NH3) INVENTORY(1) 3.5 - 6.1 (1.7) 3.7 - 6.3 (1.8) 3.7 - 6.3 (1.8) 

PM10 (NH3) REDUCTION(2, 3, 4) 0.0 2.1 - 4.7 (1.6)

PM10 (NH3) REMAINING 0.0 1.6 (0.2) 

CONTROL COST: $3,500 - $11,500 PER TON PM10 REDUCED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

(1) Information for ammonia is in parentheses. 2.6 tpd – 5.5 tpd of the emissions inventory is from condensable PM10 

(2) 1.5 tpd – 4.3 tpd of the emissions reduction is from condensable PM10 

(3) Ammonia reduction of 1.6 tpd is estimated with an assumption that none of the ammonia emitted will form condensable PM10 

(4) The PM10 emission reduction will be modified to reflect Board action on Proposed Rule 1105.1.

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

Six petroleum refineries in the Basin currently operate fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCUs). 

Catalytic cracking is the most important and widely used refinery process for converting heavy 

oils into more valuable gasoline and lighter products. The process uses a very fine aluminum 

silicate catalyst commonly called zeolite that behaves like a fluid when aerated with a vapor. 

The fluidized catalyst is circulated continuously between a reactor and a regenerator and acts as 

a vehicle to transfer heat from the regenerator to the oil feed in the reactor. The cracking 

reaction is endothermic and the regeneration reaction is exothermic. 

As the cracking reaction progresses, the catalyst surface is gradually coated with carbon (coke) 

which eventually deactivates the cracking catalyst. To remove the coke deposited, the spent 

catalyst is routed to the regenerator. In the regenerator, the coke is burned off with air and the 

spent catalyst is reactivated. The regenerator can be designed and operated to either partially 

burn the coke on the catalyst to a mixture of carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2), 

or completely burn the coke to CO2. The flue gas containing high levels of CO from the 

regenerator is routed to a CO boiler that uses supplemental fuel to burn off the CO to CO2 and 

generate steam. Some regenerators in the District are operated in a completely burn mode, the 

CO boiler in this case is used as a heat exchanger without the consumption of supplemental fuel. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-09 

 IV-28 

It is during the regeneration cycle that much of the catalyst is lost in the form of catalyst fines 

escaping the regenerator with the flue gas. To recover the regenerated catalyst, the flue gas is 

routed to a series of cyclones and electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). Some refineries in the 

District inject ammonia in the flue gas to increase the gas stream’s resistivity and the particles’ 

cohesiveness with the hope to enhance the particle removal efficiency of the ESPs. After 

passing through the ESPs, the flue gas leaves stack at about 500-700o

F. The flue gas typically 

contains sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, ammonia, water vapor, and oxygen. 

1996-1997 Source Test Results and Installation of New ESP in 1993 

In 1996-1997, in order to determine the PM and PM10 inventory for FCCUs, the Western States 

Petroleum Association (WSPA) coordinated intensive testing at six operating refineries in the 

District using a combination of SCAQMD Method 5.2 and EPA Method 201A. Most important 

aspects of the test results are: 

 Total PM and PM10 measured from the six existing FCCUs were 6.2 tons/day and 6.1 

tons/day, respectively. The test results showed that more than 98% of the particulate matter 

emitted from the six FCCU regenerators were PM10. 

 The total filterable PM collected on the in-stack filter and out-of-stack filter was about 0.74 

ton/day, while the remaining of the PM10 was condensable particulate matter formed as the 

flue gas was cooled down in the sampling train or in the atmosphere. The test results 

suggested that it is extremely important to measure and account for the condensable 

particulate matter formed at the temperature regimes below stack temperatures. 

Furthermore, the test results suggested that condensable particulate matter formed at lower 

temperature regimes, can be effectively reduced by focusing on control technologies for 

precursor of particulate matter such as sulfur oxides and ammonia. 

 Two refineries achieved extremely low overall particulate matter emissions during the 96-97 

tests. One refinery used SOx reducing catalysts to reduce SOx emissions, and the other did 

not use ammonia to enhance its ESP’s efficiency when the tests were conducted. The 96-97 

test results from these two refineries suggested that using SOx reducing catalyst or reducing 

the amount of ammonia injection could be viable control options for particulate matter from 

FCCU’s regenerators. 

In 1993, one refinery in the District replaced its dry ESP with a brand new, larger capacity ESP 

that has manufacturer's guarantee for a mass emission rate of 3-lbs/hr (or 0.002 gr/dscf) 

filterable particulate matter at stack temperatures, or approximately 0.004 gr/dscf at 180-2000f. 

This refinery also uses SOx reducing catalyst. The testing in 2001 and 2002 showed that this 

refinery achieved extremely low filterable and condensable particulate matter emissions, even 

lower than the emissions achieved at the two refineries mentioned above in 1996-1997. The 

particulate emission reduction for this control measure therefore could be based on the emission 

levels achieved at these three refineries. 

Other Sources for PM10 and Ammonia Inventory 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-09 

 IV-29 

In addition to the 1996-1997 tests coordinated by WSPA, the total PM10 measured based on 

other tests conducted by the refineries and the District was approximately 3.5 tons/day, in which 

0.9 tons/day was filterable PM10. 

Direct sampling for ammonia emissions was not performed during the 1996-1997 tests 

coordinated by WSPA. However, several tests conducted by the District showed that the 

ammonia emissions from each FCCU could vary from 10 lbs/hr to 125 lbs/hr depending on the 

amount of ammonia injection rate at the time of testing. The inventory of ammonia from 

FCCUs is estimated to be 1.8 tons/day based on various test results and AB2588 reports. 

Regulatory History 

Particulate matter emissions from FCCUs are not currently regulated under a source-specific 

District rule. The refineries are required to apply for permit to construct and operate FCCUs 

pursuant to Regulation II. FCCUs are currently regulated under District Rules 401, 402, 404 

and 405. Rule 401 regulates visible emissions of any air contaminant discharged into the 

atmosphere; Rule 402 limits discharge from FCCUs that may cause a public nuisance; Rule 404 

and Rule 405 regulate the particulate matter emissions based on concentration and weight 

criteria, respectively. In addition, EPA’s New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) CFR 40, 

Part 60, Subpart J sets forth emission limits for any FCCU constructed after January 17, 1984. 

And EPA's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) CFR Part 63, 

Subpart UUU sets forth emission limits for any FCCU that is located at a major source of HAP 

emissions. 

The District is currently developing Proposed Rule 1105.1 – Reduction of PM10 and Ammonia 

Emissions From Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units. Proposed Rule 1105.1 is designed to 

implement the 1997 AQMP Control Measure CM #97CMB-09. Specifically, Proposed Rule 

1105.1 will specify emission standards for filterable PM10 and ammonia slip, as well as require 

annual source tests and applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 

Proposed Rule 1105.1 is scheduled for adoption in 2003. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

The proposed technologies of additional control for particulate matter and precursors of 

particulate matter from FCCUs are technologies such as dry or wet electrostatic precipitators 

(ESP), SOx reducing catalysts, wet scrubbers, selective or non-selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR or NSCR), baghouses, alternatives to ammonia injection, and/or feed 

hydrodesulfurization. 

EMISSION REDUCTION 

The projected PM10 inventories for 1997, 2006, and 2010 are provided in the Control Measure 

Summary. Most condensable emissions are ammonia salts and direct byproducts of ammonia 

combining with nitrates, sulfates, and other emissions from FCCUs. There has been some 

controversy regarding whether the ammonia forms ammonia salts or is released as unreacted 

ammonia. If one assumes most ammonia forms condensables, the total PM10 emissions in 2010 

are estimated to be 3.7 - 6.3 tons per day of which condensable particulate matter accounts for 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-09 

 IV-30 

2.6 - 5.5 tons per day. If on the other hand one assumes that most ammonia does not form 

condensables, the total ammonia emissions in 2010 is estimated to be 1.8 tons per day. The 

emission reduction estimated for this control measure is based on the PM10 and ammonia 

emission level achieved at the refineries. This control measure is expected to provide an overall 

rule effectiveness of approximately 74 percent for particulate matter and 87 percent for 

ammonia. The 2010 emission reductions for this control measure would be 2.1 – 4.7 tons per 

day of PM10, of which approximately 0.3 – 0.5 tons per day are filterable particulate matter. If 

one assumes that ammonia emitted will not form condensable PM10, the 2010 emission 

reductions for this control measure would be 0.5 tons per day of filterable PM10 and 1.6 tons 

per day ammonia. The PM10 emission reduction will be modified to reflect Board action on 

Proposed Rule 1105.1. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

Compliance with this control measure may be determined and verified by source testing, 

monitoring operating parameters to ensure continuous compliance, record keeping and reporting 

requirements. Test reports should include at a minimum important operating parameters such as 

stack temperature, flue gas flow rate, ammonia injection rate, feed rate, sulfur content of feed, 

type and amount of SOx reducing catalyst used, and coke burn off rate. 

TEST METHODS 

Monitoring or source testing for particulate matter would follow EPA or approved District 

guidelines or test methods such as District Method 5.2, District Method 6.1, District Draft 

Method 207.1, EPA Method 201, EPA Method 201A, EPA Method 202 and EPA Conditional 

Test Method CTM-027. Alternative guidelines or test methods may be used, provided that 

EPA, ARB, and the District have first approved them. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness (incremental) of this control measure has estimated to be $3,500 - 

$11,500 based on replacing current ESPs with brand new ESPs. The District will continue to 

analyze the potential cost impact associated with implementing this control measure and will 

revise the cost effectiveness information, as it becomes available. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

The District has authority to regulate emissions from petroleum refineries. 

REFERENCES 

Almega – Source Test Report - Determination of Particulate Matter and PM10 Emissions from 

Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit - Mobil Oil Corporation, Almega Environmental & 

Technical Services Inc., October 1996. (SCAQMD ASTD Source Test File #97010). 

Almega – Source Test Report - Determination of Particulate Matter and PM10 Emissions from 

Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit - Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc., Almega 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-09 

 IV-31 

Environmental & Technical Services Inc., August 1996. (SCAQMD ASTD Source Test File 

#97011). 

Almega – Source Test Report - Determination of Particulate Matter and PM10 Emissions from 

Unit 61-ST-1 - Ultramar Inc., Almega Environmental & Technical Services Inc., October 1996. 

(SCAQMD ASTD Source Test File #97009). 

Carnot – Particulate Matter Source Test Results. Prepared for Arco Los Angeles Refinery, 

Carnot, December 1996. (SCAQMD ASTD Source Test File #97047). 

Energy – Source Testing to Determine PM10 and Particulate Matter Emissions from a Refinery 

FCCU Equipped with an ESP and CO Boiler - Chevron Products Company, Energy and 

Environmental Research Corporation, May 1997. (SCAQMD ASTD Source Test File 

#R97215). 

EPA – Operation and Maintenance Manual for Electrostatic Precipitators, U.S. EPA, 

EPA/625/1-85/017, 1985.

EPA – Stationary Source Control Techniques Document Technique for Fine Particulate Matter, 

U.S. EPA, NTIS PB99-116493, October 1998. 

EPA – 40 CFR Part 51, Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation Plans, 

Method for Measurement of Condensable Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources, Final 

Rule, Federal Register, Volume 56, No. 242, Page 65433-38, December 1991. 

EPA – Method 201, Determination of PM10 Emissions – Exhaust Gas Recycle Procedures, U.S. 

EPA, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M, 1991. 

EPA – Method 201A, Determination of PM10 Emissions - Constant Sampling Rate Procedures, 

U.S. EPA, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M, 1991. 

EPA – Method 202, Determination of Condensable Particulate Emissions from Stationary 

Sources, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M, 1991. 

EPA – Conditional Test Method CTM-027. 

SCAQMD – Method 5.2, Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary 

Sources Using Heated Probe and Filter, March 1989. 

SCAQMD – Method 6.1, Determination of Sulfuric Acid and Sulfur Oxides from Stationary 

Sources, March 1989. 

SCAQMD – Draft Method 207.1, Determination of Ammonia from Stationary Sources. 

SCAQMD – Final Air Quality Management Plan, 1997. 

STAPPA/ALAPCO – Controlling Particulate Matter under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of 

Options, July 1996. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-09 

 IV-32 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-10 

 IV-33 

ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS FOR NOX RECLAIM 

[NOX] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: NOX RECLAIM FACILITIES

CONTROL METHODS: ALL AVAILABLE CONTROL METHODS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

NOX INVENTORY 61.9 34.2 34.2 

NOX REDUCTION TBD 3.0

NOX REMAINING TBD 31.2 

CONTROL COST: $7,000 PER TON NOX REDUCED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

As of the end of the 2000 compliance year, there were approximately 335 NOx facilities in the 

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) Program. The RECLAIM program includes 

facilities with NOx emissions greater than or equal to four tons per year in 1990 or any 

subsequent year. NOx facilities in the RECLAIM program have a wide range of equipment such 

as boilers, heaters, furnaces, ovens, kilns, internal combustion engines, and turbines. 

This control measure identifies a series of control approaches that can be implemented if 

additional emission reductions are needed from the NOx RECLAIM program. Depending on 

the control strategy implemented, this control measure may affect all NOx RECLAIM facilities 

or a portion of the facilities based on their annual emissions or the type of equipment at the 

facility. 

Background 

Under the RECLAIM program, facilities are issued NOx and/or SOx allocations. 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 reductions. As BARCT is updated to reflect 

improvements in pollution control equipment, additional reductions from the RECLAIM 

program may be possible. 

During late 2000, the combination of the energy crisis and delayed installation of pollution 

control equipment resulted in high RTC prices. A series of mechanisms are now in place to 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-10 

 IV-34 

stabilize RTC prices. As part of the rule amendment proceeding and program evaluation, both 

U.S. EPA and ARB have requested the District to revisit the ending allocation for the 

RECLAIM NOx program. 

Regulatory History 

On October 15, 1993, the AQMD’s Governing Board adopted the RECLAIM program. 

Regulation XX – RECLAIM includes 11 rules that specify the applicability, allocations, 

definitions, requirements, and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. When 

the RECLAIM program was adopted, it originally included 392 NOx and 41 SOx commercial 

and industrial facilities. Since the adoption of RECLAIM, there have been a number of 

amendments to the RECLAIM rules. 

On May 11, 2001 amendments to RECLAIM were adopted by the AQMD’s Governing Board 

to help stabilize RECLAIM Trading Credit (RTC) prices. This RECLAIM amendment 

represented the most significant change to the program as power producing facilities were 

removed from the RECLAIM market, compliance plans were required for larger facilities, and a 

reserve of emission reductions was established to mitigate emission increases from power plants 

and to increase the supply of RTCs for facilities meeting certain criteria. During the adoption of 

these amendments, the Governing Board directed staff to evaluate the compliance plans, 

determine whether additional backstop rules are needed to make-up emissions shortfalls, and 

provide recommendations to the Board regarding enhancements to the RECLAIM program. 

In November 2001, the AQMD staff provided a status report on compliance plans and the need 

for backstop rules to make-up potential emission reduction shortfalls. It was determined that a 

shortfall may occur in 2003, however, emission reduction projects in the RECLAIM program 

may mitigate this emission reduction shortfall. If the possible shortfall cannot be mitigated or 

there are insufficient credits in the market for future growth, implementation of backstop rules 

will be needed. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

There are a variety of approaches that can be implemented to achieve additional emission 

reductions from the RECLAIM program. The following identifies four types of approaches that 

can be used individually or collectively. The type of approach selected and the extent that the 

approach is implemented, will depend on a number of factors that include, but are not limited to: 

• Technical feasibility of control option(s); 

• Cost-effectiveness of the control option(s); 

• Growth demand to accommodate new sources; 

• Equity between sources; and 

• Implementation issues. 

Reduce Existing Ending Allocations 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-10 

 IV-35 

Under the RECLAIM program, initial allocations decline annually through the year 2003 and 

remain constant after 2003. This control option would seek further reductions in allocations 

from 2003 through 2010 and remain constant after 2010. 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. 

Overlay Source-Specific Regulations 

The RECLAIM rules exempt facilities from the source-specific NOx rules and regulations that 

were subsumed into determination of allocations. This control approach could overlay sourcespecific requirements on the RECLAIM program. RECLAIM facilities would be required to 

operate within their annual allocation and meet source-specific emission limit requirements. 

Source-specific rules include, but are not limited to: 

• R1109 - Refinery Boilers and Heaters 

• R1110.2 - Internal Combustion Engines >50 Brake Horsepower 

• R1117 - Glass Melting Furnaces 

• R1112 - Cement Kilns 

• R1134 - Gas Turbines 

• R1135 - Electric Power Generating Systems 

• R1146 - Boilers and Heaters >5 MM Btu/hour 

• R1146.1 - Boilers and Heaters 2-5 MM Btu/hour 

• R1146.2 - Boilers and Heaters <2 MM Btu/hour 

This control approach can incorporate, in part or whole, requirements specified under individual 

source-specific BARCT rules. In addition, requirements from one, several, or all rules can be 

implemented, depending on the amount of emission reductions targeted. 

Exclude Smaller Emitting Facilities 

In general, the RECLAIM program applies to facilities with annual NOx and/or SOx emissions 

greater than or equal to four tons per year. This control option would exclude smaller emitting 

facilities from the RECLAIM market. Facilities that are excluded from RECLAIM would be 

transitioned to the command and control requirements and the facility cap under RECLAIM 

would be used for future NSR purposes. 

Bifurcated Market for Powerplants and Non-powerplants 

Based on the recent CEC forecast and the implementation of Rule 2009, existing power plants 

as a source category are likely to be net sellers. The District staff will be conducting an 

evaluation in 2003 to determine if the current trading restrictions imposed on the powerplants 

should be removed (i.e., rejoining the rest of RECLAIM market). In the interest of reducing 

overall RECLAIM allocation, it may be beneficial to continue to set-aside the power generation 

industry. Under this scenario, the unused RTCs would be retired to benefit clean air and, in 

essence, achieve additional reductions from the RECLAIM program. The preliminary 

assessment indicated that the excess RTCs from the powerplants in 2010 based on the current 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003CMB-10 

 IV-36 

RTC holdings could be up to 2 tons per day. More detailed analysis is warranted to examine the 

merit of this approach. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

For the purpose of a SIP commitment, 3 tons per day of NOx reductions by 2010 is targeted with 

a linear declining balance between 2003 and 2010. The amount of additional emission 

reductions achievable through implementation of this control measure is subject to further 

technical assessment and AQMP growth projections. The District staff will conduct further 

analysis as part of the assessment for the power plants and make recommendations to the Board 

as to determining the amount of additional emission reductions feasible from RECLAIM. 

RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS 

Compliance with the provisions of this control 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 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 been determined to be $7,000 per ton of NOx

reduced. The District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact associated with 

implementing this control measure and will provide detailed cost effectiveness information 

during rule development. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

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

REFERENCES 

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Board Letter for Report on Potential Backstop 

Measures to Stabilize NOx RECLAIM Trading Credit Prices, January 19, 2001. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Board Letter to Adopt Proposed Changes to 

RECLAIM, May 11, 2001. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Board Letter for Potential Backstop Rule for 

Regulation XX – Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), November 9, 2001. 
GROUP 4 

Fugitive Dust Sources 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-07

 IV-37 

FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 

FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES 

[PM10] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES

CONTROL METHODS: WATERING, CHEMICAL STABILIZATION, PAVING,

REVEGETATION, TRACK-OUT CONTROL, CONSTRUCTION 

PROJECT SIGNAGE

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): NOT DETERMINED

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

Common sources of fugitive dust include vehicular travel on paved and unpaved roads, 

construction/demolition and earth-movement activities, disturbed vacant lands, storage piles, 

and agricultural activities. The two basic physical processes that contribute to fugitive dust 

generation include: pulverization and abrasion of soils through mechanical force (e.g., wheels, 

blades, etc.), and entrainment of disturbed soils through turbulent air currents (e.g., high winds 

and vehicular wake effects). Fugitive dust and corresponding PM10 emissions can vary 

significantly depending on soil type/moisture content, the level/type of activity, and wind 

conditions (U.S. EPA, 1995). 

Regulatory History 

Based on CAA requirements and available guidance (U.S. EPA, 1992), the District adopted 

Best Available Control Measure (BACM) requirements for fugitive dust sources in 1997. These 

requirements are contained in District Rules 403 (Fugitive Dust) and 1186 (PM10 Emissions 

from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations). District Rule 403 is intended to 

reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that 

has the potential to generate fugitive dust. Under Rule 403, fugitive dust sources are required to 

implement BACM for all sources and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from 

crossing any property line. District Rule 1186 contains requirements for clean-up of material 

deposited on to paved roads, use of certified street sweeping equipment, and treatment of highuse unpaved roads. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

The District’s BACM fugitive dust regulations are at least as stringent as control measures 

included in any other PM10 non-attainment plan or achieved in practice at the time of adoption 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-07

 IV-38 

in 1997. Subsequently, other PM10 non-attainment areas have developed and adopted fugitive 

dust regulations based on special federal requirements (e.g., Most Stringent Measures or MSM) 

or in response to lawsuits. Elements of these new regulations contain requirements that may 

improve the effectiveness of the District’s fugitive dust control program. A review of existing 

District BACM regulations is proposed to consider enhancements that would further reduce 

PM10 emissions from fugitive dust sources. Based on a preliminary review of other air 

district’s recently adopted rules, potential District rule enhancements may include: 

• Improved compliance test methods, 

• Specific short- and long-term soil stabilization requirements, 

• Work practices for specific activities, 

• Construction project signage, and 

• Mandatory use of track-out control devices (i.e., site ingress/egress improvements). 

Additionally, the BACM review will consider regulations for specific geographic areas based on 

soil type, wind conditions, and source extent. As this control measure may address fugitive dust 

sources in localized areas, it is also intended as a means to ensure compliance in those areas that 

are subject to high levels of PM10. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

All of the control options discussed are existing technologies that are presently available. For 

more traditional air pollution sources, such as point sources, emissions reductions are calculated 

by multiplying the baseline emissions by the effectiveness of a given control technology (e.g., 

selective catalytic reduction). For non-traditional air pollution sources, such as fugitive dust, 

emissions reductions calculations are more difficult because the level of control necessary to 

comply will vary greatly due to site-specific conditions. For example, a construction site in a 

coastal zone with high soil moisture content may have a lower potential to generate fugitive dust 

emissions compared to a site located in the more arid, inland portions of the Basin. Moreover, 

many of the proposed rule requirements allow various control options. Accordingly, it is not 

possible to quantify precise emissions reductions from implementation of this control measure. 

