# STAFF REPORT

Rule 3. 22 : Stationary I nternal Combustion Engines



### Date of Release: August 22 , 20 14

Schedule of Meetings Public Hearing: October 6 , 2014

Feather River AQMD 1007 Live Oak Blvd, Suite B

- 3,

Yuba City, California 95991

### Table of Contents

Contents Page

1. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ........................... 1

2. Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1

3. Legal Mandate

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2

4. Propo sed Rule Requirements

................................ ................................ ............. 2

5. Socioeconomic Impact

................................ ................................ ....................... 3

6. Impacts of the Pro posed Rule

................................ ................................ ............ 4

7. Estimated Cost Impact

................................ ................................ ....................... 4

8. Environmental Review and Compliance

................................ ........................... 4

9. Required Findings

................................ ................................ .............................. 5

10. Rule Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6Proposed Rule: 3. 22 August 22 , 20 14



### 1.0 Executive Summary:

Feather River Air Quality Management District (District) is a Bi

- County agency that administer s local,

state

, and federal air quality management program s for Yuba and Sutter Counties. Under the provisions of

the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988 , Yub a County and the northern portion of Sutter County

hav e been designated as “ nonattainment

- transitional” for failing to meet the state ozone standard. The southern portion of Sutter County is designated as “severe ” nonattainment for failing to meet the stat e ozone standard.

Ozone is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOC s ) react with nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sun light, and is one component of smog

. It is a strong irritant that attacks the respiratory system and leads to the damage of lu ng tissues. Exposure to ozone aggravates asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory diseases, as w ell as cardiovascular diseases. VOC r e ductions are necessary to attain and maintain the state ambient air quality standard for ozone.

Because portions of the District have been designated as nonattainment for failure to meet the federal 8

- hour ground

- level ozone standard, the United States Environ mental Protection Agency ( US EPA) requires the District to implement measures to reduce ozon e precursors. The Distri ct has committed to implement

control measures and reduce pollution through the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is federally enforceable through the US EPA and the F ederal Clean Air Act (CAA).

District Rule 3.22, Stationary Internal Combustion En gines

, was adopted on June 1, 2009 and it primarily affects the prime natural gas compressor engines which are used at the natural gas well sites in Sutter and

Meridian. For the 2014 amendments, the District proposes to address some of the deficiencies tha t were identified by the US EPA during the SIP review process. Also, the District proposes to allow EPA

Method 18 as a potential method for source testing VOC.



### 2.0 Background :

Stationary I nternal C ombustion E ngines are typically used as either primary or backup engines to generate electricity or power pumps and compressors. These engines may be fueled by diesel, natural gas, propane (LPG), refi nery fuel gas, digester gas, or landfill gas. Some final products o f combustion include

NOx

, VOCs, carbon monoxide (CO) , and particulate matter (PM 10 & PM 2.5 ), which are all discharged into the atmosphere. NOx and VOCs are recognized as precursors to ground

- level ozone formation, and

reductions in NOx and VOC are necessar y to attain and maintain the state ambient air quality standard for ozone. Ozone can result in reduced lung function, increased respiratory symptoms, increased airway hyperactivity, and increased airway inflammation. Emissions of VOCs also react in the atm osphere to

form PM 10 and PM 2.5 . Inhalation of PM 10 and PM 2.5 deep into the lungs reduces human pulmonary

function.

Staff originally adopted Rule 3.22 in 2009 to achieve reaso nable emission reductions from internal combustion engines to help attain the sta te and federal ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. The rule was consistent among the N orthern S acramento V alley A ir B asin Districts,

where emission standards are based on the CARB’s document Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) For Stationary Spark

- Ignited Combustion Engines [November 2001].

T he District submitted Rule 3.22 to the SIP, and on March 1, 2012, the US EP A finalized a Limited Approval Limited Disapproval for the rule. The US EPA could not fully approve the rule because one section allowed for alternate testing procedures for NOx analyzers to be approved by the APCO. The EPA noted that this section did not have sufficient QA/QC requirements.

- 1

-Proposed Rule: 3. 22 August 22 , 20 14



### 3.0 Legal Mandate :

Federal Mandate In 2004, EPA designated the Sacramento region as one of the nation’s four worst 8

- hour ozone nonattainment areas. This region, called the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area (SFNA), includes

all of Sacram ento and Yolo counties and portions of Placer, El Dorado, Solano, and Sutter counties. Federal law and regulations set specific planning requirements for adopting and implementing a plan to meet reasonable further progress goals and demonstrate attainment of the 1997 federal ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than our attainment deadline. This State Implementation Plan (SIP) contains a list of control measures which will help the area meet CAA planning requirements for the

1997 health based standards for 8

- hour o zone. Rule 3.22 was included on the list as a feasible control

measure.

