-2-



### control technology (BACT) emission limits at the en d of the equipment’s useful life. For equipment regulated by PR 1147, modernization w ould require either burner upgrades or replacement of burner systems.

Affected Facilities Proposed Rule 1147 affects manufacturers (NAICS 333 ), distributors and wholesalers (NAICS 423) of combustion equipment, as well as own ers and operators of ovens, dryers, furnaces, and other equipment in the distri ct (NAICS 23, 31, 32, and 33). The units affected by the proposed rule are used in ind ustrial, commercial and institutional settings for a wide variety of processes. Approxim ately one fourth of the units currently meet the NOx emission limits of PR 1147. Staff est imates that there are as many as 2,500 permitted units (excluding remediation units) with NOx emission limits greater than one pound per day that will potentially become subject to the emission limits of PR 1147 between 2010 and 2014. An additional 2,500 pe rmitted units with NOx emission limits of less than one pound per day will become s ubject to the emission limits of the proposed rule between 2015 and 2019. The approxima tely 5,000 units subject to the emission limits of PR 1147 are located at approxima tely 3,000 facilities. In addition, staff estimates that 100 to 200 remediation units p er year will become subject to the NOx emission limits of PR 1147 starting in 2011 and all units will meet the NOx emission limit by 2020.

Public Process The rule development effort for Rule 1147 is part o f an ongoing process to assess low NOx technologies for combustion equipment. For thi s rule development, staff held four Task Force meetings on process and burner technolog ies with representatives from affected businesses, manufacturers, trade organizat ions and other interested parties. At these meetings low NOx technology, emission limits, emission testing and compliance dates were discussed. Staff also held individual m eetings with manufacturers and distributors of burner systems and visited local bu sinesses to observe processes and equipment affected by PR 1147. A Public Workshop w as held on September 30, 2008 and a Public Consultation meeting on October 28, 20 08.

Summary of Proposal PR 1147 applies to gaseous and liquid fueled combus tion equipment including, but not limited to, ovens, dryers, dehydrators, heaters, ki lns, calciners, furnaces, heated pots, cookers, roasters, fryers, closed and open heated t anks and evaporators, distillation units, degassing units, incinerators, soil remediat ion units. This proposed rule does not apply to solid fuel fired combustion equipment, int ernal combustion engines regulated under District Rule 1110.2, turbines, charbroilers, or boilers, water heaters, thermal fluid heaters or enclosed process heaters subject t o District Rules 1109, 1146, 1146.1, or 1146.2. In addition, PR 1147 does not apply to equ ipment subject to AQMD Rules 1111, 1112, 1117, 1118, 1121 or 1135.-3-



### PR 1147 requires equipment to meet NOx emission lim its in the range of 30 ppm to 60 ppm (referenced to 3% oxygen) depending upon the pr ocess and process temperature. To provide compliance flexibility, PR 1147 also pro vides equivalent set of limits, expressed in pounds per million Btu. The emission limits in PR 1147 can be achieved with low NOx burners. Currently, the lower limit f or low NOx burners varies from less than 30 ppm to 60 ppm depending upon the burner, pr ocess temperature and nature of the process. There are a large variety of burners that emit less than 30 ppm NOx for process temperatures less than 1200° F. A number o f manufacturers provide burners meeting the proposed NOx limits for the equipment r egulated by the proposed rule.

PR 1147 also requires operators to keep equipment m aintenance records and to install meters for monitoring fuel use starting January 1, 2010. Maintenance records must be kept on site by facilities for at least three years . Newer units are currently required to have fuel or time meters by their permit conditions . PR 1147 will place the same requirement on older equipment but allow time for i nstallation.

PR 1147 provides two options for owner/operators, b urner manufacturers and installers to provide evidence that replacement burners comply with the emission limit. One option is to source test the unit using an AQMD app roved protocol and test method. The second option is for the manufacturer to certif y burners and equipment using an AQMD approved protocol and test method. The AQMD w ould provide certification of specific combinations of burners and equipment to t he manufacturer and a copy of that certification, provided by the manufacturer, must b e kept on site by the owner/operator. The AQMD will monitor manufacturers, sellers and in stallers in addition to owner/operators to assure that certified installati ons comply with PR 1147 emission limits.

The set hearing version of PR 1147 released to the public in November included a requirement for the operator to periodically source test each unit. In the spirit of reducing implementation and compliance costs, inste ad of requiring owners and operators of affected units to periodically re-test each unit, staff is now proposing to implement a program where the District conducts ran dom testing on a statistically significant sample size of units subject to the rul e. Sample size will be selected in a manner that provides the District with a high level of confidence regarding the industry-wide compliance rates. This testing progr am could be implemented starting in 2012 after half of the equipment have replaced burn ers and completed their initial source tests and manufacturers have certified equip ment.