Requiring the most stringent control option could, however, result in a reduction in source 

emissions, depending on existing District Rule control options. Until rule development clarifies 

the effectiveness of the most stringent control options beyond existing AQMD rule 

requirements, emission reduction credit are not taken for CM# BCM-07. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

Compliance with this control measure could be achieved through periodic site visits, response to 

public complaints, and agency reports. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-07

 IV-39 

TEST METHODS 

Methods to measure PM10 emissions will follow U.S. EPA or approved District guidelines or 

test methods. Alternate guidelines may be used, provided the measures are first approved by the 

U.S. EPA and the District. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not been determined. The District will 

continue to analyze the potential cost impacts associated with implementing this control 

measure and will provide cost effectiveness information, as it becomes available. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

The AQMD has the authority to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Health and Safety Code Section 40460 and 

40440(a). 

REFERENCES 

U.S. EPA, Compilation of Emission Factors (AP-42), Chapter 13 - Miscellaneous Sources, 

January 1995. 

U.S. EPA, Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best 

Available Control Measures, September 1992 (EPA-450/2-92-004). 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-08

 IV-40 

FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM AGGREGATE AND CEMENT 

MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS 

[PM10] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: AGGREGATE OPERATIONS

CONTROL METHODS: AREA SOURCE PRESCRIPTIVE MEASURES FOR AGGREGATE 

OPERATIONS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

PM10 INVENTORY 1.4 1.6 1.7 

PM10 REDUCTION 0.6 0.7

PM10 REMAINING 1.0 1.0 

CONTROL COST: $730 PER TON PM10 REDUCED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

Based on year 2000 SCAQMD Annual Emission Reporting data, there are 75 facilities in the 

District involved in aggregate operations. Aggregate plants produce sand and gravel and 

crushed stone. Sand and gravel consists of unconsolidated mixture of fine and/or course 

aggregate material found in natural deposits. Crushed stone can be comprised of limestone, 

granite, traprock, or any other hard rock produced by blasting and crushing. The aggregate 

industry is heavily dependent on the construction industry for sales. Major customers include 

hot mix asphalt concrete plants, ready-mixed concrete and block plants, and heavy construction 

and paving contractors. Approximately half of the demand is generated by building 

construction such as housing, commercial building and manufacturing plants with the remainder 

used at public works projects such as highways, bridges, airports, and water-related projects 

(CARB, 1993). 

Particulate matter may be generated from a variety of locations in the form of fugitive dust. 

Typical release points from aggregate facilities include: 

• Overburden and sand and gravel removal 

• Wind-blown dust from storage piles and disturbed surfaces 

• Unpaved haul road traffic 

• Open conveyors exposed to the wind 

• Transfer points in conveyor systems 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-08

 IV-41 

• Material dumping from trucks, front-end loaders, and conveyors 

• Track-out of material from haul roads onto paved roads within the facility and paved public 

roads serving the facility 

In addition, cement manufacturing plants are facilities which quarry, crush, transport, blend, and 

grind the materials used to manufacture cement. Typically, the raw materials consist of 

limestone, silica, iron, and alumina. The processing of the raw materials involves a cement kiln 

where the blended raw materials are heated at high temperatures (i.e., 2700 degrees Fahrenheit) 

to produce cooked pieces of calcium silicates known as clinker. The clinker is then ground with 

gypsum into a fine, powdered cement. Particulate emissions occur from points where materials 

are handled or transferred from one place to another in the cement kiln process. In addition, 

fugitive dust occurs from quarrying, crushing, and grinding operations, as well as from similar 

sources found at aggregate operations (e.g., wind-blown dust from storage piles and disturbed 

surfaces and unpaved haul road traffic). 

Regulatory History 

At present, the District does not have a source-specific rule directed at aggregate operations. 

The emissions from these operations are currently regulated under District Rules 404 and 405 

(for permitted equipment) and Rules 401, 402, and 403 (for fugitive sources). 

Rules 404 and 405 regulate particulate emissions from control exhausts based on concentration 

(volume discharged) and weight criteria, respectively. Rule 401 controls visible emissions of 

any air contaminant discharged into the atmosphere from any single source. Rule 402 limits the 

discharge from any source causing a public nuisance. Rule 403 is a prohibitory rule directed 

toward any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to 

generate fugitive dust. Under Rule 403, all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited 

from crossing the property line. 

Rule 1112.1 – Emissions of Particulate Matter from Cement Kilns specifies emission limits for 

particulate matter from the operation of cement kilns. The current emission limits for 

particulate matter are 0.4 pounds per ton of kiln feed for feed rates less than 75 tons per hour 

and 30 pounds per ton of kiln feed for feed rates greater than or equal to 75 tons per hour. 

Emissions from cement kilns and clinker coolers are exempt from the requirements of Rules 404 

and 405. Fugitive emissions from any material handling, transportation, or storage operations at 

cement manufacturing plants are subject to Rule 403. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

Although visible PM emissions from these sources are potentially addressed through existing 

general District regulations (e.g., Rule 403), there is not a source-specific rule to reduce 

emissions from non-permitted (area) sources associated with aggregate operations and cement 

plants. Existing applicable district regulations are prohibitory in nature (i.e., visible emissions 

crossing any property line). While Rule 403 can be used to control sources resulting in visible 

emissions, an additional regulation is necessary to address fugitive dust sources where 

emissions are constant but not subject to this regulation. Additional controls may also be 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-08

 IV-42 

necessary for sources at aggregate and cement manufacturing plant operations subject to Rules 

404, 405, and 1112.1. The proposed control measure would establish prescriptive measures to 

control fugitive dust from area sources within aggregate facilities and cement plants as well as 

evaluate whether additional controls are necessary for the control of PM10 for sources at 

aggregate and cement manufacturing plant operations subject to Rules 404, 405, and 1112.1. 

Examples of fugitive dust control requirements include: 

• Pre-application of water prior to material extraction 

• Application of chemical dust suppressants or establishment of a vegetative ground cover to 

inactive disturbed areas 

• Chemical treatment or paving of internal haul roads 

• Covering of material conveyors and haul vehicles 

• Use of enclosures or hooding material at transfer points and screen operations 

• Installation of wheel washing system(s) where haul vehicles exit the site 

The proposed control method for particulate matter from cement kilns would occur in two steps. 

Under Step I, the District would further refine the emission inventory and current level of 

control from cement kilns. Step II would consist of an evaluation and implementation of the 

possible controls to further reduce the emissions from cement kilns from their present levels. 

Types of control methods to further reduce the particulate emissions from cement kilns may 

include electrostatic precipitators, high efficient baghouses, and improved maintenance 

practices. Implementation of this control measure may be conducted in multi-rulemaking 

phases. Also, since preliminary modeling analysis indicates that PM10 reductions in local areas 

registering high PM10 concentrations significantly facilitate PM10 attainment in these areas, 

localized controls would also be considered. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

The estimated emission inventory and emission reductions for PM10 emissions from aggregate 

operations and cement manufacturing plants are summarized in the Control Measure Summary 

Table. The estimated emission inventory from these operations will be evaluated during Step I 

of the proposed control measure to further refine and update their emissions inventory (i.e., 

based on more accurate emission factors and activity data). The estimated emission reductions 

from aggregate operations and cement manufacturing plants will be dependent on the control 

strategies selected. Based on the current information, a reduction target of 0.7 tons per day of 

PM10 will result in remaining PM10 emissions from these sources to be 1.0 tons per day by 

2010. However, this emission target will be further evaluated for feasibility and refined during 

the rule making process. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003BCM-08

 IV-43 

Compliance with this control measure could be achieved through periodic site visits and in 

response to public complaints. 

TEST METHODS 

Methods to measure PM10 emissions shall follow U.S. EPA or approved District guidelines or 

test methods. Alternate guidelines may be used, provided the measures are first approved by the 

U.S. EPA and the District. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost-effectiveness of this control measure has been determined to be $730 per ton of PM10 

reduced and is based on track-out control methods. The District will continue to analyze the 

potential cost impacts associated with implementing this control measure and will provide more 

detailed cost effectiveness information as it becomes available. Based on previous estimates, 

the cost-effectiveness of several other potential control options are as follows: 

• Unpaved road treatments - $958 per ton PM10 reduced (SCAQMD, 1997) 

• Stabilization of inactive disturbed lands - $810 per ton PM10 reduced (SCAQMD, 1990) 

• Revegetation of inactive disturbed lands - $532 per ton PM10 reduced (SCAQMD, 1990) 

• Material transport controls (e.g., truck covers, freeboard requirements, material damping, 

clean up of spills) $2,500 per ton PM10 reduced (MAG, 2000) 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

The District has the authority to regulate emissions from aggregate operations and cement 

manufacturing plants. 

REFERENCES 

California Air Resources Board (CARB), Compliance Division, Aggregate Plants, Compliance 

Assistance Program, 1993. 

California Air Resources Board (CARB), Compliance Division, Cement Kiln, Compliance 

Assistance Program, 1996. 

Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate 

Plan for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area, February 2000. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Revised Final Staff Report for 

Proposed Amended Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Proposed Rule 1186 (PM10 Emissions from 

Paved and Unpaved Roads, Livestock Operations), February 1997. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2002 Coachella Valley PM10 State 

Implementation Plan, 2002. 
GROUP 5 

Miscellaneous Sources 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-01 

 IV-45 

PROMOTION OF LIGHTER COLOR ROOFING AND ROAD MATERIALS 

PROGRAMS 

[ALL POLLUTANTS] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: ROOFING, PAVING, AND BUILDING MATERIALS AND TREE 

PLANTING PROJECTS

CONTROL METHODS: USE OF MORE REFLECTIVE AND LIGHTER COLOR SURFACES 

ON EXTERIOR SURFACES LOCATED IN URBAN AREAS

EMISSIONS: IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS CONTROL MEASURE IS 

EXPECTED TO LOWER AMBIENT TEMPERATURES IN URBAN 

AREAS. LOWER AMBIENT TEMPERATURES WOULD 

DECREASE THE FORMATION OF OZONE, WHICH IN TURN IS 

EXPECTED TO RESULT IN IMPROVED AIR QUALITY. 

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD, CEC, LOCAL GOVERNMENT

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

The purpose of this control measure is to encourage activities that would lower ambient 

temperatures in urban areas. This control measure 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 temperatures is referred to as the “urban heat island 

effect.” The replacement of natural vegetation such as trees, grass, and soil with concrete and 

asphalt reduces the landscape’s ability to lower daytime temperatures and loses the benefits of 

shade. In addition, the use of dark 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 impacts 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 that in large metropolitan cities such as Los 

Angeles, utility peak loads will increase 1.5 to 2 percent for every 1°F increase in temperature. 

In Los Angeles, energy loads for both Los Angeles 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 Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-01 

 IV-46 

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 representing 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 evapotranspiration 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 indicates 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, Lawerence Berkeley Laboratories and the California Energy Commission to assess 

the effects of using lighter colored roofing materials to improve energy efficiency and to lessen 

the urban heat island effect. A field study was conducted to measure the changes in surface 

temperatures in light colored roofing and paving materials installed in and around the L.A. Zoo. 

Results of the project are still pending. 

A study was conducted in 1998 to quantify the air quality benefits of the cool community 

concept by applying an appropriate air quality modeling approach (ENVIRON, 1998). Cool 

communities impacts on temperature and dispersion were mapped using the Urban Airshed 

Model (UAM) to evaluate the meteorological effects on ozone formation and transport within 

the Basin. Maximum ozone reductions were found to be about 8 parts 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 emission reductions including: local governments 

modifying building codes to require the use of light 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. This 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 provide educational guidance brochures regarding 

tree planting. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-01 

 IV-47 

This control measure proposes to develop a program to promote the use of light colored roofing 

and pavement materials, solar roofing membranes, and increased tree planting. Programs to 

promote use of more reflective pavement and tree planting could be a required element for new 

sources, or could be included as recommendations 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 building surfaces. Most of these techniques can be 

implemented during the maintenance or modification of existing structures or during the 

building stages of new structures. 

Roofing Materials

The reflectivity of roofs is measured in terms of roof temperature at noon on a clear summer 

day, with an air temperature of 90oF, averaged over the warranted life of the roof. A gray roof 

with a smooth or washable texture would have a roof temperature under the aforementioned 

conditions of approximately 160oF. A light green roof has a higher albedo, and accordingly a 

lower surface temperature of 135oF. 

One method of achieving higher albedos is to coat existing surfaces or modify the makeup of 

new surfaces so that they incorporate lighter colored 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 thereby, reducing the thermal impacts on roofs. 

The photovoltaic modules convert much of the incoming sun’s energy directly into electricity, 

substantially reducing the energy absorbed by a roof. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-01 

 IV-48 

Pavement and Building Surface Materials

Within the city, there are a number of urban surfaces 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 designed 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 resistance, effects of soiling, and surface texture. 

In addition, in selecting materials for roads, parking 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 through 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 lawns, 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 plant 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 tree planting programs, the placement of trees in 

cities is important. The following identifies tree planting 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 Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-01 

 IV-49 

• 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 planting, 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 shade trees. In selecting species, it is important 

that trees with the potential to produce biogenic 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. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

Implementation of this control measure is expected to decrease ambient temperatures in the 

Basin, particularly during summer months. Improved 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 units modified or installed that use materials 

and colors meeting or exceeding a specified benchmark. 

TEST METHODS 

ASTM Sub-Committee E06-21 has developed E1980-01 Standard Practice for Calculating Solar 

Reflectance Index of Horizontal and Low-Sloped Opague Surfaces to determine indexes and 

surface temperatures for surfaces with emissivity greater than 0.1. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-01 

 IV-50 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been fully determined. 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 

Implementation of this measure is expected to require the partnership of the District, CEC, and 

local government. 

REFERENCES 

Rosenfeld et. al. “Policies to Reduce Heat Islands: 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. Cooling Our Communities. A Guidebook on Tree 

Planting and Light-Colored Surfacing. January, 1992. 

Akbari, H., Rosenfeld, A.H., Taha, H. “Summer 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 and 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 Atkinson. “Hydrocarbon Emissions from Twelve 

Urban Shade Trees of the Los Angeles, California, Air Basin.” November 1991. 

ENVIRON. 1998. “Air Quality Modeling Evaluation 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 Mitigation Measures.” Prepared by ENVIRON 

International Corporation for the City of Los Angeles. May 2001. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-03 

 IV-51 

PROMOTION OF CATALYST-SURFACE COATING TECHNOLOGY 

PROGRAMS 

[O3, CO] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: RESIDENTIAL AND STATIONARY AIR CONDITIONING UNITS

CONTROL METHODS: INCORPORATE CATALYST-SURFACE COATING 

TECHNOLOGIES IN AIR CONDITIONING UNITS

EMISSIONS: IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS CONTROL MEASURE IS 

EXPECTED TO RESULT IN THE CONVERSION OF AMBIENT 

OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE INTO OXYGEN AND 

CARBON DIOXIDE, RESPECTIVELY. 

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD, LOCAL GOVERNMENT

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

The purpose of this control measure is to encourage the incorporation of catalyst-surface coating 

technologies in residential and commercial air conditioning units, in order to promote the 

conversion of ground-level ozone and carbon monoxide into oxygen and carbon dioxide. To 

maximize air quality benefits, this control measure would be primarily implemented in those 

areas within the South Coast Air Basin that experience the highest ambient ozone levels. 

Background 

Catalysts can be coated on surfaces that come into contact with large volumes of ambient air, to 

promote the chemical conversion of ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) into harmless gases. 

Applicable surfaces with regard to stationary source applications include residential and 

commercial air conditioning units, utilizing the existing condenser surface area or perhaps 

adding a catalyzed filter across the exhaust air stream. These coatings could also be potentially 

applied to heating and ventilation equipment as well. 

To date, the preponderance of work evaluating the effectiveness of catalyst-surface coating 

technology has been performed by Engelhard Corporation. Their work has focused on the use 

of this technology on motor vehicle radiator surfaces, due to the large amount of ambient air 

flow across this surface type, but they also consider their technology applicable to air handling 

equipment used in residential and commercial applications (Engelhard, 2002). 

In cooperation with Engelhard Corporation, the District conducted a study in 1997 to determine 

the effectiveness of catalytic coating applied to residential air conditioner condensers for the 

removal of atmospheric ozone. Sampling was conducted on some test sites and showed that 

there was a distinct reduction in ozone from the use of air conditioner condensers treated with 

the catalyst. However, the findings did not conclude what effect, if any, the catalysts would 

have on lowering ambient ozone concentrations (SCAQMD, 1998) 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-03 

 IV-52 

Regulatory History 

There is currently no regulatory history with regard to the use of catalyst-surface coating 

technology for the direct reduction of ground level ozone and CO emissions. To date, the 

regulatory and analytical framework for addressing ozone reductions has historically been based 

on directly reducing emissions of VOC and NOx (ozone precursors). 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

This control measure proposes to develop a program to promote the use of catalyst-surface 

coating technologies in residential and commercial air conditioning units. The program would 

specifically focus on those areas in the South Coast Air Basin that exhibit the highest ozone 

levels in order to maximize the emission reduction potential of this control strategy. The use of 

catalyst-surface coating technology could be a required element for new sources, or could be 

included as a recommendation through the SCAQMD’s California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) Air Quality Handbook. The issuance of emission reduction credits could also be used 

to promote the implementation of this technology. 

Prior to implementing programs that promote the use of catalyst-surface coating technology, 

analyses would have to be performed to better understand the design parameters, air quality 

benefits, and cost impacts associated with utilizing this technology in stationary air conditioning 

applications. This work would serve to augment evaluations already completed for motor 

vehicle applications. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

Implementation of this control measure is expected to decrease ambient ozone and carbon 

monoxide emission levels in the Basin, particularly during summer months. 

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 SCAQMD may consider the development of an emissions credit mechanism to 

provide emission credits based on the number of air conditioning units that are modified or 

installed that use catalyst-surface coating technology. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been fully determined. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-03 

 IV-53 

Implementation of this measure is expected to require the partnership of the SCAQMD and 

local government agencies. 

REFERENCES 

Johnson, David, E3 Ventures. Written communications with Mike Nazemi. November to 

December, 1995. 

Johnson, David, E3 Ventures. Written communications with Dr. Alan Lloyd. June, 1995. 

Sierra Research. “An Evaluation of On-Road Ozone Destruction Using a Catalyst-Coated 

Automobile Radiator.” Report No. SR95-03-06, prepared for Engelhard Corporation, March 30, 

1995. 

Engelhard. “PremAir Catalyst Overview – Using Air Handling Equipment to Destroy Ozone.” 

Engelhard.com. (2002) 

SCAQMD. “Report on Ozone Sampling for Effectiveness of the Engelhard Catalyst on 

Residential Air Conditioning Condensers.” January, 1998. 

SCAQMD. “Estimation of the Effects of an Ozone Control Strategy Focusing on Air 

Conditioning-Bound Catalysts for Ozone Scrubbing, Prepared by Systems Applications 

International, Inc. for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.” February, 1998. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-04 

 IV-54 

EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS AMMONIA SOURCES 

[NH3] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: MISCELLANEOUS AMMONIA SOURCES

CONTROL METHODS: ALL AVAILABLE CONTROL METHODS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): NOT DETERMINED

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

In 1998, the District initiated a revision to the 1995 PM10 Technical Enhancement Program in 

order to enhance efforts in the areas of monitoring, emissions inventory, and air quality 

modeling. Based on the 2000 revision to the Technical Enhancement Program (TEP) and the 

update to the ammonia inventory, there are sources of ammonia that, when combined with 

gaseous nitric and sulfuric acid resulting from upwind NOx and SOx emissions, could result in 

increases in particulate aerosol ammonium nitrate and sulfate in peak PM2.5 and PM10 areas. 

To expeditiously attain the PM10 standard and make progress toward the PM2.5 standard, 

further reductions of ammonia emissions are necessary. This control measure identifies 

additional sources and potential control methods that may warrant additional development. The 

purpose of this measure is to develop a comprehensive ammonia control plan through more 

refined source characterization and control assessment. 

The 1997 Gridded Ammonia Emission Inventory Update (SCAQMD, 2000) quantifies 

emissions from all ammonia sources in the Basin. The emissions inventory study estimated that 

these sources contribute between 154 to 180 tons per day of ammonia emissions. The ammonia 

emissions from on-road mobile sources were estimated at 33 tons per day or 18% of the overall 

ammonia inventory, while these emissions were estimated to be 7 tons per day or roughly 5% of 

the overall ammonia inventory in the 1997 AQMP. The basis for the 1997 Gridded Ammonia 

Emission Inventory Update was tunnel studies for on-road motor vehicles which resulted in 

higher emission factors (three and a half times larger) than the average used to estimate the 

emissions in the 1997 AQMP (SCAQMD, 2000). 

The majority of ammonia sources identified are non-traditional sources such as soil surfaces (39 

tons per day) and domestic sources (23 tons per day) such as dogs, cats, cigarette smoke, human 

perspiration and waste, and household ammonia products. Other sources of ammonia emissions 

include landfills, sewage treatment plants, and small industrial plants. Locally concentrated 

sources already identified in other control measures or currently undergoing rule development 

include livestock operations (59 tons per day) and composting operations (5 tons per day). 

Currently dairy emissions, representing between 19 and 25 tons of ammonia per day are being 

addressed in Proposed Rule 1127-Emission Reductions From Livestock Waste. Composting 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-04 

 IV-55 

operations are being addressed in Proposed Rule 1133.2 – Emission Reductions From CoComposting Operations. 

