ALASKA CALIFORNIA FLORIDA MID-PACIFIC NORTHEAST NORTHERN ROCKIES

NORTHWEST ROCKY MOUNTAIN WASHINGTON, DC INTERNATIONAL

426 17TH STREET, 5TH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612-2807

T: 510.550.6725 F: 510.550.6749 E: eajusca@ea rthjustice.org W: www.earthjustice.org April 15, 2009

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Errol Villegas

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue

Fresno, CA 93726

Re: 8

‐ Hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology SIP Analysis

Dear Mr. Villegas:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on the third version of the District’s 8

‐

Hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis (“RACT SIP”), released on

March 17, 2009. Earthjustice is also writing on behalf of Medical Advocates for Healthy Air,

Environmental Defense Fund, and Coalition for Clean Air. As Earthjustice has commented in

the past, this RACT SIP is a very important element of the District’s plan to address the dire air

quality problems caused by ozone in the Valley. An understanding of whether all of the

District’s existing rules employ the required controls is critical to ensuring that the Valley will

attain the national air quality standards as expeditiously as practicable.

We want to acknowledge the District’s efforts to improve the RACT SIP since it was first issued

in 2006. Following Earthjustice’s comments on the first RACT SIP, the District went back and

revised the analysis to include a look at major sources emitting 10 tons per day or more of ozone

precursors, instead of those emitting more than 25 tons. Now, after a second round of

comments on the December 2007 version of the RACT SIP, the District has produced a more

substantial document looking at 56 rules in an attempt to demonstrate that the rules represent

reasonably available controls on all major stationary source categories in the Valley.

Unfortunately, much time has been wasted by the District in failing to conduct the appropriate

analysis, thereby forcing EPA to threaten disapproval of each defective attempt.

Despite its size (nearly 400

‐ pages), this latest version of the RACT SIP continues to lack crucial

pieces of the analysis needed to determine if the District’s rules meet RACT requirements. As

has been explained in the past, the analysis of RACT should look at all possible controls for the

sources, require (or commit to require) what is feasible, and explain why rejected controls are

technically and/or economically unreasonable to require. In its May 6, 2008 letter to the District

(attached), EPA recommended a stream

‐ lined approach to assessing the District’s rules against

the RACT criteria. EPA asked the District to group its rules into three categories: 1) rules very

recently (in the past 1

‐ 3 years) revised where a RACT demonstration was made in the staff

report accompanying the rule revision; 2) simple rules, such as those that rely on simple

operational controls, for which new, additional controls are unlikely to be reasonably available;

and 3) all other rules, which need to be analyzed in more detail to ensure that more stringent

controls are not reasonably available.The District did not follow this approach to reviewing its rules in the revised RACT SIP released

on March 17 th

. Instead, the District looked at each of its rules and, in most cases, did a direct

comparison to rules in other air districts as well as to guidance documents such as EPA’s

Control Technique Guidelines (“CTG”), Alternative Control Technique Guidelines (“ACT”),

and New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”). While this is an easy, useful way of

determining whether controls that are not already incorporated into the existing rules are

reasonably available, it is not enough just to look at EPA guidance or at other districts’ rules and

check them off as being “as stringent.” CTGs and ACTs are often outdated, and rules in other

districts may be old or more narrowly applicable than is necessary in an extreme nonattainment

area like the Valley. Furthermore, technology once considered RACT is often made obsolete by

more effective and/or more affordable technology over time. This understanding of RACT

requirements precludes looking at only CTGs/ACTs or simply relying on EPA SIP

‐ approval of

rules as satisfying RACT. A detailed analysis must still be carried out to ensure that additional

feasible controls that could achieve additional reductions in pollution are not overlooked. As

EPA pointed out in its May 6 th letter, this includes investigating further controls by comparing

similar requirements for other types of sources (technology transfer) and other areas (including

outside of California), as well as evaluating specific recommendations made in public

comments (such as from Earthjustice and from International Sustainable Systems Research

Center’s “Clearing the Air” report). Without this important piece of the RACT analysis, the

District cannot claim that it has “turned over every stone” in the search for ways to ensure

expeditious attainment of the ozone standard and EPA cannot approve the RACT SIP.

