OCTOBER 22, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

BOARD HEARING

Errata - Oct 21, 2013 Comments #7 and #8 Additional comments after Board package submittal

COMMENT

FROM COMMENT RESPONSE

Comment 7 (Letter) California Air Resources 

Board - Patrick Au

No Comment

While CARB had no comments after their 

review the response indicates that the rules 

were examined by the following ARB divisions: 

Enforcement, Monitoring and Laboratory, and 

Stationary Source.

Comment noted

Comment 8 (E-mail) United States Environmental 

Protection Agency - Andrew 

Steckel

Comment 1 Commenter requested a consideration by the 

Air District to lower emissions limits in Section C 

of Rule 400.3. To help in the consideration US 

EPA references San Joaquin Valley Rule 4702, 

Feather River Rule 3.22 and CARB's 

"Determination of Reasonable Available Control 

Technology and Best Available Retrofit 

Technology for Stationary Spark-Ignated internal 

Combustion Engines"

The Air District reviewed the rules reference and the 

document from CARB. Feather River Rule 3.22 and 

Placer County Rule 242, whose designation for Ozone 

is similar to Imperial County were used as models and 

have the same emission limits as proposed in Rule 

400.3. Both of these rules were recommended by US 

EPA as models.
OCTOBER 22, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

BOARD HEARING

Errata - Oct 21, 2013 Comments #7 and #8 Additional comments after Board package submittal

COMMENT

FROM COMMENT RESPONSE

Comment 8 (E-mail) United States Environmental 

Protection Agency - Andrew 

Steckel

Comment 2 Commenter requested that section D.1 of Rule 

400.4 be elimated or revised to be consistent 

with national policy referenced as 78 FR 12460 

(February 22, 2013)

The Air District reviewed Federal Register Volume 78 

No. 36 dated Friday, February 22, 2013 (FR). 

Generally, the US EPA reviewed SIP provisions from 

39 different States and either granted, partially 

granted, partially denied or denied petitions on the 

basis that "each state's SIP" was substantially 

inadequated to meet Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements because they are inconsistent with CAA 

requirements with regard to how the state treats 

excess emissions from sources during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Generally, US 

EPA states throughout the FR that SIP's must contain 

emission limitations that are continuous and any 

excess emissions above the limitation is a violation 

regardless of the phase of the operations such as 

startup, shutdown, malfunction or maintenance. The 

Air District utilized 7 primary points to help bring Rule 

400.4 into consistency with CAA requirements. The 7 

poins are listed below as EPA presented them. In 

addition, Rule 400.4 was revised to reflect the 

changes as indicated in the response in blue. Please 

see attached revised rules. This Errata sheet is being 

made as part of the staff report.
OCTOBER 22, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

BOARD HEARING

Errata - Oct 21, 2013 Comments #7 and #8 Additional comments after Board package submittal

COMMENT

FROM COMMENT RESPONSE

Comment 8 (E-mail) 

Continued

United States Environmental 

Protection Agency - Andrew 

Steckel

Response Continued

Response continued

1. The revision must be limited to specific, narrowly-defined source categories using specific control 

strategies (e.g., cogeneration facilities burning natural gas and using selective catalytic reduction); 

Addessed in sections A.1 and A.2

2. Use of the control strategy for this source category must be technically infeasible during startup or 

shutdown periods;

Wallboard Kilns will comply with the limits in this rule by installing Low NOx burners. Compliance with 

the limits during startup episodes is infeasible due to Low NOx burners use excess oxygen during 

startup episodes (approximately 70 percent excess); therefore, the potential for NOx generation 

increases, specially, during the first part of startup episode. When the startup episode surpass 50 % of 

the range, the excess oxygen reduces and burners get in compliance with the limits. Same is true for 

shutdown episodes; however, the duration of the episode is shorter. 

3. The frequency and duration of operation in startup or shutdown mode must be minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable; Is the duration limit minimized? Please see D.1.a, D.1.b, and D.1.c, the 

period for startup and shutdown episodes had been reduced from 12 hours each to 2 hours and 15 min, 

respectively. In addition, the excess NOx emissions during these episodes had been limited to 60 ppm.

4. As part of its justification of the SIP revision, the state should analyze the potential worst-case 

emissions that could occur during startup and shutdown; The potential impact from excess NOx 

emissions for startups and shutdowns is analyzed during the review of an Authority to Construct 

application, through air modeling. 

5. All possible steps must be taken to minimize the impact of emissions during startup and shutdown on 

ambient air quality; Please see D.1.d.

6. At all times, the facility must be operated in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing 

emissions, and the source must have used best efforts regarding planning, design, and operating 

procedures to meet the otherwise applicable emission limitation; and Please see D.1.e

7. The owner or operator's actions during startup and shutdown periods must be documented by 

properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence. Please see E.1.