Regulatory History 

Proposed Rule 1133.2 (partially implementing Control Measure CM #99 WST-02) includes 

specific control requirements to reduce ammonia and VOC emissions from co-composting 

operations. Proposed Rule 1127 (implementing Control Measure CM #99 WST-01) proposes to 

achieve ammonia and VOC emission reductions from livestock waste, specifically dairy 

manure. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

Based on a preliminary review of the TEP 2000 and the 1997 Gridded Ammonia Emission 

Inventory Update, potential inventory assessments and control strategies for ammonia sources 

may include, but are not limited to: 

• Better quantification of mobile source ammonia emissions 

• Identification of control device maintenance procedures, warnings, and/or devices to reduce 

mobile source ammonia emissions 

• Extend Proposed Rule 1127 to poultry and other livestock operations 

• Expand Proposed Rule 1133 series to other composting operations 

• Investigate fertilizer formulation and application procedures that may reduce nitrogen loss to 

air (e.g., ammonia emissions) 

• Review refrigeration and metal treating technologies to access potential control options, if 

necessary 

The evaluation of control strategies will be conducted in conjunction with modeling to ensure 

the effectiveness of the proposed control methods. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

Projected emission reductions are uncertain at this time, and require further analysis. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

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

TEST METHODS 

Source testing methods will be determined on a case-by-case basis for various sources. 

Laboratory methods to be used include EPA Method 17/350.2 for free ammonia. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-04 

 IV-56 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost-effectiveness of this control measure has not been determined. The District will 

continue to analyze the potential cost impacts associated with implementing this control 

measure. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

The District has the authority to regulate ammonia emissions from stationary sources. 

Depending on the sources identified for additional control, the District will work with other 

agencies such as county sanitation districts and other state (e.g., CARB) and local agencies to 

implement this control measure. 

REFERENCES 

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Technical Enhancement Program 

For the 2000 AQMP Revision (TEP 2000) Work plan, February 1998. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Final 1997 Gridded Ammonia 

Emission Inventory Update For the South Coast Air Basin, August, 2000. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-05 

 IV-57 

TRUCK STOP ELECTRIFICATION 

[ALL POLLUTANTS] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: TRUCK STOPS

CONTROL METHODS: ELIMINATION OF TRUCK IDLING AT TRUCK STOPS BY 

PROVIDING HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING 

TO TRUCK CABS AND BY SUPPLYING ELECTRIC POWER TO 

RUN ON-BOARD TRUCK SYSTEMS AND BY SUPPLYING 

ELECTRIC POWER TO RUN TRAILER REFRIGERATION UNITS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY)*: 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

NOX INVENTORY 1.7 2.3 2.5 

NOX REDUCTION 0.0 2.1

NOX REMAINING 2.3 0.4 

CONTROL COST: $5,000 PER TON OF NOX REDUCED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

* Concurrent emission reductions of PM10, VOC, and CO; Emissions from trailer refrigeration units are not included in 

this summary. 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

Truck stops are facilities that provide overnight parking spaces for heavy-duty trucks such as 

inter-city or line haul tractor-trailers or eighteen wheelers. In addition to parking, truck stops 

provide a myriad of services for truck operators such as truck fueling, maintenance and repairs, 

food, banking, laundry, and private showers. 

There are approximately 35 truck stop facilities in the jurisdiction of the District. A common 

practice for operators of heavy-duty diesel-fueled trucks is to idle their truck engines while at 

truck stops to provide cooling and heating to the interior cab, keep the truck engine and fuel 

warm during cold temperatures, and to use in-cab appliances. To reduce or eliminate idling 

times and thereby emissions, truck stop electrification can be used. 

Visits by trucks hauling refrigerated trailers also occur at truck stops. The exact number or 

proportion of trucks with refrigerated trailers visiting truck stops is unknown at this time and 

would require further analysis. Truck operators who haul refrigerated goods operate their 

refrigerated trailers while at truck stops. In most cases, the power to operate the refrigeration 

unit on these trailers is supplied by a small auxiliary diesel engine mounted on the trailers. 

Many of these refrigeration units are capable of running on an external supply of electric power. 

While operating on this external power supply, the small diesel engines are shut down. 

Truck stop electrification is the practice of employing an external source of heating, ventilating, 

and air conditioning to heat or cool the interior space of a truck cab and/or providing electric 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-05 

 IV-58 

power to operate in-cab appliances, on-board electric systems, trailer refrigeration units, and 

heaters and air conditioners in lieu of idling the truck propulsion engine or auxiliary engine used 

to power the trailer refrigeration units. Truck stop electrification results in emission benefits 

because the emissions generated are no longer based on the idling emissions of a heavy-duty 

diesel truck or auxiliary engines, but from the emissions generated from the on-site (e.g., micro 

turbines) or off-site production of electricity, which are significantly lower. 

Regulatory History 

Truck idling at truck stops is currently not regulated in the Basin. However, Rule 1634 – Pilot 

Credit Generation Program for Truck Stops which was adopted by the District’s Governing 

Board on October 19, 2001 provides opportunities for generation of NOx mobile source 

emission reduction credits (MSERCs) through a pilot credit generation program. Rule 1634 

applies to any entity who supplies electric power at truck stops for use by truck operators to run 

appliances inside truck cabs, on-board truck systems, and trailer refrigeration units, and by 

providing heating, ventilating, and air conditioning to truck cabs at truck stops in order to 

eliminate the operation of diesel-fueled engines used by trucks. Credits can also be generated 

by supplying an external source of electric power to run trailer refrigeration units in lieu of 

operating the auxiliary diesel engines normally used to run these units. NOx MSERCs 

generated through this program may be used in RECLAIM. The U.S. EPA is still in the process 

of reviewing Rule 1634 and its approvability is pending. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

This control measure will require the mandatory installation of electric systems at truck stops 

that can provide heating, ventilating, and air conditioning to truck cabs, run appliances inside 

truck cabs, and on-board truck systems at truck stops in order to eliminate truck idling thereby 

eliminating the operation of diesel-fueled engines used by trucks (i.e., during engine idling). In 

order to reduce or eliminate the operation of auxiliary engines that power refrigeration units on 

refrigerated trailers, this control measures will also require the installation of external power 

supplies at truck stops for use by truck operators to power their trailer refrigeration units. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

The estimated emissions inventory and emission reductions from truck idling are provided in 

the summary table. Although NOx emissions are provided, there would be concurrent emission 

reductions of PM10, CO, and VOC. Emissions for refrigerated trailer units at truck stops are 

unknown at this time and would require further analysis. In addition, the overall emission 

reductions are based on the assumption that the emissions from in-basin electric power 

production to supply the electrical systems at truck stops required by this control measure are no 

more than 2.0 percent of the total reduction potential. Since Rule 1634 allows credit generation 

from truck stop electrification up through 2006, it is intended that any reductions from truck 

stop electrification occurring prior to this timeframe would qualify for credits under Rule 1634. 

Emission reductions resulting from implementation of this control measure and occurring after 

2006 would be credited towards the emission reduction goal. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-05 

 IV-59 

Compliance with this control measure would be similar to the monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements of Rule 1634. 

TEST METHODS 

No test methods are necessary since the control method relies on power from the electric grid or 

other on-site electric production in lieu of idling a truck engine or auxiliary engine. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost-effectiveness of this control measure is based on the installation and operation of the 

IdleAire stationary truck HVAC technology at each long-term parking stall in the Basin and is 

estimated at $5,000 per ton of NOx reduced. The cost-effectiveness of this control measure is 

expected to go down if all pollutants are considered. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

The District has authority to adopt regulations to reduce or mitigate emissions from indirect 

sources of air pollution, which would include this measure, pursuant to Health & Safety Code 

40716. 

REFERENCES 

SCAQMD. Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1634 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for Truck 

Stops. October, 2001. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06 

 IV-60 

EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM WOOD BURNING FIREPLACES AND 

WOOD STOVES 

[PM10] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION

CONTROL METHODS: LOW EMISSION STANDARDS, INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, SMOKE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN (VOLUNTARY CURTAILMENT), AND 

PUBLIC OUTREACH

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

PM10 INVENTORY 5.5 6.3 6.7 

PM10 REDUCTION TBD TBD

PM10 REMAINING TBD TBD 

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

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 typical residence are fireplaces and wood heaters 

which include fireplace inserts and free-standing 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 residences are used as the primary source of 

heating. 

Equipment Description 

(The following discussion of wood 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 categories: (1) masonry (generally brick and/or stone, 

assembled on site, and integral to a structure) and (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”. 

Masonry fireplaces typically have large fixed openings to the fire bed and have dampers above 

the combustion area in the chimney to limit room air and heat losses when the fireplace is not 

being used. Some masonry fireplaces are designed or retrofitted with doors and louvers to 

reduce the intake of combustion air during use. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06 

 IV-61 

Prefabricated fireplaces are commonly equipped with louvers and glass doors to reduce the 

intake of combustion air, and some are surrounded by ducts through which floor level air is 

drawn by natural convection, heated, and returned to the room. Many varieties of prefabricated 

fireplaces are now available on the market. One general class is the freestanding fireplace, the 

most common of which consists of an inverted sheet metal funnel and stovepipe directly above 

the fire bed. Another class is the "zero clearance" fireplace, an iron or heavy-gauge steel 

firebox lined inside with firebrick and surrounded by multiple steel walls with spaces for air 

circulation. Some zero clearance fireplaces can be inserted into existing masonry fireplace 

openings, and thus are sometimes called "inserts". Some of these units are equipped with closefitting doors and have operating and combustion characteristics similar to wood stoves. 

Wood stoves are enclosed wood heaters that control 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 characteristics, there are five different categories of 

residential wood burning devices: (1) the conventional wood stove; (2) the non-catalytic wood 

stove; (3) the catalytic wood stove; (4) the pellet stove; and (5) the masonry heater. 

The conventional stove category comprises all stoves without catalytic combustors not included 

in the other noncatalytic categories (i. e., noncatalytic and pellet). Conventional stoves do not 

have any emission reduction technology or design features and, in most cases, were 

manufactured before July 1, 1986. Stoves with various airflow designs may be in this category, 

such as updraft, downdraft, crossdraft, and S-flow. 

Noncatalytic wood stoves are those units that do not employ catalysts but that do have emission 

reducing technology or features. Typical noncatalytic design includes baffles and secondary 

combustion chambers. 

Catalytic stoves are equipped with a ceramic or metal honeycomb device, called a combustor or 

converter, that is coated with a noble metal such as platinum or palladium. The catalyst 

material reduces the ignition temperature of the unburned VOC and CO in the exhaust gases, 

thus augmenting their ignition and combustion at normal stove operating temperatures. As 

these components of the gases burn, the temperature inside the catalyst increases to a point at 

which the ignition of the gases is essentially self-sustaining. 

Pellet stoves are those fueled with pellets of sawdust, wood products, and other biomass 

materials pressed into manageable shapes and sizes. These stoves have active air flow systems 

and unique grate design to accommodate this type of fuel. Some pellet stove models are subject 

to the 1988 New Source Performance Standards, while others are exempt due to a high air-tofuel ratio (i. e., greater than 35-to-1). 

Masonry heaters are large, enclosed chambers made of masonry products or a combination of 

masonry products and ceramic materials. These devices are exempt from the 1988 New Source 

Performance Standards due to their weight (i. e., greater than 1764 lb). Masonry heaters are 

gaining popularity as a cleaner-burning, heat-efficient form of primary and supplemental heat, 

relative to some other types of wood heaters. In a masonry heater, a complete charge of wood is 

burned in a relatively short period of time. The use of masonry materials promotes heat 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06 

 IV-62 

transfer. Thus, radiant heat from the heater warms the surrounding area for many hours after the 

fire has burned out. 

Emissions 

Emissions from residential wood burning devices, caused mainly by incomplete combustion, 

include PM10, CO, NOx, SOx, and VOC. 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. 

A variety of variables can affect residential wood burning emissions. Stove type, burn rate, 

wood type, and temperature are among the variables that affect the amounts of pollutants 

emitted from a fire. Therefore, there is no one emission factor representative of all the possible 

operating conditions. It is noted, however, that residential wood burning follows seasonal and 

regional patterns. Wood consumption is highest during the winter months and is higher on a per 

household basis in rural mountainous areas than in urban areas. The prevailing meteorological 

conditions (i.e. long-lasting temperature inversions) in winter compound the adverse air quality 

effects associated with emissions from residential wood burning. During a temperature 

inversion, the air is likely to be stagnant. The stagnant air mass traps air pollutants which then 

accumulate near ground-level. 

It is also noted that in regard to wood stoves, emissions may be relatively higher in warmer 

climates (such as southern California) than in colder climates since higher burn rates (i.e., hotter 

and more complete combustion conditions) characteristic of colder climates produce lower 

emissions. Additionally, fires tend to be started and allowed to burn out more frequently in 

warmer climates hence the kindling phase portion of the burn period contribute relatively more 

to the overall emissions in warmer climates than in colder ones. Furthermore, stoves purchased 

in the Western United States tend to have larger fireboxes than those purchased elsewhere such 

that if all else is equal, stoves in the Western United States will have higher emissions 

(combustion temperatures are not as high in a larger firebox). 

The emissions inventory from residential wood burning in the district is presented in the control 

measure summary. The emissions inventory was developed based on the estimated number of 

wood-burning households in the Basin and the amount of wood burned per household by 

county, temperature profiles, and U.S. EPA’s AP-42 emission factors. As with any control 

measure, AQMD staff, in cooperation with CARB and other stakeholders, will reevaluate the 

inventory as part of the rule development process and refine the inventory if appropriate. 

REGULATORY HISTORY 

Prior to the 2003 AQMP, the District had not targeted residential wood burning for rule 

development. The U.S. EPA 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 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06 

 IV-63 

heaters must be certified to meet a 5.5 grams per hour particulate matter emission standard and 

non-catalytic wood heaters must meet a 8.5 grams per hour standard. Phase II requires that new 

wood heaters sold after July 1, 1992 must meet 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 (Regulation 4) and the Northern Sonoma County 

Air Pollution Control District (APCD), San Louis 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 standards. The California APCDs referenced 

above require all new wood burning devices (including fireplaces) installed in new or existing 

units to meet, at minimum, U.S. EPA Phase II emission 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 measure (SCM) for emissions from residential 

wood heaters. CARB’s SCM for the Control of Emissions from Residential Wood Combustion 

includes a list of specific control strategies for new and existing residential wood heaters (i.e., 

fireplace inserts and wood stoves – not fireplaces). 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 property 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 the 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 sulfur 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 voluntary curtailment of the use 

of wood heaters and fireplaces during poor air quality conditions. 

A number of possible strategies not included in the SCM were identified by CARB during the 

development of the SCM as additional strategies that some districts may wish to consider. 

These include: 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06 

 IV-64 

• Economic incentives for wood heater replacement, 

• Opacity standards, 

• Limits on the number of fireplaces in new single home or multiple dwellings, 

• Removal of existing conventional wood heaters as a condition for the new residential 

development, 

• Use of alternative fuels, 

• Retrofit of existing wood heaters, and 

• Mandatory curtailment program. 

As discussed above, a number of California air pollution control districts have adopted rules that 

regulate emissions from residential wood combustion. 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 stoves 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 fireplaces) must meet EPA Phase II certification. 

(Great Basin APCD) 

• No more than one solid fuel appliance may be installed in any new dwelling or 

nonresidential property. Existing properties with one or more existing solid fuel 

appliances may not install additional solid fuel appliances. (Great Basin APCD) 

• Prior to the completion of the sale or transfer of any real property, all existing noncertified solid fuel appliances must be replaced, removed, or rendered permanently 

inoperable. (Great Basin APCD) 

• Wood fired appliances or fireplaces shall not be used in multiple unit residential 

developments approved after July 1, 1986 except in public areas. (Placer County APCD) 

• No wood burning device (including fireplaces) for which a building permit application is 

submitted on or after February 1, 1994, may be installed in any new or existing dwelling 

unit unless it is one of the following. (San Luis Obispo County APCD) 

EPA-certified Phase II wood burning devices; 

Non-EPA certified catalytic wood burning devices which emit less than or equal to 

4.1 grams per hour PM; 

Non-EPA certified non-catalytic wood burning devices which emit less than or equal 

to 7.5 grams per hour PM; 

Pellet-fueled wood heaters; or 

Dedicated gas-fired fireplaces. 

• All masonry and factory-built fireplaces used in new construction or remodel projects 

shall meet a maximum emission limit of 7.5 grams per hour PM. (Shasta County 

AQMD) 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06 

 IV-65 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

Fireplace and wood stove emissions are highly variable and are a function of wood 

characteristics and operating practices. In general, conditions which promote a fast burn rate 

and higher flame intensity enhance secondary combustion and thereby lower emissions. Studies 

performed by U.S. EPA have shown that new combustion device technology and nonconventional fuels (e.g., natural gas, manufactured logs, etc.) can considerably increase 

combustion efficiency and thereby significantly reduce emissions. Consequently, a 

technologically effective control strategy would ensure that all new wood combustion devices 

(i.e., including fireplaces) meet U.S. EPA certification standards (or other equivalent or more 

stringent standards1) and would also accelerate the turnover of existing non-certified 

combustion units. 

Based on a re-evaluation of the emissions inventory for wood burning devices as well the 

feasibility analysis of potential control strategies (to be conducted during rule development), a 

number of control strategies could be pursued including, but not limited to, those adopted by 

other air districts and those suggested by CARB. As part the rulemaking process, AQMD staff 

would investigate the effectiveness of other air districts’ regulations in relation to any 

conditions unique to Southern California. Stakeholders have recommended that the District 

emphasize cost-effective technological, incentive-based, and voluntary programs. Staff will 

work closely with stakeholders during the rule development process to determine which of the 

possible strategies identified in the control measure, or additional strategies identified at that 

time, would be most feasible in terms of emission reduction potential, cost-effectiveness, 

potential socioeconomic impacts, and potential adverse environmental impacts. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

Emission reductions associated with this control measure would depend on the control strategy 

pursued, including the standards set for wood combustion devices. A U.S. EPA study estimated 

the PM emission reductions from the use of 10 alternatives to open radiant fireplaces with 

cordwood fuel. The reductions ranged from 46 percent for a double-shell convection, natural 

draft fireplace to 100 percent for gas-fired fireplace (six of the 10 alternatives had reduction 

efficiencies 94 percent or greater). Likewise, the study evaluated the PM emission reductions 

for the use of five alternatives to conventional stoves with cordwood fuel. The emission 

reductions ranged from 27 percent for a conventional stove with densified fuel to 92 percent for 

a pellet stove (four of the five alternatives had a reduction efficiency of 71 percent or greater). 

Since the control strategy is uncertain at this time, projected emission reductions are also 

uncertain and require further analysis. It should be noted that while controlling emission from 

residential wood burning is primarily intended to reduce PM10 emissions, an added benefit 

would also be reduced emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, and hazardous air pollutants. 

 

1

 More stringent standards may include thermal efficiency standards. Increased thermal efficiency likely reduces 

emissions since less fuel is consumed to produce the same amount of heat. There has been little incentive for 

manufacturers to increase thermal efficiency since efficiency testing is not required in the U.S. EPA New Source 

Performance Standard certification process. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-06 

 IV-66 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

Compliance requirements for this control measure would depend on the control strategy 

implemented. 

TEST METHODS 

The appropriate test methods for this control 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 associated 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 enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain 

the state and federal ambient air quality standards 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, Proposed Clean Air Plan (Rescinded), March 2002 

CARB, Agenda, Public Meeting to Consider Approval of a Suggested Control Measure for the 

Control of Emissions from Residential Wood Combustion, November 1989. 

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

Northern Sonoma APCD, Regulation IV - Control Measure for Wood Fired Appliance 

Emissions. 

San Luis Obispo APCD, Rule 504 - Residential Wood Combustion. 

Shasta County AQMD, Rule 3:23 – Fireplace and Solid Fuel Heating Device Usage. 

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 Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-07 

 IV-67 

NATURAL GAS FUEL SPECIFICATIONS 

[NOx] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: NATURAL GAS FUEL COMBUSTION (STATIONARY SOURCES) 

CONTROL METHODS: FUEL SPECIFICATIONS 

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): NOT DETERMINED

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

The purpose of this control measure is to seek emission reductions from the combustion of 

natural gas with elevated higher heating value (referred to as “hot gas”) in stationary 

applications. 

Background 

Natural gas is a combustible, gaseous mixture primarily composed of methane (CH4), with small 

amounts of more complex hydrocarbons, such as ethane (CH6), propane (C3H8), butane (C4H10) 

and pentane (C5H12). Natural gas delivered for use in Southern California is typically greater 

than 93 percent methane (1,013 British Thermal Units (Btu) per standard cubic foot [scf]). 

Natural gas produced from associated oil reserves may contain high levels of ethane (1,792 

Btu/scf) and propane (2,590 Btu/scf) and, in California, averages 1,095 Btu/scf to 1,100 Btu/scf 

and ranges up to 1,181 Btu/scf. The elevated higher heating value (HHV) of such gas relative to 

natural gas with a lower heating value may result in increased combustion temperature and, 

possibly, increased NOx emissions. Combustion of natural gas with uncharacteristically higher 

heating values could increase stationary source NOx emissions by greater than 20 percent, 

according to testing conducted by the SCAQMD on two pieces of non-residential natural gas 

fired equipment. 

Natural gas is produced either from gas wells which do not produce any crude oil (nonassociated gas) or in conjunction with crude oil production (associated gas). Associated gas 

production tends to have are greater percentage of ethane, propane, and other hydrocarbons 

which elevate the HHV of the gas. 

In California, associated gas is produced within the southern half of the state. Specifically, 

production of associated gas is concentrated in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (SSJV) and 

South Central Coast (SCC) region. In 1999, about 16 percent of the natural gas used in 

California was produced in the State and 84 percent was imported from the Rockies and the 

southwestern United States, and Canada. Of the 16 percent of the natural gas produced in 

California, about 72 percent is associated gas. 

Because associated gas is regionally produced, most of this gas is consumed locally. During the 

recent energy crisis in California, there has been an increase in natural gas production in the San 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-07 

 IV-68 

Joaquin Valley. Also, changes in supplier contracts have resulted in decreased demand in that 

region. However, Southern California Gas Company has installed a gas chromatograph and 

feedback controls at a key transmission point in their system in order to assure that SSJV 

produced associated gas is adequately blended before it gets to the Los Angeles basin. 

Regulatory History 

California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) General Order 58-A (Standards for Gas Service 

in the State of California) sets standards for the heating value and purity of natural gas. The 

PUC’s heating value standard requires uniform quality of the gas supplied, but does not specify 

an average, minimum, or maximum heating value. In regard to gas purity, PUC General Order 

58-A sets standards for the hydrogen sulfide and total sulfide content of gas (0.25 grain/100 scf 

and 5 grains/100 scf, respectively). While associated gas can vary widely in properties, it meets 

the pipeline specifications for commercial natural gas. 