State Mandate

The C alifornia C lean A ir A ct requires areas designated as nonattainment for ozone to develop a plan, in

accordance with California Health and Safety (CH&S) Code § 40913

, to achieve California’s ambient air quality standard by the earliest practical date by adopting cost

- effective cont rol measures.

The SFNA portion of Sutter County is designated as “severe” nonattainment for the st ate ozone standard.

CH&S Code § 40920 requires the District to adopt a control measure that will use Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for all exi sting stationary sources in this area. BARCT

, as defined in the

CH&S , is as “an emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable, taking into account environmental, energy and economical impacts by ea ch class or c ategory of source.

Yuba County and the northern area of Sutter County are designated as “non attainment

- transitional” for

the state ozone standard. CH&S Code § 40925.5 requires the District to adopt a control measure that will

use RACT for all ex isting stat ionary sources in these areas.

All Feasible Measures Requirements

CH&S Code § 40914 requires the District’s demonstrate that the plan includes “every feasible measure" to

co ntrol emissions. All feasible control measures are those which have the most effective regulatory

emissions standards demonstrated in California’s air districts.



### 4.0 Proposed Rule Requirements:

Table 1 below summarizes the proposed rulemaking by section:

Table 1

– Summary of Proposed Amendments

SECTION NUMBER PROPOSED LANGUAGE

Section C Removed definitions for “New Engine” and “Existing Engine” as they were

somewhat unclear. Added a new definition for “Date of Initial Start

- up” to clarify the timeline requirements.

Section D Removed timeline and electrification provisions since the dates are no longer applicable

.

Section E Added language to allow for EPA Method 18 as an acceptable VOC test

method.

Section E Removed section on APCO approving specific portable analyzers.

Rule 3.22

- All Minor formatting and editing.

- 2

-Proposed Rule: 3. 22 August 22 , 20 14

Limited Approval Limited Disapproval

– NOx analyzers : The District proposes to correct the deficiency as identified by the US EPA in the Limited Approval Limited Disapproval. The language allowing for alternative NOx analyzers, as approved by the APCO, has been completely stricken from the rule. The District does not anticipate this provision to affect the regulated community because it hasn’t been used in the 5 years since rule adoption.

EPA Method 18 :
D uring the last few years of rule implementation, the District has witnessed various source tests on internal combustion engines. Many source testing companies have requested to perform EPA Method 18 to quantify the VOC emission concentrations from the engine. EP A Method 18 consists of taking tedlar bag samples of the engine exhaust and keeping it protected until it can be transmitted to a certified laboratory to perform VOC speciation tests by Gas Chromatography. The exempt VOCs are identified,

such as methane an d ethane, and the total non

- exempt VOCs are calculated. EPA Method 18 is generally used to quantify emissions from well

- characterized sources, such engines, since the lab knows the main compounds to test for.

T he District did not specifically address EPA Method 18 as a valid test method in the 2009 rule. The rule currently allows for CARB Method 100, EPA Method 25A, or EPA Method 25B, which was the exact language in CARB’s document Determination of RACT/BARCT f or Stationary Spark

- Ignited Combustion Engines [November 2001].

CARB Method 100, EPA Method 25A, and 25B rely on taking continuous measurements of the engine exhaust and analyzing them concurrently in the source testing van. The issue with these methods is that they use Flame Ionization Detectors (FI D) or Photo Ionization Detectors (PID) which measure the Total Hydrocarbons in the exhaust , including all exempt compounds. To obtain an accurate VOC measurement, Method 18 would still need to be used to determine the methane and ethane concentrations, as well as the formaldehyde concentration which isn’t analyzed by the aforementioned 3 methods

.

Many other Air Districts with SIP approved engine rules have EPA Method 18 listed as a valid test method. Furthermore, the CARB RACT/BARCT document lists “Alterna tive test methods which are shown to accurately determine the concentration of NOx, VOC, and CO in the exhaust of IC engines may be used upon the written approval of the Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board and the

Air Pollution Control Officer.” Hence, the District proposes to add EPA Method 18 as an available

method at this time.



### 5.0 Socioeconomic Impact :

California Health and Safety Code §40728.5 requires, in part, that:

“Whenever a district intends to propose the adoption, amendment or repeal of a rule or regulation that will significantly affect air quality or emissions limitations, that agency shall, to the extent that data are available, perform an assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of the adoption, amendment, or rep eal of the rule or regulation.”

However, districts with a population of less than 500,000 persons are exempt from the provisions of CH&S §40728.5 (a). The District’s population is estimated to be approximately 168,000 , which is below the 500,000 person th reshold. Therefore, a socioeconomic analysis for this rulemaking is not required.