In addition to the RACT SIP’s failure to provide a detailed analysis of the availability of further

controls, there are multiple examples of rules in which guidance documents or other districts’

rules are more stringent than the District’s rules, but no attempt is made to incorporate the

improvements or explain why it would be infeasible to do so in the Valley. One such example

is the District’s analysis of Rule 4352

– Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process

Heaters. Here, the District explains that EPA’s ACT for this source category “presented the

achievable emission levels of several control techniques based on the type of boiler and the type

of fuel used.” However, the analysis does not say what these limits are, what control

techniques are presented by EPA, whether they are more or less stringent than what Rule 4352

requires, or whether additional reductions could be achieved by incorporating these controls.

The analysis then goes on to explain that all other districts’ rules are more stringent than Rule

4352 but that the limits set in these districts are technologically infeasible for solid fuel fired

units. The analysis ignores altogether EPA’s identification of lower limits in the South Coast

and Massachusetts in its May 6 th letter, as well as the fact that the Sacramento air district

determined that units fired on biomass can meet a 70 ppm limit, instead of the 115 ppm limit set

by Rule 4352. The District must analyze whether these limits are feasible for Valley sources in

this category and, if so, must require these controls.

There are also numerous examples in the revised RACT SIP analysis where the District tries to

rationalize less stringent rule requirements instead of evaluating whether or not the more

stringent controls identified are feasible in the Valley. For example, the RACT SIP identifies

several coatings rules in which certain limits or applicability requirements are more stringent in

other air districts or in EPA guidance documents than they are in the District’s rules. Instead ofevaluating whether these aspects of the rules could simply be improved to meet or exceed what

other areas are doing, the RACT SIP tries only to identify other parts of the District’s rules that

are similar or more stringent and declares, without analysis, that the differences balance each

other out so the rules are “overall” equivalent and therefore RACT. This is simply not the

appropriate exercise. Instead, the District should be analyzing whether the more protective

limits for these other coating operations are feasible. This analysis has not been done.

It is the continued failure to capitalize on these potential opportunities to reduce emissions that

we find most troubling about the District’s RACT SIP efforts to date. The RACT SIP is not just a

paperwork exercise—it is an essential element of the plan to attain the 8

‐ hour ozone standard.

Throughout the planning process, Earthjustice and other experts like ISSRC have offered

suggestions for improving the District’s rules based on demonstrated, feasible controls in place

in other areas. Earthjustice recommended that the District adopt flare monitoring and reporting

and flare minimization plans to reduce emissions from oil production and refinery flaring.

Earthjustice also suggested tighter controls on solid fuel fired boilers to match what other areas

are already doing and recommended controls on brandy aging and wine fermentation and

storage tanks. And repeatedly, those suggestions were rejected by the District only to have the

rules sent back by EPA to require exactly what we recommended in the first place.

We hope that the District will commit to immediately amend this RACT SIP to finally include

the necessary analysis required to demonstrate RACT. With the threat of sanctions now

looming, it would be unwise to lose more time by submitting a plan that will only be sent back

a third time by EPA. Had we been given more time to review this 400 page technical document,

we would have gladly provided more detailed recommendations than what we were able to

include at this time. We are happy to work with the District to improve upon the RACT SIP

going forward.

Sincerely,

Sarah Jackson

cc: Councilmember Chris Vierra, Chair

Supervisor Tony Barba, Vice Chair

Supervisor Judith Case

Supervisor Ronn Dominici

Dr. Henry J. Foreman, Ph.D

Supervisor William O’Brien

Supervisor Leroy Ornellas

Dr. John G. Telles, MD

Supervisor Michael Nelson

Supervisor Raymond Watson

Supervisor Steven Worthley