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 heating value of natural gas. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

Combustion of natural gas with uncharacteristically higher heating values results in increased 

combustion temperature and, possibly, increased NOx emissions. The control measure proposes 

to establish an upper HHV limit for natural gas fuel. Natural gas producers/suppliers could 

achieve the objective of this control strategy by either not supplying hot gas to the District, or 

by removing the more complex hydrocarbons or otherwise reducing the Btu value of the hot 

gas. Complex hydrocarbons can be removed by condensing processes, while the addition of 

inerts can lower the Btu value. The District will continue data collection to further determine 

the relationship between the HHV for natural gas fuel and NOx emissions from gas-fired 

equipment. Based on this information, the District will make a final determination about the 

potential emission reductions that can be realized from this measure. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

Projected emission reductions are uncertain at this time, and require further analysis. 

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. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-07 

 IV-69 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. 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 adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain 

the state and federal ambient air quality standards in all areas affected by emission sources 

under its jurisdiction (Health and Safety Code §40001). 

REFERENCES 

CARB, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons Proposed Amendments to the Alternative 

Fuels For Motor Vehicle Regulations, December 2001.

SCAQMD, “Effects of Hot Gas on Stationary Source Emissions,” Presentation to CAPCOA 

Mobile Source and Fuels Subcommittee, January 2003. 

Public Utilities Commission, General Order 58-A: Standards for Gas Service in the State of 

California, April 1989. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-08 

 IV-70 

FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM LARGE VOC SOURCES 

[VOC] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: LARGE STATIONARY POINT AND AREA VOC SOURCES 

CONTROL METHODS: EMISSION REDUCTION PLAN; EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 

INVENTORY REVISIONS 

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): NOT DETERMINED

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

Despite existing District regulations for stationary point and area sources, these sources still 

represent a significant portion of the emissions inventory in the South Coast Air Basin. In 2010, 

the stationary point sources and area sources under District's jurisdiction are estimated to 

contribute to approximately 83 tons per day (representing 13% of the 2010 VOC inventory) and 

120 tons per day (representing 19% of the 2010 inventory) of VOC emissions, respectively. 

The top 300 largest point sources in the Basin are estimated to contribute to approximately 70% 

of the stationary point sources in 2010. 

The AQMP's point source emissions inventory is based on the reported emissions data by over 

3,000 facilities under the Annual Emission Reporting (AER) Program, required under District 

Rule 301. For the 2003 AQMP, reported emissions from point source facilities in the 1996/97 

AER Program were used to establish the 1997 baseline emissions for point sources. The 1997 

baseline inventory for small permitted or unpermitted area sources, comprised of approximately 

90 individual categories, was calculated based on specific methodologies for each category. 

The projected emissions for point and area sources were then estimated by applying the 

demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, 

employment demographic factors) as well as the rule factors (associated with implementation of 

District's adopted rules) to the 1997 baseline. Although inventory methodologies and emission 

data were evaluated and audited to represent the best available information, further 

improvements and refinements can be made to these inventory estimates. 

Although the majority of the point source facilities are already subject to various source-specific 

District rules, the facility-wide mass emissions from the largest facilities still represent a 

significant source of emissions in the Basin. Additional opportunities may exist at the facility 

level (instead of across-the-board equipment process source category level) to achieve 

additional reductions based on implementation of feasible measures. The purpose of this 

measure is to allow SIP reductions through inventory improvement and/or facility-based 

emission reductions. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-08 

 IV-71 

Regulatory History 

VOC emissions from stationary point and area sources are currently regulated under various 

source-specific District Regulation XI and Regulation IV rules. Emission data under the 

district’s jurisdiction was either based on the reported data or source-specific inventory 

estimates and inventory projection methodology described in Appendix III of the 2003 AQMP. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

This control measure seeks to achieve further emission reductions from the largest stationary 

point sources through implementation of facility-specific emission reduction plans. Under this 

control measure, facilities will be required to submit a plan to outline specific measures which 

would be implemented to reduce their overall emissions beyond the existing regulations and 

achieve a specified emission reduction target. These measures could include, but are not limited 

to, add-on controls, process controls, product reformulations, and improved housekeeping 

practices. The reduction targets will be based on technology-based control targets for various 

source categories which would be developed by District staff and would take into account 

technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Under the District-approved emission reduction 

plan, facilities would have the flexibility to select the most feasible combination of control 

technologies for their facility to achieve the required reductions. Should the reduction target at 

the facility be not technically feasible, it would have to certify that all feasible measures have 

been implemented. This measure does not seek to curtail production rate. A mitigation fee may 

be considered as an option to requiring the implementation of potential controls. 

In addition, the control measure proposes to actively improve emission estimates for any point 

and area source inventories as a prelude to control measure or rule development. If additional 

technical analysis, including source testing, indicates that actual emissions are less than 

previously estimated, the reductions would then be creditable toward SIP commitments. In 

order for reductions from improved emission calculation methodologies to be SIP creditable, a 

public review process will also be instituted to solicit comments and make appropriate 

revisions. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

Projected emission reductions from implementation of this control measure cannot be quantified 

at this time and require further analysis. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

Compliance with this control measure would depend on the type of controls implemented by 

each facility. Facilities subject to this measure would be subject to reporting, recordkeeping, and 

monitoring to ensure that the emission control strategies are implemented and the corresponding 

emission reduction targets are achieved. 

TEST METHODS 

VOC monitoring and source testing would follow EPA or approved District guidelines or test 

methods. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003MSC-08 

 IV-72 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined and would depend on 

implementation of specific control strategies. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

The District has the authority to regulate VOC emissions from stationary and point sources in 

the Basin. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-03(P2) 

 IV-73 

EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM RESTAURANT OPERATIONS 

[PM10] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: RESTAURANT OPERATIONS 

CONTROL METHODS: EXHAUST CONTROL TECHNOLOGY; ADD-ON CONTROLS;

GRILL DESIGN CHANGES

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

PM10 INVENTORY 10.7 10.4 10.6 

PM10 REDUCTION 0.2 1.0

PM10 REMAINING 10.2 9.6 

CONTROL COST: $14,500 PER TON OF PM REDUCED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Information presented in this control measure for restaurant operations (e.g., emissions 

inventory, control efficiency, and cost-effectiveness) represents the current understanding of the 

source category. During the rule development process, the District will continue to collect and 

assess information, as it becomes available. Information collected during the rule development 

process will be appropriately reflected in the rule applicability and requirements. 

Background 

Restaurants employ a number of cooking devices, such as charbroilers, deep fat fryers, griddles, 

ovens, and rotisseries which emit VOC and/or PM10. Griddles account for approximately 

fourteen percent of the total PM10 restaurant emissions inventory and fourteen percent of the 

total VOC emissions. Emissions from deep-fat fryers are negligible for PM10 and are seven 

percent of the VOC emission inventory. Oven emissions appear to be negligible. Thus, this 

control measure covers restaurant facilities which use charbroilers; the equipment responsible 

for 86 percent of the emissions from the restaurant operations source category. Approximately 

33 percent of the estimated 29,000 restaurants in the Basin use underfired charbroilers. Testing 

has shown that the majority of PM10 emissions from charbroilers are measured at 2.5 microns 

and below. 

Charbroiling operations are the most common method of direct meat-firing by “quick service” 

and full-service restaurants. The charbroiler can be located either against the wall where the 

exhaust flows to a wall-mounted hood, or in the middle of the kitchen where the exhaust flows 

to an island-type hood. Depending on the number of hoods and the ventilation configuration, 

other equipment such as deep fat-fryers and griddles may be vented to the same hood. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-03(P2) 

 IV-74 

Charbroiling consists of three main components: a heating source, a high-temperature radiant 

surface, and a grill. The grill, which is grated, holds the meat while exposing it to the radiant 

heat. When grease (fat) and meat additives such as tenderizers fall from the cooking meat onto 

the high-temperature radiant surface, both VOC and PM10 emissions are generated. The 

decomposition of fat and food additives releases various gaseous organics including aldehydes, 

organic acids, alcohol, and nitrogen and sulfur compounds. Particulate emissions result from 

the fat being entrained when dripping grease flares up. 

Charbroilers are further distinguished as either chain-driven or under-fired. A chain-driven is a 

semi-enclosed device with a mechanical chain, which automatically moves the food through the 

device. Under-fired means the heat source is located below the food. Restaurants chiefly 

operate flame-fired broilers during the dinner hours of 6 PM to 8 PM. However, many “quick 

service” food establishments have direct-flame broilers with peak operations from 11 AM to 2 

PM and from 5 PM to 7 PM. Under-fired charbroilers are responsible for the majority of 

emissions from the restaurant operations source category (84 percent of PM10 emissions, and 

71 percent of VOC emissions). 

Regulatory History 

Rule 219 – Equipment not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II, was amended 

September 11, 1998 to specifically exempt the following equipment from written permit 

requirements of Rules 201 – Permit to Construct and Rule 203 – Permit to Operate: 

 “Equipment used in eating establishments for the purpose of preparing food for human 

consumption, including commercial charbroilers and associated control equipment subject to 

Rule 222.” 

Rule 222 – Filing Requirements for Specific Emission Sources not Requiring a Written Permit 

Pursuant to Regulation II, is a permit streamlining rule which requires sources subject to its 

provisions, to obtain a filing rather than a permit from the District. Sources operating by a filing 

and not a permit are not required to install Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Deepfat fryers and griddles, due to their negligible emissions, are also exempt from permit and they 

are additionally exempted from filing requirements. These equipment may, however, share a 

hood which is venting a charbroiler and if control equipment were installed in the hood, the 

emissions from all commonly vented equipment would be reduced. 

Charbroilers, although exempted from permit and thus BACT, must comply with Rules 401 – 

Visible Emissions and 402 – Nuisance. In September 1998, Rule 401 was amended to allow 

commercial charbroilers to comply with the state standard of Ringleman 2 (40 percent) opacity 

reading for a period not to exceed three years (September 2001), instead of the more stringent 

Ringleman 1 (20 percent) standard applied to most equipment operating control technology for 

under-fired charbroilers. In November 2001, this exemption was extended until November, 

2005. 

Commercial restaurant establishments must also comply with state requirements which usually 

follow the standards set forth by the Building Officials, and Code Administration’s Basic 

Mechanical Code and the National Fire Protection Agency’s National Fire Codes, as well as 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-03(P2) 

 IV-75 

Health Department standards. These codes require restaurant facilities to operate and maintain 

sufficient grease removal devices and exhaust and ventilation systems. Such devices reduce 

grease particulate emissions but are not considered air pollution controls by the District. 

On November 14, 1997, the District adopted Rule 1138 – Control of Emissions from Restaurant 

Operations. Specifically, this rule applies to commercial cooking operations using chain-driven 

charbroilers. Sources had until November 4, 1999, to install a flameless catalytic oxidizer 

control device and reduce PM10 and VOC emissions by approximately 83 percent. The rule, at 

full implementation, was estimated to reduce emissions from this portion of the restaurant 

operations source category by 0.5 ton per day of PM10 (almost entirely consisting of PM2.5) 

and 0.2 ton per day of VOC emissions. 

The control measure for restaurant operations in the 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone State 

Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin includes both VOC and PM10 whereas this 

control measure in the 2003 AQMP targets PM10 only. The 1999 Amendments to the 1997 

Ozone State Implementation Plan allow substitution of emission reductions when another rule 

results in more emission reductions than planned. Due to the high costs associated with 

reducing VOC emissions from under-fired charbroilers, the commitment for VOC emission 

reductions from restaurant operations has been met through a substitution of excess reductions 

achieved through implementation of other control measures. In August 2000, the Governing 

Board directed staff to substitute VOC emissions reductions from another control measure that 

achieves emission reductions in excess of the AQMP projected reductions. While a control 

technology may produce reductions in both VOC and PM10 emissions, this control measure 

focuses on PM10 reductions. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

The University of California, College of Engineering, Center for Environmental Research and 

Technology (CE-CERT), under contract with the AQMD is conducting a control technology 

assessment, testing possible cost-effective controls for under-fired charbroilers. A Restaurant 

Advisory Committee formed by CE-CERT, consisting of members representing academia, 

AQMD, industry and manufacturers, chose several technologies to be investigated. 

CE-CERT investigated several potential commercial cooking emission control technology 

systems, including: microwave ceramic filter, cyclonic air scrubbing device and process design. 

Criteria for testing included the ability to reduce both PM10 and VOC emissions, cost, 

commercial availability, maintenance and operational requirements, and safety. 

A microwave ceramic filter technology was tested, based on the concept of filtering out the 

harmful emissions in the ventilation system and periodically regenerating the loaded filters 

using microwave energy. This process, revised due to poor overall performance after several 

initial tests, was tested again and still performed poorly. Also tested was a cyclonic air 

scrubbing device, which employs water and filters to remove PM10 and carbon beds to remove 

the VOC. Initial testing shows an 88 percent reduction in PM10 emissions and a 44 percent 

reduction in VOC emissions. An alternative to these and other prototype control technologies is 

the replacement of under-fired charbroilers with a SmoklessTM broiler. The SmoklessTM broiler 

is commercially available and is in use by approximately seventy restaurants in the United 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-03(P2) 

 IV-76 

States. The SmoklessTM broiler is not a control device but rather basic equipment similar to an 

under-fired charbroiler. However, the SmoklessTM broiler is not a direct-flame cooker and it 

may result in a product that differs in appearance and/or taste. The SmoklessTM broiler is 

estimated to result in a 75 percent reduction in PM10 emissions and a 71 percent reduction in 

VOC emissions. 

EMISSION REDUCTIONS 

The projected emission inventories and emission reductions are provided in the Control 

Measure Summary. The 2010 emission inventory is estimated to be 10.6 tons of PM10 per day. 

The emission reduction target for Control Measure #2003PRC-03 is approximately 1 ton of 

PM10 per day reduction from this baseline. The 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP 

estimated that this control measure would achieve 7 tons per day. However, based on the 

limited availability of control options and the inherent costs associated with the probable control 

technologies, the expected emission reductions were reassessed and are now set at a target of 1 

ton per day. Future rulemaking would seek to achieve the maximum emission reductions 

possible (i.e., greater penetration), given the available control technology and associated costs. 

If a control technology is found to be more cost-effective then those currently available, 

additional emission reductions are possible. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

There are currently no available cost-effective controls which could be applied to the entire 

population of charbroilers in the South Coast Air Basin. However, as cost-effective controls are 

identified, it seems appropriate that facilities subject to any future rules arising from 

implementation of this control measure maintain records at the restaurant regarding quantities 

and types of food cooked, equipment operations and maintenance. Implementation of an 

outreach program would improve compliance. Maintenance of these records should not be a 

hardship in light of the fact that restaurants typically track types of food and their volume 

cooked. 

TEST METHODS 

In conjunction with the rule development process 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 charbroilers 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 of this control measure has been estimated to be $14,500 per ton using 

the installation of the cyclonic air scrubber as the basis for the cost estimates. The District will 

continue to analyze the potential cost impacts associated with implementing this control 

measure. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-03(P2) 

 IV-77 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

The District has authority to regulate PM10 emissions generated from restaurant operations. 

Implementation of this control measure is anticipated to begin in 2004 with a phase-in approach 

structured to reduce capital costs of controls with larger restaurants achieving compliance first. 

REFERENCES 

Final report by Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., A Detailed Survey of Restaurant 

Operations in South Coast Air Basin; Contract No. 98089, February 1999. 

Final report by University of California Riverside, College of Engineering, Center for 

Environmental Research and Technology, Efficient and Cost-effective Control Technologies for 

Underfired Charbroilers, Contract No. 98015, February 1999 

Final report by University of California Riverside, College of Engineering, Center for 

Environmental Research and Technology, Further Development of Emissions Test Methods and 

Development of Emission Factors for Various Commercial Cooking Operations, Contract No. 

96027, July 1997. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Status Report on Controlling Particulate Matter 

and Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Restaurant Operations, Agenda No. 20, 

August 18, 2000. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Report on Feasibility of Emissions Reductions 

from Under-Fired Charbroilers, Agenda No. 19, May 14, 1999. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1999 Amendments to the 1997 Ozone State 

Implementation Plan for South Coast Air Basin, December 1999 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Protocol – Determination of Particulate and 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Restaurant Operations, November 14, 1997 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Staff report for Proposed Rule 1138 – Control of 

Emissions from Restaurant Operations, October 10, 1997. 

Walden Research Corporation. Background Information for Establishment of National 

Standards of Performance for New Sources – Deep Fat Frying. Prepared for the Office of Air 

Programs of the U.S. EPA, October 1971. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-07 

 IV-78 

INDUSTRIAL PROCESS OPERATIONS 

[VOC] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL PROCESS OPERATIONS

CONTROL METHODS: STEP I: EMISSION INVENTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

ASSESSMENT

STEP II: CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND 

IMPLEMENTATION (ENHANCED INSPECTION MAINTENANCE 

AND HOUSEKEEPING WORK PRACTICES, PROCESS 

MODIFICATIONS, ADD-ON CONTROLS) 

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 15.8 13.9 15.1 

VOC REDUCTION 0.8 1.8

VOC REMAINING 13.1 13.3 

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 18.1 15.4 16.9 

VOC REDUCTION 0.9 2.0

VOC REMAINING 14.5 14.9 

CONTROL COST: UP TO $13,500 PER TON OF VOC REDUCED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

This control measure proposes to further control VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial 

process operations. Control Measure #PRC-07 is based on Control Measure #ADV-PRC, which 

was part of the 1999 Amendment of the 1997 Ozone SIP Revision for the South Coast Air 

Basin. 

Background 

The source categories targeted under this control measure are permitted and unpermitted VOC 

sources that are involved in manufacturing or fabrication of polystyrene foam products, rubber, 

plastic, fiberglass, or chemical compounds, as well as those involved in the processing, 

handling, or storage of VOC containing materials. Emissions are primarily generated from 

material handling, use of chemicals, blowing agents, manufacturing processes, as well as 

storage, handling, and processing of resins, or the drying/cooling of finished products. Sources 

under this control measure would also include bakeries, breweries, and other point and area 

sources under chemical, food, and agriculture products processing source categories. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-07 

 IV-79 

Regulatory History 

Rubber products and plastic products manufacturing operations include processes that are not 

currently regulated under a source-specific District rule for the pollutant identified. However, 

they are subject to Rule 402 which limits the discharge from any source causing a public 

nuisance, and to Rule 442 which controls the discharge of organic solvents into the atmosphere. 

Other source categories targeted by this control measure are regulated under other source 

specific Regulation XI rules. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

Since many of the source categories targeted by this measure are not permitted, it is necessary to 

first identify and refine the emissions inventory and better characterize the sources of emissions, 

and industry operations and practices. Based on the findings, appropriate control methods can 

then be developed. Potential control methods could include enhanced inspection and 

maintenance and other housekeeping work practices to reduce fugitive emissions from material 

transfer, storage, and processing. Process modification may also provide an effective control 

option to minimize or eliminate emission sources. Add-on controls may also be considered 

where feasible and cost-effective. Rule 1175 – Control of Emissions from the Manufacture of 

Polymeric Cellular (Foam) Products is an example of an Regulation XI rule that may be reevaluated under this control measure. Opportunities may exist for the full or partial elimination 

of VOC-containing blowing agents with non-VOC blowing agents in the manufacturing of 

extruded polystyrene foam sheets which are controlled under Rule 1175. This measure will 

seek emission reductions from these and other processes that can potentially be modified, 

controlled, or converted. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

The projected VOC emissions and estimated emission reductions are provided in the Control 

Measure Summary. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

Depending on the control methods proposed, appropriate rule compliance requirements will be 

developed, which may include, but are not limited to, operator inspection, maintenance, and 

recordkeeping. It may also be necessary to develop innovative rule implementation programs 

dealing with numerous non-permitted small sources. 

TEST METHODS 

Source testing methods will be determined on a case-by-case basis for various sources. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been specifically determined, but is 

expected to be no more than $13,500 per ton of VOC reduced. 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. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003PRC-07 

 IV-80 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

The District has the authority to regulate VOC emissions from industrial processes. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01 

 IV-81 

EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM LIVESTOCK WASTE 

[VOC, NH3] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: LIVESTOCK WASTE

CONTROL METHODS: EMISSION REDUCTION CAN OCCUR FROM OUT-OF-BASIN 

DAIRY COW RELOCATION, THE IMPACT OF WATER QUALITY 

REGULATIONS, AND OTHER CONTROLS AS NEEDED, SUCH AS 

MANURE REMOVAL OUT OF THE BASIN OR TO CONTROLLED 

COMPOSTING FACILITIES OR ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS. OTHER 

POTENTIAL CONTROL OPTIONS INCLUDE LOW-NITROGEN 

FEEDS, PROMOTION OF AEROBIC CONDITIONS (E.G.,

ENZYMATIC AND MICROBIAL PRODUCTS), IMPROVED 

HOUSEKEEPING PROCEDURES OR OTHER APPROVED 

METHODS

EMISSIONS (DAIRIES ONLY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 12.1 11.0 11.0

VOC REDUCTION 4.2 4.8

VOC REMAINING 6.8 6.2 

NH3 INVENTORY 21.2 19.3 19.3 

NH3 REDUCTION 8.7 8.7

NH3 REMAINING 10.6 10.6

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 12.1 11.0 11.0

VOC REDUCTION 4.2 4.8

VOC REMAINING 6.8 6.2 

CONTROL COST: NOT AVAILABLE FOR VOCS (REDUCTIONS DUE TO 

RELOCATION AND IMPACT OF WATER QUALITY 

REGULATIONS). $2,000 TO $7,000 PER TON OF AMMONIA 

REDUCED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD WITH THE COOPERATION OF WATER AND

LOCAL AGENCIES

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

Livestock waste emissions are precursors to both ozone and particulate matter (PM10). VOCs 

contribute to ozone and ammonia is a precursor of secondary PM10 (aerosol particulates). The 

manure from the dense concentration of dairy operations in the Chino/Ontario area produces the 

most concentrated source of ammonia emissions in the Basin. Ammonia combines with nitric 

and sulfuric acid produced from upwind combustion sources (e.g. NOx and SOx sources in Los 

Angeles and Orange counties) to produce aerosol nitrates. High levels of ammonium nitrate and 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01 

 IV-82 

sulfate particulates are seen at monitoring stations downwind of the Chino/Ontario area; these 

stations typically record the highest levels of PM10 in the Basin. (Direct emissions of PM10 

arise from wind entrainment from corral areas and stockpiles, wind entrainment of materials 

during feed preparation, and road dust from paved and unpaved roads on the livestock facilities. 