- 3

-Proposed Rule: 3. 22 August 22 , 20 14



### 6.0 Emission Impacts of the Pro posed Rule :

The District does not anticipate any emission impacts from the proposed rule.



### 7.0 Estimated Cost Impact:

CH&SC § 40703 requires the District, in the process of the adoption of any rule or regulation, to consider and make public its findings related to the cost effectiveness of the rule. Cost effectiveness for rulemaking purposes is calculated by dividing the cost of air pollution controls required by the rule by the amount of air pollution reduced.

The District does not anticipate any cost impacts from the proposed rule or an y additional need for staff resources upon adoption of the rule.



### 8 .0 Environmental Review and Compliance:

California Public Resource Code Secti on 21159 requires the District ( at the time of adopting a rule requiring the installation of pollution control equipment, or a performance standard) to perform an environmental analysis of the reason ably foreseeable methods of compliance. This rule does not require installation of control equipment or a performance standard; therefore, the analysis is not required.

This rule is an administrative rule and the proposed amendments will not result in a d irect or reasonably foreseeable indirect phy sical change in the environment. Therefore, staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the State CEQ A

Guidelines.

- 4

-Proposed Rule: 3. 22 August 22 , 20 14



### 9 .0 Required Findings:

California Health and Safety Code §40727(a) requires that prior to adopting or amending a rule or regulation, an air district’s board must make findings of necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, non

duplication and reference. The findings must be based on the following:

1. Information presented in the District’s written analysis, prepared pursuant to CH&S §40727.2;

2. Information contained in the rulemaking records pursuant to CH&S §40728; and

3. Relevant information presented at the Board’s hearing for the rule.

The table below describes each finding and the basis for making the finding:

REQUIRED FINDING FINDING DETERMINATION

Necessity: The District must find that the rulemaking

demonstrates a need exists for the rule or for its

amendment or repeal. [CH&S §40727 (b)(1)] It is necessary for the District to adopt the proposed amendments in order to correct deficiencies found by the EPA during the SIP approval process. Authority: The District must find that a provision of law or of a state or federal regulation permits or requires the District to adopt, amend, or repeal the rule. [CH&S §47027(b)(2)] The District is authorized to adopt rules and regulations by CH&S §40001, 40702, 4 0919, 41010, and 42300.

Clarity:

The District must find that the rule is written or displayed so that its meaning can be easily understood by the persons directly affected by it. [CH&S §40727(b)(3)] The District has reviewed the proposed

amendments and determined that they can be easily understood by the affected industry. In addition, the record contains no evidence that the persons directly affected by the rule cannot

understand the rule. Consistency: The rule is in harmony with, and not in conflict with or contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions, or state or federal regulations. [CH&S §40727(b)(4)] The proposed rul e does not conflict with and is not contradictory to existing statutes, court decisions, or state or federal regulations.

Non

- Duplication: The District must find that either: 1) The rule does not impose the same requirements as an existing site or federal regulation; or 2) that the duplicative requirements are necessary or proper to execute the powers and duties granted to, and imposed upon

t he District. [CH&S §40727(b)(5)] The proposed rule does not impose requirements that duplicate existing laws or regulations.

Reference: The District must refer to any statute, court decision, or other provision of law that the District implements, interprets, or makes specific by adopting, amending or repealing the rule. [CH&S §40727(b)(6)] References to statutes are noted where applicable.

- 5

-Proposed Rule: 3. 22 August 22 , 20 14



### 10 .0 Rule Analysis

Section 40727.2 requires a written analysis comparing the proposed rules with existing federal regulations, state regulation, and any other AQMD existing or proposed rules and regulations that apply to the same source type.

Comparison of Proposed Rule 3.22 and Feather River AQMD Rules and Regulations

District Rules and Regulations Does proposed rule

conflict or contradict any provisions?

Regulation 1

– General Provisions No

Regulation 2

– Open Burning No

Regulation 3

– Prohibition

– Stationary Emission Sources No

Regulation 4

– Stationary Emission Sources Permit Sy stem and Registration No

Regulation 5

– Hearing Board Procedures No

Regulation 6

– Variances No

Regulation 7

– Fees No

Regulation 8

– Penalties and Abatement No

Regulation 9

– Enforcement Procedures No

Regulation 10

– New Source Review No

Regulation 11

– Air Toxic Control Measure No

Comparison of Proposed Rules and o ther Federal and State Regulations

Under CH&S § 40727.2(g), the District finds that the proposed amendments do not strengthen or impose new emission limits or impose more stringent mon itoring, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements; therefore , it complies with CH&S Code § 40727.2.

- 6

-