Rule 1186, adopted in 1997, regulates PM10 emissions from dairies produced by wind 

entrainment of materials during feed preparation, and road dust from unpaved roads at dairies.) 

Recent Scientific Studies of Livestock Emissions

In response to concerns of the local dairy industry that previous dairy waste emission estimates 

(Radian, 1991) were not based on unique local conditions, the District initiated a $130,000 

study of these emissions (SCAQMD, 1996). The data from the study was re-evaluated (ATC, 

2000), resulting in a revised ammonia emission factor of 51 lbs/cow/year of ammonia. Little or 

no information is available on emissions from calf and heifer manure. Based on current animal 

population data, manure data, and manure production estimates (e.g. 4.1 tons/year of manure per 

adult cow, 1.5 tons/year of manure per heifer and 0.6 tons/year of manure per calf), AQMD staff 

estimates that over 90% of the Basin’s manure is from adult cows. 

There is currently controversy over the VOC emission factor used for dairy waste emissions. 

The current emission factor is based on a 1938 methane measurement study by Ritzman and 

Benedict. Successive literature studies have used these measurements to establish a VOC 

emission factor for dairy waste emissions. Unfortunately, an error in one of the literature 

studies (Taback, 1978) confused the methane emissions for total organic compound (TOC) 

emissions. As a result, CARB has historically used a 12.8 lbs VOC/head/year emission factor. 

Correcting for the TOC/methane ratio, the emission factor would be 18.3 lbs VOC/head/year. 

In the 1997, 1999, and 2003 AQMPs, the AQMD used an emission factor of 16 lbs 

VOC/head/year. CARB is sponsoring additional measurement studies to resolve the issues 

surrounding the dairy waste VOC emission factor, but this research will not be completed 

within the next year. 

Based on recent dairy cow population information, the latest dairy emission estimates are 

approximately 21 tons per day of ammonia, and 6 tons per day of VOC emissions in the 1993 

(and 1997) base year in the Basin, predominately concentrated in the Chino area. 

The Local Dairy Industry

A dairy farm or facility is an agricultural operation directly related to the raising cows or 

producing milk from cows for the purpose of making a profit or for a livelihood. In 2001, there 

were 312 dairies in the Basin with 252,900 milking cows. Most of the dairies (87%) are located 

in the Chino-Ontario-Norco region, which was a previously designated Agricultural Preserve. 

Most of the remaining dairies are in the San Jacinto watershed region. Most dairy farms 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 removed from the corral, either to on-site stockpiles or off-site. The high 

concentration of animals per acre of land results in a larger volume of manure stored in corrals, 

stockpiles and to a much smaller extent, holding ponds. This high density of livestock, as well 

as the location of dairies, limits manure disposal options. Few dairies have pastures on which to 

spread the manure, and there are only a few local composters that use the manure. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01 

 IV-83 

The land occupied by dairies and other livestock facilities in the Chino Basin were part of an 

Agricultural Preserve until recently. Land in the Agricultural Preserve could not be sold for 

non-agricultural purposes, placing a serious restriction on facilities that may prefer to relocate 

for other reasons. This is also true for livestock facilities that are under contract with the State, 

based on the 1965 Williamson Act. In 1997, the Agricultural Preserve designation was 

rescinded, allowing dairy farms to be sold for development. However, as of January 2001, two 

thirds of the dairy properties are still under the Williamson Act. In 1999, the Local Agency 

Formation Commission granted the City of Chino annexation rights to 7,000 acres and the City 

of Ontario the annexation rights to 8600 acres. As a result, dairy relocation in these areas has 

accelerated. Both cities are moving forward with development plans for the annexed areas. 

In summary, urbanization pressure in the Chino Basin is causing many dairies to relocate or 

make plans to relocate. This is evidenced by the downward trend in the number of dairy cows, 

approximately 2% per year since 1997. This 2% per year relocation rate is used to determine 

future baseline emissions. Industry estimates that only 50% of the dairies in operation in the 

mid-1990s will remain permanently in the Basin. At the current rate of relocation, this level of 

dairies will occur by 2020. (The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) estimates that the 50% 

level will be reached in 2015, indicating a 3% per year relocation rate.) With the reduction in 

dairy cows, emissions from dairy waste will decrease proportionally. 

Recent Water Quality Regulations

In 1999, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) adopted Order No. 

99-11, “General Waste Discharge Requirements for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 

(Dairies and Related Facilities) within the Santa Ana Region.” This order required, among 

other things, that 1) existing stockpiles on or off of dairies be removed by the end of 2002; 2) 

manure removed from the corrals must be removed form the dairies within 180 days and these 

“clean days” be reported to SARWQCB; and 3) manure can only be spread on cropland in 

agrometric rates and expeditiously incorporated into the soil. Dairies are also required to submit 

Annual Report of Animal Waste Discharge to the SARWQCB each year that includes dairy 

location, animal population, and manure disposal information (e.g., on-farm cropland 

application, manure hauled away and its destination), and any historical stockpiles that have not 

been removed. Except for a small amount of manure spread on cropland at the dairy, manure is 

currently hauled from the dairies to composting facilities (~20%) or applied to cropland (~80%). 

Before Order No. 99-11, most manure was spread on local croplands in the Santa Ana and San 

Jacinto regions. In 2001, and with restrictions on manure spreading in the Santa Ana region 

(including the former Agricultural Preserve), most manure spread on croplands is spread in the 

San Jacinto region (51% of total manure), with about 15% of total manure now going out of the 

Basin. Water quality requirements have associated air emission reduction benefits. 

Specifically, expedited removal of manure reduces the time over which the manure produces 

and emits VOCs and ammonia. Also, land application regulations restrict manure overapplication to cropland and expedite the incorporation of manure into the soil, where its 

emission potential is significantly less. 

The Inland Empire Utilities Association (IEUA) is developing state-of-the-art composting and 

anaerobic digester facilities. As noted in their recent Business Plan, IEUA ultimately plans that 

the majority of the local dairy waste will be processed at such facilities. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01 

 IV-84 

Other Livestock Waste Emissions

Based on the Basin’s current ammonia inventory, other livestock waste, particularly poultry 

waste, emits appreciable levels of ammonia. However, due the geographical location of Basin 

poultry farms (e.g., not highly concentrated as dairies, mostly downwind of peak PM10 areas), 

they are not the focus of this control measure. The impact of the new PM2.5 standards, new 

modeling analyses, and identification of cost-effective controls, could change the status of 

poultry in this control measure in future SIPs. 

Regulatory History 

Neither the District nor any other air agency in the nation regulates criteria air emissions from 

livestock operations. State law previously prohibited air districts from issuing permits to 

agricultural activities. Agricultural operations can, however, be subject to air quality rules (c.f. 

Rule 403 agricultural dust control provisions). In settlement of a lawsuit challenging U.S. 

EPA’s approval of California’s Title V permitting program, U.S. E.P.A. agreed to issue a notice 

of proposed rulemaking no later than July 19, 2002, to implement a partial federal operating air 

permits program under 40 C.F.R. Part 71 for state-exempt agricultural sources. Petitioners had 

challenged U.S. E.P.A. approval of California’s Title V program because state law exempts 

agricultural operations from permits from local air districts. The settlement provides that if 

California removes its agricultural sources permitting exemptions, U.S. E.P.A. may grant full 

approval to the covered Part 70 programs and discontinue the federal permit program. 

As part of the rule development process, staff has followed the work of the U.S. EPA, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), and other federal and state agencies on the assessment of 

air emissions from agricultural operations. District staff is not aware of any specific state or 

federal agency that regulates ammonia or VOC emissions from dairy operations. Odor can be a 

complaint of people living near dairy operations. Odor control measures could have an impact 

on reducing ammonia and VOC emissions. Some states (such as North Carolina and Iowa) and 

localities have odor control policies. The policies include site selection and maintaining an 

adequate distance form neighboring residences and other CAFOs, adequate waste collection and 

drainage of feedlot surfaces, restrictions on the use of anaerobic lagoons and guidelines for the 

amount and time that manure can be land applied as fertilizer, among others. The livestock 

industry is subject to federal and state regulations for food safety, water quality, as well as other 

regulations. 

The 1991, 1994, 1997, and 1999 AQMPs included a control measure to reduce emissions from 

livestock waste. Rule 1186, adopted in February 1997, implemented the primary PM10 portion 

of the 1997 AQMP version of WST-01. 

The District is currently developing Proposed Rule 1127 (PR 1127), “Emission Reductions from 

Livestock Waste.” PR 1127 would implement control measure WST-01. To support the 

District’s rule development efforts, District staff initiated a PR 1127 (Livestock Waste 

Management Practices) Working Group that is comprised of District staff, members of the dairy 

community, experts on dairy issues and other regulatory agency staff. The PR 1127 Working 

Group has assisted AQMD staff in developing and peer-reviewing livestock waste control 

research projects. An AQMD contractor has prepared a series of reports on current and potential 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01 

 IV-85 

waste management practices that could be used by Basin dairies to reduce emissions. These 

reports are: 

Report 1: Current Livestock Waste Management Practices in the Basin 

Report 2: Literature and National Program Survey 

Report 3: Identification and effectiveness assessment of control options 

Report 4: Recommendation of Control Options for the Basin 

AQMD staff has recently initiated another contract study to identify manure and feed additives 

that could potentially reduce dairy waste emissions, as well as test protocols that could be used 

to quantify and certify the product’s effectiveness. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

Ammonia: 

The proposed methods of control are primarily oriented toward reducing emissions of ammonia. 

As discussed previously, dairies may be moving from the Basin, and the old Agricultural 

Preserve area in particular, due to land use and economic reasons. The emission reductions will 

be achieved based on both relocation and actual control measures. The implementation of 

various control methods for dairy operations will follow a two-phase approach: 

(1) The 1997 AQMP/PM10 SIP establishes a “carrying” capacity for ammonia emissions, 

particularly for livestock emissions. This “carrying” capacity is set to ensure 

attainment of the PM10 standards, as determined by the attainment demonstration. 

Emission reductions from livestock relocation outside of the Basin will be counted 

toward the 50% emission reduction requirement from the 1993 baseline for the 

livestock industry. In particular, if sufficient relocation of dairy cows and other 

livestock occurs or is committed to occur by January 1, 2004, no further ammonia 

controls will be required for the remaining livestock facilities. 

(2) If the January 1, 2004 targets are not met remaining dairy and other livestock 

facilities will be subject to ammonia controls. The level of control will be set by the 

emission reductions still required to meet the 50% reduction from the 1993 baseline 

emissions, after reducing the inventory due to relocation. Recent staff estimates 

demonstrate that relocation and the impact of recent water quality regulations could 

reduce diary emissions by 43% from the 1993 baseline emission levels by 2006. 

Additional control measures to reduce ammonia emissions are described below, along 

with current estimates of their control efficiency and costs. Dairies and other 

livestock facilities will be able to choose the control method(s) based on their own 

technical and economic considerations, as long as the required emission reductions 

are met. 

Ammonia, VOC, and methane emissions are difficult to control in part because the manure 

cannot always be economically and quickly removed from facilities and treated. Storage in 

corrals and stockpiles is generally under conditions that allow for some anaerobic 

decomposition. To reduce emissions of ammonia (and possibly VOCs), a number of control 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01 

 IV-86 

methods could be used. An AQMD contract survey by TetraTech, Inc. has identified the 

following control technologies that will reduces air emissions from livestock waste. The 

manure handling practices are classified as “on-dairy” or “off-dairy” technologies. 

1. On-Dairy Options 

a. House Keeping & Best Management Practices 

i. More frequent corral cleaning & manure removal 

ii. Eliminating manure stockpiles/reducing duration of stockpiling 

iii. Stockpile covers 

b. Nutrition/Ration management 

i. Use of somatropin 

ii. Crude protein reduction 

iii. Rumen degradable protein reduction & utilization improvement 

c. Wastewater covered anaerobic digester lagoons 

d. Wastewater storage pond covers 

i. Biofilter biomass blankets 

ii. Leca Rock 

iii. Plastic Covers 

iv. Concrete & Covered Tanks 

e. Wastewater storage pond treatments 

f. Biological/Microbial additives 

g. Chemical Additives 

2. Off-Dairy Options 

a. Land application with Best Management Practices 

i. Inside Basin 

ii. Outside Basin 

b. Dairy Relocation 

i. Young stock relocation outside Basin 

ii. Dairy Relocation outside Basin 

c. Composting Inside Basin 

i. Enclosed aerated static pile (ASP) 

ii. Open ASP 

iii. Open Windrow 

d. Composting Outside Basin 

i. Enclosed ASP 

ii. Open ASP 

iii. Open Windrow 

e. Regional anaerobic digestion systems 

f. Regional high-tech manure processing 

g. Drying-combustion-energy production 

Many of these potential control options cannot be sufficiently quantified for current use in a 

regulatory program or are not suitable or cost-effective for the type of dairying that is done in 

the Basin. Based on AQMD staff analysis and contract reports, the following control options 

are most likely to be implemented: 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01 

 IV-87 

1. Relocation (due to farm economics only) 

2. Water Quality Regulations, including: 

Bi-annual removal of manure from dairies, and 

Restricted land application of manure and land application regulations 

3. Open composting (baseline condition) 

4. Anaerobic digesters 

5. Enclosed composting 

6. Increased out-of-Basin disposal 

The District recognizes that additional study will be needed to quantify additional control 

methods and adequately identify the related issues and impacts. Through the PR 1127 Working 

Group, District staff will seek the cooperation of the livestock industries, the University of 

California Cooperative Extension, related regulatory agencies, academia, and others to study 

these and other control methods. District staff also recognizes that CDFA and FDA approval 

may be necessary for some of the control methods, and will work with the livestock industry to 

ensure that cross-regulatory concerns are addressed. 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): 

The emission reductions associated with relocation and water quality regulations already exceed 

the control measure’s VOC emission reduction target. Because of this, no additional control 

methods are explicitly required for VOC emission reductions. However, controls on ammonia 

emissions will result in a small amount of additional VOC reductions. These reductions will be 

in excess of the 2003 AQMP (Ozone SIP) requirements for this control measure. 

Other Impacts 

The alternative uses and disposal methods proposed herein may mitigate some water quality 

impacts in the Santa Ana Watershed Basin. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

The 1997 base year emissions and projected future year emissions in 2006 and 2010 for 

ammonia and VOC are provided in the Control Measure Summary. The 1997 base year 

emissions are carried over from the 1993 baseline emission inventory estimated for the 1997 

AQMP. There was very little change between the emissions inventory for 1993 and 1997, so 

they are identical. In addition, the drop in baseline emissions inventory between 1997 and 2006 

can be attributable to the relocation of dairy operations. Revised VOC emissions, consistent 

with the latest PR 1127 data sources, will be included in the final 2003 AQMP. Ammonia 

emissions are based on the latest emission factors and animal population data. The estimated 

emission reductions anticipated from implementation of this measure are identified for 2006 and 

2010 based on the annual average inventory for VOC and ammonia and the summer planning 

inventory for VOC. Ammonia emission reductions from dairy operations, either through 

relocation or control, are estimated to be 50 percent from 1993 emission levels. Reductions 

presented in the summary table take into account the relocation of dairy operations, water 

quality regulations, and the impact of Proposed Rule 1127. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01 

 IV-88 

RULE COMPLIANCE

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

The District can monitor the overall level of relocation of dairies and determine the resulting 

ammonia emission reductions, using SARWQCB annual data. Depending on the control 

options implemented, the District may require one or more of the following: proof of the use of 

alternate feeds to reduce emissions; repair records for leaking water troughs and piping; the date 

of manure removal from feed lanes, corrals or dairy stockpiles along with certification by the 

person performing the activity; acreage of the corrals and stockpile areas, and the type and 

quantity of ammonia inhibitor used (if any). If the measure is ultimately extended to poultry 

farms, their operators could periodically submit to the District the following information: the 

maximum number of poultry managed during the preceding six months; and the type and 

quantity of ammonia emission inhibitor used. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The predominant control options are shipping manure out of the basin, processing it at 

anaerobic digesters, or processing it at a control composting facility. Cost for disposal actions 

are $7.50/ton of manure shipped to the San Jacinto area in the Basin, $12/ton for 

shipping/tipping at a current (open-windrow) composting facility, $13/ton for shipping to 

Bakersfield (out-of-Basin), $16/ton for shipping to the Mojave desert or Imperial county, and 

$20/ton for tipping at an anaerobic digester. Based on farmers choosing the most inexpensive 

control option (shipping out of the Basin), preliminary cost-effectiveness estimates range from 

$2,000 to $7,000 per ton of ammonia reduced. Rule development will further refine the costeffectiveness estimate. (The VOC emission reduction target is achieved without further control, 

thus no cost-effectiveness calculations for the control measure are necessary.) 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The District has the authority to implement this measure. Implementation is scheduled to begin 

in 2004, with full implementation in 2006. The SARWQCB continues to be responsible for 

implementing Order No. 99-11 and other water quality regulations for local dairies. 

REFERENCES 

Abt Associate, Inc., Apelberg, B, McCubbin, D., Divita, F., Roe, S., Air Quality Impacts of 

Livestock Waste, September 2000. 

ATC, M.C. Chitjian, M. Koizumi, C.W. Botsford, G. Mansell and E. Winegar, Final 1997 

Gridded Ammonia Emission Inventory Update for the South Coast Air Basin, August 2000. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region, Results of 2001 Annual 

Report Analysis, August 2002. 

City of Chino, The Preserve, Chino Sphere of Influence – Subarea 2, Draft Environmental 

Impact Report, SCH # 2000121036, September 2001. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01 

 IV-89 

Earsom, James. Chino Basin Work With Dairies. Soil and Water Conservation Society and 

Southern California Coalition of Resource Conservation Districts’ Regional Workshop. 

September 1996. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Results of the Measurement of Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) from Livestock Waste. January 1995. 

Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Chino Basin Organics Management Strategy Business Plan, 

May 2001. 

National Research Council, The Scientific Basis for Estimating Air Emissions From Animal 

Feeding Operations Interim Report, 2002. 

NC State University, Dairy Production Newsletter, April 1999. 

Radian, R.J. Dikson. Development of the Ammonia Emission Inventory for the Southern 

California Air Quality Study. September 1991. 

Riverside County, California, Ordinance No. 427.3, An Ordinance of the County of Riverside 

Regulating The Land Application of Manure, April 2001. 

Ritzman, E.G., and Benedict, F.G., Nutritional physiology of the adult Ruminant. Carnegie Inst. 

Washington, 1938. 

Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Fact Sheet, General Waste Discharge 

Requirements for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities) 

within the Santa Ana Region, Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001, August 1999. 

Schmidt, C.E., Ph.D, Winegar, E., Ph.D. Final Technical Report Results of the Measurements of 

PM10 Precursor Compounds (PM10PCs) From Dairy Industry Livestock Waste, June 1996. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Projected Air Quality as a Result of Reducing 

Emissions from the Livestock Industry in the South Coast Air Basin. June 1993. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Results of the Measurement of PM10 Precursor 

Compounds from Dairy Industry Livestock Waste. June 1996. 

Splansky, Joel. A Geography of Dairying in the Los Angeles Basin: Past and Present. Fall 2000 

Taback, H. et al. Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions From Stationary Sources in the California 

South Coast Air Basin, October 1984. 

Tetra Tech Inc., Egigian-Nichols, Task 1 - Survey Current Livestock Waste Management 

Practices in the South Coast Air Basin, January 2002. 

Tetra Tech, Inc., Egigian-Nichols, Task 2 – Literature Survey and National Programs, Livestock 

Waste Management Practices Survey and Control Option Assessment, Draft Report, May 2002. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-01 

 IV-90 

Tetra Tech Inc., Egigian-Nichols, Task 3 – Identify Potential Waste Management Practices 

Reducing Ammonia and VOCs, Livestock Waste Management Practices Survey and Control 

Option Assessment, Preliminary Draft Report, November 2002. 

United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe, Convention on Long-Range Transboundary 

Air Pollution, Working Group on Technology. Report on Abatement Techniques to Reduce 

Ammonia Emissions from Agricultural Livestock. January 1996. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-02 

 IV-91 

EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM COMPOSTING 

[VOC, NH3, PM10] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: COMPOSTING AND RELATED OPERATIONS

CONTROL METHODS: ALTERNATIVE COMPOSTING METHODS, EMISSION 

CONTROL EQUIPMENT

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 6.8 6.8 6.8 

VOC REDUCTION 1.2 1.2

VOC REMAINING 5.6 5.6 

NH3 INVENTORY 4.7 4.7 4.7 

NH3 REDUCTION 1.9 1.9

NH3 REMAINING 2.8 2.8 

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 6.8 6.8 6.8 

VOC REDUCTION 1.2 1.2

VOC REMAINING 5.6 5.6 

CONTROL COST: $10,000 PER TON OF VOC AND NH3 REDUCED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

The 1994 and 1997 AQMPs as well as the 1999 amendments to the 1997 Ozone State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the South Coast Air Basin included the proposed Control 

Measure WST-02 – Emission Reductions from Composting. The control measure was proposed 

to be implemented in two phases. Under Phase I, an emissions inventory of composting 

operations would be developed based on additional source tests and improved test protocols. 

Depending on the significance of these emissions, Phase II would identify specific control 

options to reduce emissions (VOC and ammonia) from composting activities. In order to 

implement the proposed control measure, AQMD staff conducted a technical assessment for 

composting and related operations which provided background information on the composting 

industry, estimated the emissions inventory for composting operations, evaluated various 

composting methods and control technologies, and conducted cost-effectiveness analysis 

(SCAQMD, 2002). The proposed control measure presented herein incorporates the results of 

the technology assessment. 

Background 

Composting is a biological process where organic materials including, but not limited to, 

biosolids (solid waste from wastewater treatment), manure, or greenwaste (grass clippings, tree 

trimming, leaves) are decomposed by microorganisms under controlled environment to produce 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-02 

 IV-92 

compost products. In general, compost is a stable, pathogen-free product that can be used as a 

soil amendment and/or fertilizer. From an industrial perspective, composting is an important 

component of the solid waste industry and it provides resource conservation through source 

reduction, recycling, and reuse. However, the composting operations result in air emissions that 

are currently uncontrolled and are not subject to any District source-specific regulation. Source 

testing conducted by the District and California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) 

have indicated that composting and related operations contribute to significant levels of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3) emissions in the South Coast Air Basin. 

VOCs are of concern because they contribute to the formation of ozone, and also transform into 

organic aerosols in the atmosphere, contributing to higher PM10 levels and lower visibility. 

Ammonia is of concern because it reacts in the atmospheric with nitrates and sulfates to form 

secondary particles, which make up a substantial portion of PM10. Ozone is classified as a 

criteria pollutant and is considered to be a deep lung irritant, causing respiratory problems. 

PM10 is also classified as a criteria pollutant and is of concern because particles less than 10 

microns can be deposited in, and can damage, the airways of the lower respiratory tract and the 

gas-exchange portions of the lung. 

The composting and related operations industry consists of composting and chipping and 

grinding facilities. Based on information obtained from the CIWMB’s permit database, District 

permit system, District-conducted surveys, and field inspections, 277 facilities have been 

identified within this industry. These facilities can be classified into four main categories: 1) cocomposting facilities; 2) greenwaste composting facilities; 3) chipping and grinding facilities; 

and, 4) small/non-commercial composting facilities. Co-composting facilities include 

composting facilities that use putrescible materials, such as, biosolids and/or manure in 

combination with greenwaste or foodwaste to produce compost products. Greenwaste 

composting facilities are composting facilities that use greenwaste as raw feedstock materials or 

greenwaste combined with small amounts of manure. Chipping and grinding facilities are 

facilities dedicated to the size reduction of greenwaste or wood waste to be used in composting, 

as alternative daily cover (ADC) for landfills, as feedstock for waste-to-energy facilities, or for 

producing mulch. Small/non-commercial composting facilities include operations such as 

nurseries, recreational composting, community composting, and portable chipping/grinding 

activities. 

The technology assessment provided an analysis of several composting control methods 

available to industry including: windrow, enclosures, forced aeration systems, and in-vessel 

composting. Emissions from composting operations conducted inside enclosures or using forced 

aeration systems and in-vessel systems can be vented to emission control equipment such as 

biofilters. Forced aeration and in-vessel systems can also be enclosed, with all emissions vented 

to control equipment. Also available are other composting methods that employ variations of invessel and forced-air aeration systems that may be considered as closed-loop systems capable of 

achieving very high capture and control efficiencies. In this region, with the exception of three 

facilities, the predominant method of co-composting is windrow composting. In windrow 

composting, materials are moved with front-end loaders into long piles called windrows. 

Aeration for this method of composting is achieved mechanically by the turning of the piles with 

front-end loaders or scarabs machines. The temperature and moisture are monitored to optimize 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-02 

 IV-93 

and hasten decomposition. After two to four months in the windrows, the material becomes 

compost. Based on the analysis conducted in the technology assessment, control methods and 

technologies exist today that can significantly reduce emissions from co-composting operations. 

Regulatory History 

Composting operators are required to comply with District Rule 401 - Visible Emissions, and 

Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. Chipping and grinding operators are required to comply with the 

previously mentioned rules as well as with Rule 402 – Nuisance. Operators of both composting 

and chipping and grinding facilities may also have equipment requiring permits under Rule 203 - 

Permit to Operate. The CIWMB has also promulgated a set of regulations governing composting 

operations and facilities. Depending on the type of composting materials and the throughputs, 

affected facilities are required to obtain a Registration Permit, a Standardized Composting 

Permit, or a Full Solid Waste Facilities Permit (Full Permit). Full Permits require the 

preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and are issued by CIWMB while 

Registration and Standardized Permits are issued through local enforcement agencies (LEAs), 

such as the environmental health departments. Also, the CIWMB is currently proposing 

amendments to its regulations, in part, to address the increasing number of odor complaints by 

requiring an Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP) which must be developed by each facility. 

For a summary of the regulatory programs that are applicable or pertinent to the composting and 

related operations industry, refer to the technology assessment report. 

At the April 2002 Board meeting, the District’s Governing Board conducted a Pre-Hearing on 

controlling VOC and ammonia emissions from composting and related operations and received 

staff’s Technology Assessment Report. The technology assessment identified and evaluated a 

number of feasible control technologies for co-composting operations and also included 

recommendations for a registration program for composting related facilities as well as holding 

time requirements for greenwaste chipping and grinding activities. Accordingly, the Governing 

Board directed District staff to proceed with rulemaking and to develop a series of proposed 

rules to address each sector of the composting and related operations industry independently. 

Also, a Composting Technical Advisory Committee (CTAC) was established to oversee the ongoing technical studies of cost-effective composting control technologies and assist District staff 

during rule development. In addition, a Co-Composting subcommittee to CTAC was 

subsequently formed to further evaluate specific issues related to controlling emissions from cocomposting operations. Rules 1133, 1133.1 and 1133.2 were adopted in January 2003, and for 

the most part are based on the technology assessment as well as subsequent analysis conducted 

by District staff. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

This control measure will be implemented in two phases. Under phase 1, a series of rules will 

be developed and implemented which would: 1) set forth general administrative/registration 

requirements for composting and chipping and grinding facilities; 2) establish holding and/or 

processing (e.g., chipping and grinding, on-site applications) time requirements for greenwaste 

in order to prevent inadvertent decomposition from occurring at chipping and grinding facilities 

associated with stockpiling greenwaste for extended periods of time; and, 3) set forth VOC and 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-02 

 IV-94 

ammonia emission reduction requirements for the co-composting sector of the composting and 

related operations industry. 

Under the first phase of this control measure, operators of co-composting operations will be 

required to achieve VOC and ammonia emission reduction targets using any combination of 

composting methods and control technologies included, but not limited, to enclosures, aeration 

systems, best management practices, process controls, as well as add-on control devices, such as 

biofilters. Rules 1133, 1133.1 and 1133.2, adopted in January 2003, would implement the first 

phase of this control measure. 

The second phase would include the identification of control options to reduce VOC and 

ammonia emissions from greenwaste composting and food waste composting operations. This 

would include refinement of the emissions inventory as well as identification of cost-effective 

emission reduction strategies (e.g., best management practices, operational controls, etc.) for 

these sectors of the industry. Although emissions from greenwaste composting operations are 

significant (approximately 4.6 tons of VOC and 1 ton of ammonia per day) and control options 

for these operations could result in significant reductions, the affordability analysis presented in 

the technology assessment demonstrated that the cost impact for this industry would be 

substantial. Therefore, specific control requirements are not proposed for greenwaste 

composting operations under the proposed rules 1133 series. Staff would, however, continue to 

work with all stakeholders including the California Integrated Waste Management Board 

(CIWMB), sanitation districts and local municipalities to seek funding sources and identify 

feasible control methods for greenwaste composting operations. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

The emissions inventory and reductions for this control measure are summarized in the Control 

Measure Summary table. The emissions inventory for this industry is estimated at 6.8 and 4.7 

tons per day of VOC and ammonia respectively for both co-composting and greenwaste 

composting operations. Emissions from co-composting operations are estimated at 1.7 and 2.7 

tons per days for VOC and ammonia, respectively; and emissions from greenwaste and other 

composting operations are estimated at 5.1 and 2 tons per day of VOC and ammonia, 

respectively. 

Implementation of this control measure for co-composting operations is expected to result in 

VOC and ammonia emission reductions of 1.2 and 1.9, respectively, representing a 70% overall 

reduction of VOC and ammonia emissions from existing co-composting operations. During 

phase 2, the District staff will continue to work with all stakeholders and affected industries to 

refine emission estimates and identify feasible control methods for greenwaste and food waste 

composting operations. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

Compliance with this control measure would be determined and verified by source testing, site 

inspections, record keeping and reporting requirements. 

TEST METHODS 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003WST-02 

 IV-95 

Source testing for VOC and NH3 would follow EPA or approved District guidelines or test 

methods such as District Method 25.3, EPA Method 24, and District Method 207.1. Alternative 

test methods may be used subject to the approval of EPA, ARB, and the District. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost-effectiveness of reducing emissions from co-composting operations is estimated to be 

$10,000 per ton of VOC and NH3 reduced. This cost-effectiveness calculation is based on a 

combination of concrete enclosures, aeration systems, and biofilters for existing facilities. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

The District has the authority to implement this control measure, and would work in cooperation 

with local governments that issue solid waste facility permits. This control measure would be 

implemented beginning in 2007 with full implementation by the end of 2009. 

REFERENCES 

Los Angeles County Sanitation District. Correspondence to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. July 5, 1994. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Emission Rate Characterization of Open 

Windrow Sludge Composting Operations.” October 1995. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Characterization of Ammonia, Total Amine, 

Organic Sulfur Compounds, and Total Non-Methane Organic Compounds (TGNMOC) 

Emissions from Composting Operations. January 1996. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Technology Assessment for Proposed Rule 

1133 – Emission Reductions from Composting and Related Operations”. March 2002. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Final Staff Report for Proposed Rules 1133, 

1133.1, and 1133.2”. January 2003. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-04 

 IV-96 

EMISSION CHARGES OF $5,000 PER TON OF VOC FOR STATIONARY 

SOURCES EMITTING OVER 10 TONS PER YEAR 

[VOC] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOC EMITTING OVER 10 TONS PER YEAR

CONTROL METHODS: EMISSION CHARGES

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): NOT DETERMINED

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD, POSSIBLY REQUIRING ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

District records indicate that there are approximately 410 facilities with VOC emissions greater 

than or equal to ten tons per year in the Basin. Although these facilities represent approximately 

ten percent of the total number of VOC-emitting facilities, these larger VOC facilities represent 

approximately 80 percent of the total VOC emissions from stationary sources in the Basin. 

These facilities represent a variety of emission sources such as, but not limited to, coatings, 

solvents, graphic arts materials, and fugitive emissions from refineries and chemical plants. 

The Lewis Presley Air Quality Management Act authorized the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District to collect fees based on emissions. Fees collected would be used for 

administrative purposes only. Since 1977, the District has collected emission fees from owners 

or operators of permitted equipment based on the total annual weight of VOC emissions. This 

contingency control measure proposes to impose an emission charge of $5,000 per ton of VOC 

for stationary sources emitting over ten tons per year. 

Regulatory History 

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 40510, the District has the authority to adopt a fee 

schedule for the issuance of permits to cover the cost of evaluation, planning, inspection, and 

monitoring related to that activity. Under Rule 301 - Permit Fees, the District requires facilities 

with permitted equipment to pay an annual emissions fee, in addition to the annual operating 

permit fee. The emissions fee is based on the total weight of emissions of each pollutant 

emitted, and is assessed on facilities with total annual emissions greater than four tons. 

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 all stationary sources of VOC emissions (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). 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-04 

 IV-97 

This control measure proposes that if the federal ambient air standards are not met by the year 

2010, the District shall impose an emissions fee of $5,000 per ton of VOC, emitted by each 

major source in excess of 80 percent of the sources baseline emissions. The fee rate will be 

adjusted annually to reflect increases in the consumer price index. The fee shall be paid for 

each calendar year after the year 2010 and until the area is redesignated as an ozone attainment 

area. 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 

VOC test methods must follow EPA or District approved guidelines or test methods. EPA and 

District-approved VOC test methods include the following: 

1. EPA Reference Test Method 24 (CFR Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A) - Determination 

of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density Volume Solids, and Weight 

Solids of Surface Coatings. 

2. SCAQMD “Laboratory Methods of Analysis for Enforcement Samples” Manual - 

VOC Concentration of Materials, Test Method #304. 

Alternative guidelines may be used provided they are first approved by the EPA, ARB, and the 

District. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. 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 under the Lewis Presley Air Quality Management Act to collect 

fees based on emissions. However, implementation of this control measure may require 

additional legislation. 

REFERENCES 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 301 - Permit Fees. Amended June 1993. 
GROUP 6 

Compliance Flexibility Program 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FLX-01 

 IV-99 

ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAMS 

[ALL POLLUTANTS] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: ALL SOURCE CATEGORIES

CONTROL METHODS: ALL AVAILABLE CONTROL METHODS

EMISSIONS: IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS CONTROL MEASURE IS 

EXPECTED TO PROMOTE AND COMMERCIALIZE 

ADVANCED AIR POLLUTION TECHNOLOGIES. 

CONTROL COST: THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS CONTROL 

MEASURE IS NOT DETERMINED. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

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 technologies. 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 Intercredit Trading Study to assess the existing marketbased regulatory programs and to identify potential enhancements for cost-effective air quality 

solutions. After a series of public workshops and 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 identified specific enhancements to the existing 

regulatory program that would provide additional compliance flexibility while promoting the 

commercialization of advanced pollution control technologies. 

The 1997 AQMP included control measure FLX-01 formerly titled, “Intercredit Trading.” The 

1997 AQMP control measure was based on recommendations from the Intercredit Trading 

Study white paper and presented concepts for developing an 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, and 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. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FLX-01 

 IV-100 

Emissions Trading Programs 

Emissions trading programs include programs where emissions trading credits are generated by 

one source and used by another. Emission reduction credits are used in a variety of SCAQMD 

programs. Under Regulation XIII – New Source Review, emission reduction credits (ERCs) are 

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 emission reduction protocol under Regulation XVI – Mobile Sources Credits. 

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 

purchase emission reductions. The use of a mitigation 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. 

In the May 11, 2001 amendments to the Regulation XX – RECLAIM, a Mitigation Fee Program 

was incorporated for power producing facilities. Under Rule 2020 – RECLAIM Reserve, power 

producing facilities that meet specified criteria can purchase NOx emission reductions for $7.50 

per pound of NOx to meet their annual allocation requirements. The SCAQMD would use the 

money to fund projects that will achieve the needed NOx emission reductions. 

Air Quality Investment Programs 

The concept of the Air Quality Investment Program (AQIP) is based on sources paying a fee to 

the SCAQMD that is used to fund emission reduction projects. The emission reductions can 

then be used by facilities as an alternative to directly complying with specific emission 

reduction requirements. 

The AQMD has three types of air quality investment programs, under Rule 2202 - On-Road 

Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options, Rule 2501 – Air Quality Investment Program (AQIP), and 

Rule 2020 – RECLAIM Reserve. 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 onroad vehicles, off-road vehicles, and marine vessels. To date, the Rule 2202 AQIP has 

generated over 2,291 tons of NOx, 9,151 tons of CO, and 1,732 tons of VOC emission 

reductions. 

The Rule 2501 AQIP is a broader AQIP where sources that are subject to Regulation IV and XI 

source specific requirements can purchase emission reductions generated from stationary and 

mobile sources as an alternative to directly complying with specific emission limits. Although 

there have been facilities that have requested to participate in the Rule 2501 AQIP, no emission 

reductions have been issued from this AQIP since there has been no pre-funding of emission 

reductions since the inception of the program and EPA has not approved Rule 2501. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FLX-01 

 IV-101 

The Rule 2020 AQIP is a temporary AQIP of NOx emission reductions for RECLAIM facilities 

that meet specific participation requirements. Provided there are NOx emission reductions 

available, certain RECLAIM facilities can pay $7.50 per pound of NOx to meet their annual 

allocation requirements. The Rule 2020 AQIP will rely on mobile source emission reduction 

protocols under the pilot credit generation program as discussed in more detail below. 

Other Market Incentive Approaches 

Other types of market incentive approaches include averaging and banking. The concept of 

emissions averaging is based on averaging emissions to meet an overall emission limit. Rule 

1113 – Architectural Coatings includes a provision 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 generated 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 CFR 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 offset 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 AQMD adopted six mobile and area 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 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for Hotelling 

Operations; Rule 1633 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for Truck/Trailer Refrigeration Units; 

Rule 1634 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for Truck Stops; and Rule 2507 – Pilot Credit 

Generation Program for Agricultural Pumps. NOx emission reductions generated from these 

pilot credit generation rules can 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. All six pilot credit generation rules have been 

submitted to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. The five pilot credit generation rules, Rules 1612.1, 

1631, 1632, 1633, and 2507 have been approved by CARB and EPA. Rule 1634 is currently 

being reviewed by EPA. 

Economic Incentive Guidelines 

In January 2001, the EPA finalized their guidance document for “Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs” (EIP). The EIP is designed to encourage cost-effective 

innovative approaches to achieving air pollution goals. The guidance document outlines 

economic incentive programs that states and local areas may incorporate in their State 

Implementation Plans for meeting air quality standards. 

The EIP outlines four main types of economic programs: 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 reduction credits, protection of health and welfare 

from use of emission credits, and assurance of an environmental benefit. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FLX-01 

 IV-102 

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 1990 

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 has 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 SCAQMD 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 showing 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) the program will not interfere with other CAA 

requirements; (2) emission reductions credited are quantifiable; (3) creditable emission 

reductions are consistent with SIP attainment and RFP demonstrations; (4) reductions are 

surplus to reductions required by, and credited to, 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). 

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 control technologies, and lower overall compliance 

costs. District pilot credit generation programs will be expanded to generate short-term credits 

for NSR purposes. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

Implementation of this control measure is expected to accelerate emission reductions during the 

early years of the program through development and commercialization of advanced pollution 

control technologies, and produce a net air quality benefit. Due to the voluntary nature of this 

control measure, potential emission reductions associated with the early introduction of 

advanced pollution control technologies cannot be quantified. As currently proposed, 

implementation of this control measure is not designed to result in direct emission reductions 

since emission reductions associated with credit generation activities would be offset by the use 

of the emission credits. Thus, although no direct emission reductions are anticipated, it is 

important to note that this control measure will be designed to ensure that the added compliance 

flexibility does not compromise the Basin’s overall progress towards achieving its air quality 

attainment goals. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FLX-01 

 IV-103 

RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS 

Compliance with the provisions of this control measure 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. 

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 has not yet been determined. Since this measure 

is voluntary, implementation of this control measure 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 emissions from stationary sources. 

REFERENCES 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Intercredit Trading Study. Proposed 

Recommendations and Action Plan.” January 1996. 
GROUP 7 

DISTRICT’S MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-05 

 IV-104 

MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL SOURCES 

[NOX] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: FEDERAL SOURCES (AIRCRAFT, SHIPS, TRAINS, OTHER PREEMPTED 

SOURCES) 

CONTROL METHODS: MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): NOT DETERMINED

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD, U.S. EPA; POSSIBLY REQUIRING ADDITIONAL 

LEGISLATION

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

The regulation of emissions from ships, aircraft, trains, and off-road farm and construction 

equipment less than 175 horsepower (HP) is under federal jurisdiction. Emissions from these 

federal sources continue to represent a significant and increasing portion of the emissions 

inventory in the South Coast Air Basin. Recent emissions inventory studies and forecasts for 

aircraft, marine vessels, and locomotives indicate that activity and emissions from these sources 

are increasing. 

The U.S. EPA has indicated that it would be difficult to adopt national rules which are 

sufficiently stringent enough to achieve the emissions reductions anticipated from federal 

sources necessary for the South Coast Air Basin in time to attain the federal ozone standard. 

Without adequate controls of these sources, however, the emissions reduction burden would 

have to be shifted to other stationary and mobile sources that have been regulated for many 

years, and attainment of the ozone standard may not be possible. 

Regulatory History 

Locomotive, Aircraft, and Ships 

In 1998, U.S. EPA adopted regulations affecting all new or remanufactured locomotives after 

January 1, 2000. Specific emission standards found 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. 

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 emission 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 established Tier 2 emission level. To this end, ARB 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-05 

 IV-105 

staff developed a Memorandum of Mutual Understandings and Agreements (Memorandum) 

with the California Railroads and the U.S. EPA that was signed in July 1998. The 

Memorandum includes provisions for early introduction of clean locomotives in the Basin, 

which will meet the fleet-wide average target by 2010. 

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) established NOx standards in 1997 that apply to 

marine vessel engines over 130 kW installed on new vessels. IMO standards do not become 

enforceable until ratified by at least 15 countries. This has not happened yet, and the U.S. is one 

of the countries that has not ratified the standards. U.S. EPA 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 U.S. EPA is currently proposing additional 

emission standards for these large engines which are expected to be adopted in 2003. However, 

the net emission benefit associated with these regulations is expected to be minimal in 2010 

because of their lack of stringency and the slow turnover rate of engines. 

Aircraft emissions are regulated by the International 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 standards are also not expected to achieve any significant 

reductions by 2010. Currently, military aircraft are exempt from these engine standards. The 

U.S. EPA and FAA have jointly sponsored a national stakeholder group whose goal is to define 

emission reduction targets for air carriers beyond 2010 (CARB, 2002). 

California SIP 

The 1990 CAA Amendments required California to submit by November 1994 a SIP revision 

demonstrating that the South Coast Air Basin would attain the NAAQS for ozone by 2010, the 

statutory deadline for “extreme” ozone nonattainment areas. The AQMD and CARB in the 

1994 SIP submittal concluded that it would be necessary for U.S. EPA to adopt specific 

measures regulating sources of pollution subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction, such as trains, 

ships, and aircraft. In approving the state’s SIP submittal, U.S. EPA agreed, stating “ . . . U.S. 

EPA recognizes that massive further reductions are needed for attainment in the South Coast 

and that attainment may be either very costly and disruptive or impossible if further reductions 

are not achieved from national and international sources.” 62 Federal Register 1149, 1152-1153 

(January 8, 1997). 

U.S. EPA proposed to approve the 1994 SIP, stating: “While U.S. EPA does not believe that the 

CAA authorizes a state to assign responsibility to the Federal government for meeting SIP 

requirements, the Agency agrees that it has both the authority and responsibility under the Act 

for regulating certain national sources of air pollution.” 61 Federal Register 10920, 10936 

(March 18, 1996). Therefore, U. S. EPA in approving the 1994 SIP made a commitment, 

“enforceable by citizens,” to undergo a described “consultative process,” and to adopt the 

“controls determined by that process to be appropriate” for U.S. EPA. (62 Federal Register p. 

1153.) U.S. EPA further explained, “EPA has authority to commit itself to promulgate 

additional Federal measures determined through the consultative process to be appropriate, 

under CAA §301.” (Id., p. 1154.) 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-05 

 IV-106 

At the same time, U.S. EPA required California to submit “before EPA’s final action on the 

South Coast plan, an enforceable commitment to submit a revised South Coast attainment 

demonstration and gap-filling State or local control measures, if needed, after the consultative 

process.” (61 Federal Register, p. 10923.) CARB submitted such a commitment, which U.S. 

EPA approved. (62 Federal Register, p. 1153.) The net result of U.S. EPA’s action was that 

California (through CARB) ultimately committed to taking all measures needed to attain the 

NAAQS, no matter how disruptive or infeasible, if U.S. EPA did not determine sufficient 

measures to be “appropriate” for federal action. 

The existing regulations on federal sources are not expected to result in significant emission 

reductions prior to 2010. As the AQMD and CARB prepare to update the South Coast SIP in 

2003, it is anticipated that additional reductions would be necessary from federally regulated 

sources. Without an assurance that U.S. EPA will identify and commit to additional regulations 

and considering the attainment deadlines of 2006 for PM10 and 2010 for ozone, the District is 

proposing Control Measure FSS-05 to ensure federal sources contribute their fair share to 

achieving federal ambient air quality standards. 

The District is currently seeking to obtain broader 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 and 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 rulemaking 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 emissions from federal sources to the level set 

forth in the 1999 Amendment to the Ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin. The mitigation 

fee is assumed to be comparable to mobile source NOx control technologies. 

The program would be similar to the District’s Emission Mitigation Fee Program for Power 

Producing Facilities (Regulation XX - RECLAIM) and to the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality 

Standards Attainment Program. The RECLAIM Emission Mitigation Fee Program is a program 

where power producing facilities that exceed annual allocations and meet specified applicability 

requirements in Rule 2004 pay a participation fee to the District for generation of NOx emission 

reductions by the District to mitigate emission exceedances. The statewide Carl Moyer 

Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program provides grants to offset the incremental 

cost of projects that reduce emissions of NOx from covered sources in California. 

Off-road equipment and vehicle categories subject to Control Measures FSS-05 and FSS-07 will 

be further evaluated during rule development to ensure that the same categories are not subject 

to multiple requirements and to identify the most feasible control strategy for each source 

category (e.g., reduction controls, mitigation fee) as a means of preventing any overlaps 

between these measures. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-05 

 IV-107 

Emission fee rates imposed on federal sources will be established based on specific criteria, 

including but limited to: type of federal source, emissions inventory, potential reduction 

opportunities, control cost, and proximity to Environmental Justice (EJ) areas. In addition, a 

source specific metric for determining a common unit of activity measurements could be used as 

a basis for establishing the fee rate. In order to ensure that the fee rate is properly adjusted from 

year to year, a monitoring and reporting procedure would be implemented to indicate any 

changes in the activity measurements or emission rates that would affect 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 protocol approved by the Governing Board. This 

protocol will be developed through selective participation and will include specific selection 

criteria, including but not limited to: quantifiable emission benefits, emission reduction 

potential, cost-effectiveness, and proximity to affected areas (e.g., EJ areas). Projects to be 

funded would have to be approved by the District’s Governing Board. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

The 2010 baseline inventory for ships, aircraft, and trains is estimated to be approximately 102 

tons of NOx per day which is approximately 40 percent of the off-road mobile source 2010 

inventory and 14 percent of the total 2010 NOx inventory in the Basin. To reduce emissions 

from these sources to the 2010 level projected in the 1997 AQMP (i.e., 63 tons of NOx per day) 

would require a 38 percent reduction from the 2010 baseline. It should be noted that these 

inventory and emission reduction values do not account for other preempted federal sources 

(e.g., off-road farm and construction equipment less than 175 HP) which may also be expected 

to be targeted by this control measure. 

TEST METHODS 

The appropriate test method(s) would depend on the specific NOx emission reduction projects 

undertaken. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. 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 under the Lewis Presley 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 control. The District would then fund cost-effective 

reduction projects with the collected funds. A complete description on how a mitigation fee 

program for federal sources would be implemented is beyond the scope of this control measure. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-05 

 IV-108 

REFERENCES 

ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Marine Vessels Emissions Inventory(Update to 1996 Report: 

Marine Vessel Inventory and control Strategy), Final Report, September 1999. 

CARB, Proposed Clean Air Plan, March 2002. 

California Health and Safety Code §44280 

Federal Register: Vol. 61, No. 53, pages 10920, 10923, and 10936, March 18, 1996 (Approval 

and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California – Ozone. Notice of proposed 

rulemaking.) 

Federal Register: Vol. 62, No. 5, pages 1149, 1152 - 1154, January 8, 1997 (Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California –Ozone. Final Rule.) 

Federal Register: Vol. 64, No. 141 pages 39923 - 39927, July 23, 1999 (Approval and 

Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California –South Coast. Final Rule.) 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-06 

 IV-109 

FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM IN-USE OFF-ROAD 

VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT 

[ALL] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AMD EQUIPMENT

CONTROL METHODS: RETROFIT OF EXISTING FLEETS USING ADD-ON CONTROLS (E.G., PM

TRAPS, CATALYSTS, ETC.), OPERATIONAL CONTROLS SUCH AS IDLING 

RESTRICTIONS, USE OF EMULSIFIED AND BIO-DIESEL FUELS, AND 

LIMITING HOURS OF OPERATION. 

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 119.6 82.9 69.4 

VOC REDUCTION TBD TBD

VOC REMAINING TBD TBD 

NOX INVENTORY 198.9 168.5 136.7 

NOX REDUCTION TBD TBD

NOX REMAINING TBD TBD 

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 149.1 102.6 83.7 

VOC REDUCTION TBD TBD

VOC REMAINING TBD TBD 

NOX INVENTORY 203.5 175.7 143.6 

NOX REDUCTION TBD TBD

NOX REMAINING TBD TBD 

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

The purpose of this control measure is to seek further emission reductions from off-road 

vehicles and equipment where it is determined that additional emission reductions are necessary 

to meet the air quality goals of the 2003 AQMP. 

Background 

Off-road vehicles and equipment consist of a variety of sources such as construction equipment, 

small utility engines, lawn and garden equipment, off-road recreational vehicles (e.g., ATVs), 

recreational marine (e.g., personal watercraft, outboard motors) and other non-highway mobile 

equipment. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-06 

 IV-110 

Regulatory History 

The regulation of emissions from off-road vehicles and equipment is traditionally the 

responsibility of CARB and U.S. EPA. Both CARB and U.S. EPA have set emission standards 

for new off-road compression- and spark-ignited engines used in a variety of vehicles and 

equipment. However, neither CARB nor U.S. EPA have set requirements for in-use fleets of 

existing off-road vehicles or equipment. 

As part of the 2003 AQMP development process, CARB has proposed a variety of strategies to 

reduce the emissions from in-use fleets of existing off-road vehicles and equipment. These 

include Control Measure OFF-RD CI-2 – Pursue Approaches to Clean-Up the Existing HeavyDuty Off-Road Fleet, OFF-RD LSI-2 – Clean-Up Existing Off-Road Gas Equipment Through 

Retrofit Controls, OFF-RD LSI-3 – Require New Forklift Purchase and Forklift Rentals to be 

Electric, and MARINE-4 – Pursue Approaches to Reduce Land-Based Port Emissions. 

However, implementation of these measures is expected to provide emission reductions of up to 

3.6 tons per day of VOC and 3.9 tons per day of NOx. 

In 2000 and 2001, the District adopted several on-road vehicle fleet rules which require public 

fleet operators operating in the Basin to acquire low-emitting gasoline or alternative-fuel 

vehicles to reduce air toxic and criteria emissions when procuring or leasing new fleet vehicles. 

In addition, the District is proposing to adopt proposed Rule 1198 – Off-Road Intermodal 

Equipment which would specify retrofit technologies and operational controls for off-road 

equipment (e.g., yard hostlers) used at intermodal facilities. 

Although CARB and U.S. EPA have adopted stringent new off-road engine emission standards, 

due to the slow engine turn-over rate, significant emissions remain from in-use engines 

manufactured many years ago. 

The District is currently seeking to obtain broader legal authority to regulate mobile sources to 

the extent feasible (e.g., retrofit controls, mitigation fees). 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

This control measure proposes that the District develop requirements for in-use off-road 

vehicles and equipment within the district’s jurisdiction and authority. The District will target 

existing off-road vehicles and equipment where additional emission reductions are feasible. 

This control measure will be implemented in two phases. The first phase will identify vehicle 

and equipment categories for which retrofit technologies and operational controls can be applied 

in the most expeditiously timeframe possible. Control methods that will be considered for 

existing off-road vehicles and equipment include operational controls such as idling restrictions, 

use of emulsified and bio-diesel fuels, and retrofits using add-on controls. Retrofit technologies 

that will be considered for off-road applications include diesel particulate filters and NOx

reduction catalysts. Cleaire offers the “Longview system” which consists of a lean NOx catalyst 

and catalyzed passive diesel particulate filter which has been CARB verified for on-road retrofit 

applications to reduce NOx and PM that may be applicable to some off-road applications in the 

future. The second phase will be to develop programs for specific types of off-road vehicles 

and equipment making use of the control methods developed in the first phase. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-06 

 IV-111 

Off-road equipment and vehicle categories subject to Control Measures FSS-06 and FSS-07 will 

be further evaluated during rule development to ensure that the same categories are not subject 

to multiple requirements and to identify the most feasible control strategy for each source 

category (e.g., reduction controls, mitigation fee) as a means of preventing any overlaps 

between these measures. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

Off-road vehicles and equipment account for approximately 17 percent (227 tons per day) of the 

VOC and NOx emissions in the Basin in 2010. The expected emission reductions for this 

control measure have not been determined and would depend on the number and type of sources 

affected and the control methods used. 

TEST METHODS 

The appropriate test method(s) would depend on the specific categories of equipment and 

vehicles targeted for further emission reductions. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. 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 under the California Health and Safety Code to regulate in-use 

off-road vehicles and equipment. However, implementation of this control measure may require 

cooperation of CARB, which also has such authority. 

REFERENCES 

CARB, Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan,

May 2003. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-07 

 IV-112 

EMISSION FEE PROGRAM FOR PORT-RELATED MOBILE SOURCES 

[ALL POLLUTANTS] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: PORT-RELATED MOBILE SOURCES (e.g., SHIPS, TRAINS, TRUCKS,

OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT) 

CONTROL METHODS: EMISSION FEE PROGRAM

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): TO BE DETERMINED

CONTROL COST: TO BE DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD, POSSIBLY REQUIRING ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

Emissions from port-related mobile sources (e.g., ships, trains, trucks, and off-road equipment) 

continue to represent a significant and increasing portion of the emissions inventory in the 

South Coast Air Basin, adversely affecting not only the local port area, but also the regional air 

quality of the Basin. The purpose of this control measure is to establish an emission fee 

program to mitigate impacts associated with increasing port-related mobile source emissions. 

Regulatory History 

The regulation of emissions from mobile port-related emission sources is traditionally the 

responsibility of CARB and U.S. EPA. Specifically, ships, trains, trucks, and off-road 

equipment are each subject to specific emission standards pursuant to state and/or federal 

requirements. The standards, primarily affecting new units, vary in stringency and compliance 

dates. 

In 2000 and 2001, the District adopted several on-road vehicle fleet rules which require public 

fleet operators operating in the Basin to acquire low-emitting gasoline or alternative-fuel 

vehicles to reduce air toxic and criteria emissions when procuring or leasing new fleet vehicles. 

In addition, the District is in the process of developing proposed Rule 1198 – Off-Road 

Intermodal Equipment, which is aimed at reducing emissions from intermodal equipment (i.e., 

yard hostlers) used at ports, railroad switching yards and distribution centers. 

The District has the authority to regulate indirect, area-wide and fleet sources as set forth under 

California Health and Safety Code Sections 40440, 40447.5, 40716 and 40522.5. Although 

there are restrictions in state and federal law regarding the District’s authority to directly 

regulate emissions from nonroad sources through establishing emissions standards, the District 

has the authority to adopt in use restrictions on these sources. The District can require a permit, 

impose a limitation on the number of hours a source can operate and cap emissions, among 

other things. Therefore, it would be reasonable for the District to establish a fee program to 

support the costs of in-use programs or to implement alternatives to those measures. Likewise, 

the District may adopt fleet rules and impose indirect source regulations and fees, and therefore 

may establish fee programs to support or substitute for those programs. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-07 

 IV-113 

The District is currently seeking to obtain broader legal authority to regulate mobile sources to 

the extent feasible (e.g., retrofit controls, mitigation fees). 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

As an alternative to establishing more stringent standards, this control measure proposes an 

emissions fee program for port-related mobile sources. Under this control measure, the District 

would establish an emission fee program for port-related vehicles and equipment, such as ships, 

trains, trucks, and off-road equipment. The program will potentially apply to fleet operators of 

trucks and off-road equipment as well as railroads and shipping companies. The District will 

use the monies collected from the program to implement projects with a focus to achieve 

emission reductions from in-use vehicles/engines. When developing this control measure, staff 

will consider setting emission control requirements under the District’s authority as an 

alternative to assessing the emission fee. 

Off-road equipment and vehicle categories subject to Control Measures FSS-05 and FSS-07 will 

be further evaluated during rule development to ensure that the same categories are not subject 

to multiple requirements and to identify the most feasible control strategy for each source 

category (e.g., reduction controls, mitigation fee) as a means of preventing any overlaps 

between these measures. 

Establishment of the fee rate would be source specific and would be based on the costs 

associated with reducing the emissions from port-related sources to a pre-determined level. 

This level would be established for each specific source (e.g., ships propulsion and auxiliary 

engines, off-road material handling equipment) and be based on the lowest achievable emission 

level commercially available. Fees would not have to be paid for any source or fleet that met 

the pre-determined emission level. Emission fee rates imposed on port-related mobile sources 

will also be established based on additional specific criteria, including but limited to: type of 

source, emissions inventory, and potential reduction opportunities. In addition, a source 

specific metric for determining a common unit of activity measurements could be used as a 

basis for establishing the fee rate. In order to ensure that the fee rate is properly adjusted from 

year to year, a monitoring and reporting procedure would be implemented to indicate any 

changes in the activity measurements or emission rates that would affect the fee charged to portrelated mobile sources. Collected fees would be transferred to a special account established for 

the purposes of funding emission-reduction projects so that no co-mingling of fees would occur. 

Selection of particular projects to be funded by the Mitigation Fee Program for federal sources 

would have to adhere to an implementation protocol approved by the Governing Board. This 

protocol will be developed through selective participation and will include specific selection 

criteria, including but not limited to: quantifiable emission benefits, emission reduction 

potential, cost-effectiveness, and proximity to affected areas (e.g., EJ areas). Projects to be 

funded would have to be approved by the District’s Governing Board. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

Emission reductions are being assessed at this time, and will be incorporated in the final 2003 

AQMP if feasible. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003FSS-07 

 IV-114 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

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

TEST METHODS 

The appropriate test method(s) would depend on the specific emission reduction projects 

undertaken. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. 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 under the Lewis Presley Air Quality Management Act to collect 

fees based on emissions; however, further clarification on the District’s authority to collect fees 

from the sources subject to this control measure is necessary. Implementation of this control 

measure may require additional legislation. 
GROUP 8 

DISTRICT’S LONG-TERM CONTROL MEASURE 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003LTM-ALL 

 IV-115 

LONG-TERM CONTROL MEASURE 

[VOC] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL COATINGS AND SOLVENT 

CATEGORIES, FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES,

MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL PROCESS OPERATIONS, AND 

OTHER DISTRICT STATIONARY AND AREA SOURCES OF VOC

EMISSIONS

CONTROL METHODS: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL 

STRATEGIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, NEAR-ZERO 

OR ZERO-VOC COATING AND SOLVENT FORMULATIONS,

ADD-ON CONTROLS, IMPROVED INSPECTIONS AND 

MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS, AND PROCESS CHANGES

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 297.2 190.0 190.2 

VOC REDUCTION 0.0 28.7

VOC REMAINING 190.0 161.5 

SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY 1997 2006 2010 

VOC INVENTORY 322.9 204.5 204.8 

VOC REDUCTION 0.0 31.0

VOC REMAINING 204.5 173.8 

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

This control measure seeks to achieve additional emission reductions from the source categories 

affected by the short-term control measures as well as all other stationary and area sources of 

VOC emissions under the District’s jurisdiction, except consumer products and pesticides. 

Background 

After implementation of its proposed short-term measures, the District would be exceeding its 

emission target in the 1997/99 SIP by 59 tons per day of VOC; however, in view of the 

magnitude of the reductions required for attainment demonstration, the District is also proposing 

a long-term measure in addition to the short-term (defined) measures to achieve additional VOC 

reductions from stationary sources. For the 2003 AQMP, the District is committed to achieve 

an overall 31 tons per day of VOC reductions based on implementation of the long-term 

strategy.

The District's long-term strategy is made up of Tier I and Tier II components. Under the Tier I 

long-term strategy, the reduction target is 11 tons per day of VOC with the actual reductions 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003LTM-ALL 

 IV-116 

dependent on technology assessments to be performed as part of the rule development process. 

The Tier I long-term control measure has an adoption date between 2005 and 2007 and 

implementation date between 2007 and 2009, and targets the source categories including, but 

not limited to, those in the following control measures: 

• CTS-10 – Miscellaneous Industrial Coatings and Solvent Operations (VOC) 

• FUG-05 – Emission Reductions from Fugitive Sources (VOC) 

• PRC-07 – Industrial Process Operations (VOC) 

 

The reduction target for Tier II long-term strategy is 20 tons per day of VOC reductions in 

2010. The reduction commitment for both Tier I and Tier II long-term strategy represents the 

uncertainty in current technology assessment for short-term measures. The District will seek 

maximum feasible reductions during rule development for each short-term measure. Any 

excess reductions achieved beyond the short-term commitment will be credited toward the Tier 

I long-term commitment. The Tier II long-term control strategy has an adoption date between 

2006 and 2008 and implementation date between 2008 and 2010, and would target all stationary 

source categories for which feasible reductions can be identified. 

Regulatory History 

Currently, the District has a number of specific rules for the various source categories affected 

by this control measure. The source categories under this control measure represent a wide 

variety of industrial coating and solvent operations and miscellaneous industrial processes and 

fugitive emission sources. The type of operation, industry, and size of the source would 

determine which rule(s) or regulation(s) that these sources would be regulated under. A more 

detailed discussion of the rules and regulations effecting these sources can be found in the 

control measure summary for each short-term control measure affected by this control measure. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

Under this control measure, the District is committed to continue actively seeking cost-effective 

and technically feasible control measures. Once these measures are identified, they will be 

adopted and implemented as early as practical while meeting all public notification 

requirements. 

In order to achieve the District’s long-term emission reduction commitment, the process to 

identify future control strategies will consist of several mechanisms: 

(1) Technical Subcommittee of the AQMP Advisory Group 

Because of the significant emission reductions required for attainment demonstration, 

a Technical Subcommittee was established under the District’s AQMP Advisory 

Group in April 2003 to explore additional control technologies and innovative 

approaches to achieve further reductions beyond the defined control measures and 

reduce the size of the “black box”. A preliminary list of potential control strategies 

identified by this Subcommittee is included in the Section entitled, "Suggested 

Strategies by AQMP Advisory Technical Subcommittee" in this chapter. Additional 

control strategies will be further explored and developed through this Subcommittee 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003LTM-ALL 

 IV-117 

in the future. Control strategies that involve mobile sources or consumer products 

will be further coordinated with CARB and U.S. EPA. To assist in identifying new 

control strategies, the Subcommittee may also be expanded to include additional 

technical experts on an as needed basis. 

(2) Annual Technology Assessment Workshops 

The District will conduct annual technology assessment workshops with participation 

from broader audience including consultants, technical experts, and other interested 

parties to identify the latest technology improvements and process changes which 

could lead to implementation of cost-effectiveness control strategies to further reduce 

VOC emissions. Potential control methods will include, but are not limited to nearzero or zero-VOC coating and solvent formulations and technologies (e.g., waterbased, UV/EB technologies, powder coatings), add-on controls, improved inspections 

and maintenance programs, and process modifications. Manufacturing processes 

identified through the enforcement of stationary source rules such as Rule 442 – 

Usage of Solvents, will also be used to identify potential control strategies. 

(3) Emissions Inventory Updates/Studies 

As part of the effort in identifying new source categories for potential controls, 

specific emission studies will be conducted to refine emission inventories. Any 

emission studies conducted that resulted in permanent emission reductions (relative to 

2003 AQMP inventory) due to changes in inventory methodology or emission factor 

update, will be credited toward the District’s SIP commitment for long-term 

measures. These changes will be approved by the AQMD Governing Board at a 

public meeting to allow public review and comments. Also, studies conducted as part 

of implementing the annual Emissions Reporting (AER) Program (i.e., 

reviewing/auditing AERs filings from large facilities) will be used to identify any 

new emission reduction strategies voluntarily implemented by facilities (for reducing 

annual emission fees) which may exceed the limits under the District’s existing 

regulations.

(4) VOC Reactivity Studies 

Studies conducted to evaluate the reactivity of VOC compounds such as those 

proposed under the District’s Three-Year Advanced Pollution Research Plan will 

provide a basis for establishing control strategies and pilot projects that substitute 

low-reactive VOCs for highly reactive VOCs. These studies will lend support to the 

possibility of using low-reactivity-based products for incorporation into future rule 

development for further VOC reductions. 

(5) Periodic BACT Evaluations 

BACT evaluations will be conducted periodically to identify new control strategies 

that may result from add-on controls or process changes for existing sources. 

New control measures identified through any of the above five mechanisms will be reported to 

the Governing Board in December of every year, as part of the District’s Annual Rule and 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003LTM-ALL 

 IV-118 

Control Measure Forecast Report. This report will also provide a preliminary estimate of the 

expected emission reductions from each newly identified measure along with the proposed rule 

adoption calendar. Furthermore, in January of each year, District staff will provide a summary 

of the emission reductions achieved through adoption of the control measures by the Governing 

Board in the previous year(s). The reductions achieved in aggregate would then be used to first 

satisfy the District’s short-term commitment, if there is a shortfall, otherwise the long-term SIP 

commitment and any excess reductions achieved will be contributed to the State/federal longterm reduction goal. The existing rule development outreach efforts such as public workshops, 

stakeholder working group meetings, or public consultation meetings will continue to be used to 

solicit public input. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

The estimated emissions inventory and emission reductions associated with source categories 

under the District’s jurisdiction are summarized in the Control Measure Summary. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

Rule compliance would be similar to those discussed in the control measure summaries for each 

of the individual control measures referred to in this control measure. 

TEST METHODS 

Test methods will include the test methods identified in the control measure write-up for CM 

#2003CTS-10, CM #2003FUG-05, and CM #2003PRC-07 as well as any other methods deemed 

applicable for sources identified as part of the Tier II analysis. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been specifically determined. The 

District will continue to analyze the potential cost impact associated with implementing this 

control measure and will provide specific cost effectiveness information as it becomes available. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY/SCHEDULE 

The District has authority to regulate VOC emissions from all stationary point and area sources 

under its jurisdiction, excluding consumer products and pesticides. The District began its 

solicitation of additional control concepts through the 2003 AQMP’s public meetings and will 

consult with technical experts in the field periodically to identify new control measures. The 

District’s VOC emission reduction commitment by year for the long-term control measures is 

presented in Table 2 of this appendix. 
GROUP 9 

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGET BACKSTOP 

MEASURE 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003TCB-01 

 IV-119 

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGET BACKSTOP MEASURE 

[PM10] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: ALL TRANSPORTATION-RELATED PM10 SOURCES

CONTROL METHODS: WATERING, CHEMICAL STABILIZATION, PAVING,

REVEGETATION, TRACK-OUT CONTROL, CONSTRUCTION 

PROJECT SIGNAGE; SWEEPING; VMT REDUCTION 

STRATEGIES; MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROLS OR 

OTHER STRATEGIES

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 9 TONS/DAY IN 2020, 16 TONS/DAY IN 2030 

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD, SCAG, CARB 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

After the attainment year (i.e., 2006), additional PM10 reductions appear to be necessary 

because current projections of growth in transportation-related emissions indicate that they will 

exceed the emission budget during the later out years. Further reductions could come from 

additional controls on primary PM10 sources such as on-road transportation-related fugitive 

dust sources and motor vehicles. 

Regulatory History 

Based on CAA requirements and available guidance (U.S. EPA, 1992), the AQMD adopted 

Best Available Control Measure (BACM) requirements for fugitive dust sources in 1997. These 

requirements are contained in AQMD Rules 403 (Fugitive Dust) and 1186 (PM10 Emissions 

from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations). The 2003 AQMP includes Control 

Measures BCM-07 and BCM-08, which seek additional reductions from fugitive dust sources 

and aggregate and cement manufacturing operations. As part of the 2003 AQMP, CARB also 

has committed to a series of motor vehicle emission reduction measures. In addition, SCAG has 

committed to transportation control measures, listed in TCM-01. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

After taking into account source contribution, growth projections, and implementation status of 

the 2003 AQMP, one or more of the following controls would be implemented to achieve the 

following reductions from transportation-related primary PM10: 9 tpd in 2020 and 16 tpd in 

2030. A review of existing AQMD BACM regulations is proposed to consider enhancements 

that would further reduce PM10 emissions from paved and unpaved road entrained fugitive dust 

sources as well as road construction emissions. These enhancements would be based on those 

described in BCM-07, such as more stringent track-out control. Other potential AQMD control 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003TCB-01 

 IV-120 

strategies for transportation sources include additional road paving, chemical stabilization or 

sweeping. Motor vehicles are a source of primary PM10. Concurrent PM10 reductions for 

motor vehicle controls (e.g., particulate traps) associated with CARB’s control measures in the 

Plan could reduce those emissions. In addition, any reductions from CARB’s future regulations 

can also be credited toward the reduction commitments in this measure after adoption by 

CARB. Certain PM10 emissions, such as entrained road dust and tailpipe emissions, are a 

function of VMT. VMT reduction strategies by SCAG could reduce those emissions. This 

control measure would be adopted by 2019 and 2029, to be implemented no later than 2020 and 

2030, respectively. 

Before 2020 and 2030, AQMD may review the primary and secondary PM10 emission levels 

needed to maintain the federal PM10 NAAQS. Based on these reassessments, substitute 

measures may be developed, adopted, and submitted that would achieve a total of 9 tpd or 16 

tpd of PM10 emissions in 2020 or 2030, respectively, or some other amount consistent with a 

revised attainment analysis, if such an analysis is adopted and submitted as a SIP revision. The 

new set of substitute SIP measures would then replace or modify the commitments above. 

Future SIP revisions will also reflect updates to the transportation-related primary PM10 

emission inventory (i.e., emission factors, methodology, VMT forecast). 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

For more traditional air pollution sources, such as point sources, emissions reductions are 

calculated by multiplying the baseline emissions by the effectiveness of a given control 

technology (e.g., selective catalytic reduction). For non-traditional air pollution sources, such 

as fugitive dust, emissions reductions calculations are more difficult because the level of control 

necessary to comply will vary greatly due to site-specific conditions. At this time, it is not 

possible to quantify precise emissions reductions that would be needed for this control measure. 

However, it is anticipated that no greater than 9 tons per day and 16 tons per day of PM10 in 

2020 and 2030, respectively, would need to be mitigated by additional reductions. Requiring 

the most stringent control options is expected, however, to result in a reduction in source 

emissions in later years. The level of emission reductions for this measure may be amended in 

the future, if a different amount of reductions is determined to be needed to offset growth in 

emissions from transportation-related source categories. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

Compliance with this control measure would be achieved through periodic site visits, response 

to public complaints, source tests, and agency reports. 

TEST METHODS 

Methods to measure PM10 emissions will follow U.S. EPA or approved AQMD guidelines or 

test methods. Alternate guidelines may be used, provided the measures are first approved by the 

U.S. EPA, CARB, and the AQMD. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Stationary Source Control Measure CM #2003TCB-01 

 IV-121 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not been determined. The AQMD will 

continue to analyze the potential cost impacts associated with implementing this control 

measure and will provide cost effectiveness information, as it becomes available. Efforts will 

be made to implement the most cost-effective measures first. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

The AQMD has the authority to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Health and Safety Code Section 40460 and 

40440(a). CARB has the authority to adopt and enforce motor vehicle rules and regulations. 

SCAG has the authority to develop and implement transportation control measures. 

For the purpose of this control measure, AQMD will be responsible for developing fugitive 

dust-related rules. SCAG will be responsible for achieving PM10 emission reductions achieved 

through its Regional Transportation Plan and Transportation Control Measures. Emission 

reductions from on-road mobile source regulations may be credited towards this measure upon 

adoption of such regulations by CARB. 
SECTION 2 

CONTINGENCY MEASURES 
Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures

IV-122 

INTRODUCTION 

This appendix contains the contingency control measures for the 2003 AQMP. Both the 

state and federal Clean Air Acts require that the AQMP 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 attainment goals, measured in terms of 

emission reductions, is verified through the annual auditing 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 

emission reduction goals have not been met, the District must take action to bring 

forward measures that are scheduled for later adoption or implementation, or to 

implement certain “contingency” 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 2003 AQMP contains 3 contingency control measures. Although implementation of 

these measures is expected to reduce emissions, there 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, potential adverse 

environmental impacts, potential economic impacts, effectiveness of emission 

reductions, and availability of methods to quantify emission reductions. Table 3 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 Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures

IV-123 

TABLE 3 

Contingency Control Measures 

AQMP 

Measure 

Number 

Title Issues 

CTY-1 Accelerated Implementation of Control Measures Resource Availability 

CTY-4 Enhanced Oxygenated Fuel Content for CO Potential NOx Emission 

Increases 

CTY-14 Emission Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources (Weed 

Abatement) 

Unquantified Emission 

Reductions 

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 control measure number (such as “CM 

#2003CTY-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 “2003” for 2003). 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 potential magnitude of emission reductions 

and cost effectiveness of these measures has been conducted, fully quantified emission 

reductions and control cost are not included for Level I and II measures 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 Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures

IV-124 

Information Contained in Measures 

Similar to the stationary source control measures 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 the measures is 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, ARB, 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 MEASURES 
Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-01 

IV-125 

ACCELERATED IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL MEASURES 

[ALL POLLUTANTS] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: STATIONARY SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES

CONTROL METHODS: ALL AVAILABLE CONTROL METHODS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): NOT DETERMINED (SEE EMISSIONS REDUCTION SECTION) 

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: SCAQMD, ARB, DPR, LOCAL GOVERNMENT

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY

Background 

Stationary source emission reduction measures rely on all available control technologies and are 

proposed to be implemented between 2003 and 2010. The 2003 AQMP includes 25 control 

measures for stationary and mobile sources as identified in Appendix IV, Section I Stationary 

Source Control Measures. The intent of this contingency control measure is to accelerate the 

starting implementation schedule of those measures having an implementation date of 2004 or 

later. There are 15 stationary or mobile source control measures that have implementation dates 

of 2004 and beyond. 

Regulatory History 

The AQMP has historically established a schedule whereby proposed control measures will be 

implemented. This schedule is developed with the consideration of staffing resources, needs for 

technological advances in industries, and economic burdens on industry. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment, EPA recommends “as a contingency measure the 

requirement that measures which would take place in later years if the area met its RFP target or 

attainment deadline, would take effect earlier if the area did not meet its RFP target or 

attainment deadline.” Thus, in the event the District or Air Resources Board determines that the 

District failed to either achieve interim emission reduction goals or maintain adequate progress 

towards attainment of ambient air quality standards, the District will accelerate the 

implementation schedule for the emission reduction stationary source control measures in the 

2003 AQMP. 

This contingency control measure proposes to accelerate the starting implementation date for 

the stationary source control measures that have implementation dates on and after 2004. For 

each control measure in Table 4, the adoption, starting, and ending implementation dates as 

proposed in the 2003 AQMP, along with revised starting implementation date is identified. As 

shown in Table 4, this measure does not propose changes to the ending implementation date 

schedule. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-01 

IV-126 

TABLE 4 

Proposed Contingency Implementation Schedule for Stationary Source Control 

Measures with Starting Implementation Dates Post 2004

CM 

Number 

Control Measure Title Adopt 

Date 

Starting 

Implementation Date 

End 

Implm. 

Date 

 2003 AQMP Revised 

CTS-07 Further Emission Reductions from Architectural 

Coating (Rule 1113) (VOC) 

2003 2006 2005 2008 

CTS-10 Miscellaneous Industrial Coatings & Solvent 

Operations (Regulation IV and XI) (VOC) 

Phase I 

Phase II 

Phase III 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

FUG-05 Emission Reductions from fugitive Emission 

Sources Phase III (VOC) 

2003 2005 2004 2008 

CMB-07 Emission Reductions from Petroleum Refinery 

Flares (All Pollutants) 

2004 2005 2004 2004 

CMB-10 Additional NOx Reductions for RECLAIM (NOx) 2004 2006 2005 2010 

BCM-07 Further PM10 Reductions from Fugitive Dust 

Sources (PM10) 

2004 2006 2005 2005 

BCM-08 Further Emission Reductions from Aggregate and 

Cement Plant Manufacturing Operations (PM10) 

2004 2006 2005 2005 

PRC-03 Emission Reductions from Restaurant Operations 

(PM10) 

2003 

2004 

2004 2003 2010 

PRC-07 Industrial Process Operations (VOC) 

Phase I 

Phase II 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2008 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2010 

MSC-05 Truck Stop Electrification 2005 2007 2006 2007 

MSC-06 Emission Reductions from Wood-Burning 

Fireplaces & Wood Stoves (PM10) 

2005 2006 2005 2005 

MSC-07 Natural Gas Fuel Specifications (NOx) 2005 2007 2006 2010 

FSS-05 Mitigation Fee Program for Federal sources (All) 2005 2010 2008 2010 

FSS-06 Further Emission Reductions from In-Use Off-Road 

Mobile Vehicles and Equipment (All) 

2005 2007 2006 2010 

FSS-07 Emission Fee Program for Port-Related Mobile 

Sources (All) 

2006 2008 2007 2010 
Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-01 

IV-127 

As previously discussed, the implementation schedule is developed with the consideration of 

staffing resources. Accelerating the implementation schedule, although feasible, may require 

additional District resources to adopt and implement control measures. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

This measure is designed to achieve the maximum emission reductions in the most expeditious 

manner in the event that interim emission reduction goals are not met or adequate progress 

towards attainment of ambient air quality standards is not maintained. The emission reductions 

from the accelerated schedule for implementation of these control measures will be equivalent 

to those emission reductions projected for each individual control measure and will not be 

altered by a change in the implementation date. 

RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS 

Shifting the starting implementation dates will not alter the rule compliance or test methods for 

each for each individual control measure. Rule compliance and applicable test methods are 

specific to each control measure and are discussed in Section I of this appendix. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

Accelerating the starting implementation schedule is not expected to change the cost 

effectiveness associated with individual control measures. A discussion of the potential cost 

effectiveness for each control measure referenced herein is provided in Section I of this 

appendix. The overall cost effectiveness of this contingency control measure has not yet been 

determined. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

The implementing agency is dependent on each specific control measure and includes the 

District and local government. 

REFERENCES 

Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 52. State Implementation Plans, General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Proposed 

Rules. April 16, 1992. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-04 

IV-128 

ENHANCED OXYGENATED FUELS CONTENT 

[CO] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES

CONTROL METHODS: USE OF OXYGENATED FUELS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): NOT DETERMINED (SEE EMISSIONS REDUCTION SECTION) 

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: EPA, ARB 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

Oxygenates are compounds which contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. The use of 

oxygenated fuels will provide a certain level of oxygen enrichment, or enleanment during fuelrich modes of operation such as cold starts. This enleanment usually results in reduced CO 

emissions. In addition, slight decreases in VOC emissions, as well as increased NOx emissions, 

may result. Two types of oxygenates have been the primary focus of interest by regulatory 

agencies--ethanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). 

Regulatory History 

Various government agencies have implemented oxygenated fuels programs. For example, the 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission enacted its oxygenated fuels program on January 1, 

1988. This program requires oxygenated fuels to be sold in ten non-attainment areas each 

winter season (November through February). A minimum oxygen content requirement of 1.5 

percent by weight was required during January and February of 1988. This oxygen content 

requirement was increased to 2 percent by weight for subsequent winter seasons. Beginning in 

December 1990 (for December through February only), the oxygenated fuels requirement was 

increased to 2.6 percent by weight for all gasoline grades, except premium unleaded. In 

addition to the program in Colorado, oxygenated fuels programs are also in effect in Arizona as 

well as Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada. 

In October of 1990, amendments to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) were adopted. Included in 

the revisions are oxygenated fuels mandates for CO nonattainment areas. As specified, sale of 

oxygenated fuel, with oxygen content of not less than 2.7 percent by weight, would be required 

during that portion of the year in areas that are prone to high ambient CO concentrations (winter 

months). 

In November 1991, ARB proposed limits that are different than the 2.7 percent by weight limit 

specified in the CAA because the oxygen limit specified in the CAA could potentially increase 

NOx emissions from motor vehicles. Studies by ARB indicated that increasing the oxygen 

content from 2 percent to the federal specified average of 2.7 percent oxygen, could increase 
Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-04 

IV-129 

NOx emissions from 1 to 9 percent based on the type of oxygenate used. As a result, ARB 

adopted new wintertime oxygen content standards for California of 1.8 - 2.2 percent by weight 

beginning in 1992. By 1996, 1.8 - 2.2 percent by weight oxygen content will be required yearround. It should be noted, however, that ARB has indicated the data on the effect of oxygenates 

on NOx emissions is still under investigation. It is uncertain whether the NOx effect is 

dependent on the type of oxygenate or the oxygen content. 

In the event that the District fails to achieve CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), the District would require a minimum oxygen content of 3.1 percent for winter 

months only. In Title I in the preamble to the federal Clean Air Act, EPA states that, “for 

serious nonattainment areas, a logical contingency measure for failure to attain by the 

attainment date would be the adoption of a requirement for a minimum 3.1 percent oxygen 

content of gasoline subject to the waiver provisions in section 211(m)(3).” 

After the end of 2003, all gasoline sold in California must comply with the California Phase 3 

reformulate gasoline regulations. The California Phase 3 regulation will require that any change 

in fuel properties that increase NOx emissions must be offset by changes in other properties. 

These changes tend to increase both hydrocarbons and CO. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL

This contingency control measure proposes to increase the oxygen content of gasoline sold in 

the Basin during winter months. The oxygen content would be as high as necessary to offset 

one years worth of emissions growth associated with increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 

To ensure that implementation of this contingency control measure does not result in significant 

increases in NOx emissions, measures can be taken such as avoiding specific types of 

oxygenates. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

Implementation of this contingency measure would result in CO emission reductions. The 

amount of CO emission reductions would be dependent on the oxygen content and the type of 

oxygenate used. In the 1999 staff report for the California Phase 3 gasoline regulations, CARB 

estimated that increasing the fuel oxygen content to 3 percent would result in less than a 6 

percent reduction in the emissions of CO. The variation in the test data is attributed to the type 

of oxygenate and the testing methodology. 

NOx emissions increases may also occur as a result of an oxygenated fuels mandate. 

Significant NOx emission impacts from an oxygenated fuels program could interfere with 

attainment of the ozone ambient air quality standard. However, since this measure is primarily 

designed to be implemented in the cooler winter months, increased NOx emissions as an ozone 

precursor may not be a significant issue. Should this measure be implemented, the District will 

seek to monitor NOx concentrations as part of this implementation of this measure. In addition, 

the potential for emission increases from other pollutants (i.e., HC, NOx), need to be further 

evaluated during any rule development for increasing the oxygen content of gasoline. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 
Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-04 

IV-130 

This measure would require reporting, recordkeeping and monitoring to complete the 

compliance plans and ensure their enforceability. 

TEST METHODS 

Test methods could include: 

1. ASTM D 323-58 or CCR Section 2297 - RVP 

2. ASTM D 2622-87 - Sulfur Content 

3. ASTM D 3606-87 - Benzene Content 

4. ASTM D 1319-88 - Olefin Content 

5. ASTM D 4815-88 - Oxygen Content 

6. ASTM D 86-82 - T90 and T50 

7. ARB MLD 116 - Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been determined. 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Air Resources Board would be responsible 

for implementing this control measure. 

REFERENCES 

California Air Resources Board. Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline Specifications and the 

Wintertime Oxygen Content of Gasoline. Staff Report. October 1991. 

Livo, Kim. State of Colorado Department of Health. Personal communication with David 

Coel, SCAQMD, April 1991. 

Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association. 1990. MECA Summary of the Title II 

Provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. December, 1990. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Management Plan, 1989 Revision. 

March, 1989. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance on Estimating Motor Vehicle Emission 

Reductions From the Use of Alternative Fuels and Fuel Blends. January, 1988. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-04 

IV-131 

U.S. House of Representatives. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990--Conference Report to 

Accompany S. 1630. Report 101-952. October, 1990. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 52. SIP, General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Proposed Rule. April 

1994.
Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-14 

IV-132 

CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES 

[PM10] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: MISCELLANEOUS PM10 EMISSIONS

CONTROL METHODS:

FURTHER CONTROLS ON WEED ABATEMENT OPERATIONS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): TO BE DETERMINED

CONTROL COST: TO BE DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: NOT APPLICABLE

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

Future regulations to require mowing or cutting for weed abatement would likely be 

implemented through clarifications and/or additional Rule 403 requirements. Additional 

controls could include provisions to limit weed abatement to the early morning hours (winds are 

typically lower in the morning), lower vehicle speeds or, in instances when mowing is not 

feasible, require pre-treatment of the site with a watering truck. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS - TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY 

Mowing for weed abatement is presently feasible and many jurisdictions already encourage 

mowing of a site rather than discing. Consultation with the industry has indicated that mowing 

is much more difficult than discing on a site with protruding obstacles (e.g., rocks). Mowing in 

these areas requires the equipment operator to remove the obstacles prior to clearing the site. 

This adds greatly to the time needed to conduct weed abatement activities. 

Since this is not a recognized source category, emission estimates from weed abatement 

activities are presently not included in the PM10 emission inventory. Because of this, and the 

fact that the specific differences in PM10 emissions between mowing and discing are not 

known, the overall emission reduction of this control measure cannot be calculated. 

RULE COMPLIANCE 

Future regulations could be developed to require mowing instead of discing for weed abatement, 

if additional research warranted this as an effective PM10 control measure. Each of the 

agencies that issues weed abatement orders presently maintains information on the areas in 

which control is necessary. This information could serve as recordkeeping of control measure 

implementation. 

TEST METHODS 

Compliance determinations with future regulations could be made through field inspections of 

areas in which weed abatement is required. Agency recordkeeping information could be used to 

improve coordination of compliance activity. 
Final Appendix IV-A: Contingency Control Measures CM #2003CTY-14 

IV-133 

COST EFFECTIVENESS - ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY

Agency consultation indicates that weed abatement orders are typically issued by the 

appropriate agency with a specified compliance date. Property owners can have the work done 

or can wait for county action. After the mandatory compliance date has lapsed, agency 

personnel inspect the properties for compliance. Non-compliant properties are scheduled for 

weed abatement and property owners are billed for the costs incurred by the agency. Available 

average cost information is presented below (Thomas, 1994). 

Control Option Costs per Acre

Discing $30.00 

Mowing $40.00 

These are average costs and do not account for the unique circumstances encountered on 

individual properties. Mowing, for example, may be much more expensive than discing 

because mowing may be required several times per year. Additionally, under an order for weed 

abatement, a property owner may be able to establish fire breaks around the perimeter using 

discing rather than mowing the entire site (Thomas, 1994). For these reasons of variability cost 

effectiveness estimates are presently not available. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

The SCAQMD has the authority to require mowing instead of discing for weed abatement. 

Coordination with agencies responsible for issuing weed abatement orders would improve 

control measure implementation. 

REFERENCES 

AeroVironment. 1992. PM10 Emission Control Measure Demonstration Projects in the 

Coachella Valley. February, 1992. 

Thomas, Griff. 1994. San Bernardino County Agricultural Commissioner, Weed Abatement 

program. Staff communication, January 27, 1994.