The cost of this random testing program is expected to be significantly less than the periodic source testing required in earlier version s of the proposed rule. It is proposed that the District recover implementation costs by a pplying a source testing surcharge or other fee type to the annual operating permit fees, applicable to units subject to this rule.-4-



### Emission Reductions and Cost Effectiveness The proposed rule is estimated to reduce annual ave rage emissions of NOx by 3.5 tons per day in 2014 from an annual average inventory of 6.2 tons per day. PR 1147 will reduce emissions an additional 0.3 tons per day by 2023. The approximately 6,600 units subject to the emission limits of PR 1147 are located at approximately 3,000 facilities. However, only about 2,200 facilities a re expected to require retrofit of burners in their equipment.

Rule cost effectiveness is based on replacement of burners. Replacement cost includes burner price, tax and installation. The cost effec tiveness for burners meeting 30 ppm is about $5,000 per ton of NOx reduced. The average c ost effectiveness for burners meeting 40 or 60 ppm is about $7,000 per ton. The cost effectiveness for commonly used 1 to 2 mmBtu/hour burners meeting 30 ppm varie s widely from $4,000 to $13,000 per ton.

Key Issues Key issues raised at public meeting include source testing of air heating equipment, source testing many similar units would be burdenso me, multiple units requiring retrofit in one year, and metal heat treating and forging fu rnaces must meet temperature uniformity requirements in order to meet customer s pecifications. These key issues and staff’s responses are summarized in Attachment B.

AQMP and Legal Mandates The California Health and Safety Code requires the AQMD to adopt an Air Quality Management Plan to meet state and federal ambient a ir quality standards and adopt rules and regulations that carry out the objectives of the AQMP. The Health and Safety Code also requires the AQMD to implement all feasib le measures to reduce air pollution. This proposed adoption of Rule 1147 rel ies on feasible technologies to further reduce NOx emissions. The NOx reductions f rom this proposed rule will further reduce emissions by 3.5 tons/day by 2014 with an ad ditional reduction of 0.3 ton/day by 2023 and help achieve compliance with federal and s tate ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysi s Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (C EQA) Guidelines § 15252 and AQMD Rule 110, the AQMD has prepared an Environment al Assessment (EA) for proposed Rule 1147. The environmental analysis in the Draft EA concluded that proposed Rule 1147 would not generate any significa nt adverse environmental impacts. The Draft EA was released for a 30-day public revie w and comment period from October 16, 2008 to November 14, 2008 and no comment letters were received from the public regarding the Draft EA.-5-



### Since the release of the Draft EA, minor modificati ons have been made to the document. However, none of the modifications alter any conclusions reached in the Draft EA, nor provide new information of substantia l importance relative to the draft document. As a result, these minor revisions do no t require recirculation of the Draft EA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5. Therefor e, the Draft EA is now a Final EA and is included as an attachment to this Governi ng Board package.

Socioeconomic Analysis An analysis of PR 1147 assessing the socioeconomic impacts was conducted and the Socioeconomic Impact Assessment was released 30 day s prior to the Board hearing. The Final Socioeconomic Impact Assessment is includ ed as an attachment to this Governing Board package. The socioeconomic assessm ent for PR 1147 analyzed 2,162 facilities with a total of 4,924 affected units. T he affected facilities belong to a number of sectors, of which the sectors of manufacturing, retail and wholesale trade, and repair and maintenances services have most of the affected units.

The average annual cost of PR 1147 is projected to be $9.12 million between 2010 and 2025. The sectors of fabricated metal, primary met al, and printing and related support activities are expected to incur higher shares of t he total cost ($1.53, $0.78, and $0.7 million, respectively). PR 1147 is projected to ha ve 102 jobs forgone annually in the entire four-county economy between 2010 and 2025, w hich is less than one-hundredth of one percent of the total four-county employment.

Resource Impacts To determine the state of compliance with the propo sed limits in PR 1147, staff is proposing to initiate a random testing program whic h will be significantly less costly than requiring owners/operators to periodically sou rce test each of their units. To recover the cost of the program, staff intends to p repare an amendment to Regulation III – Fees for Board consideration in 2009, that establ ishes a source testing surcharge or other appropriate fee type to the annual operating permit fees applicable to the units subject to this rule.

Attachments
A. Summary of Proposal
B. Key Issues and Responses
C. Rule Development Process
D. Key Contacts List
E. Resolution
F. Proposed Rule
G. Final Staff Report
H. Socioeconomic Impact Assessment
I. Final Environmental Assessment

### ATTACHMENT A

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL

Propose Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneo us Sources

• Applies to units requiring an AQMD permit and not s ubject to NOx emission limits in other AQMD source specific rules (Regulation XI)

• Rule NOx limits vary from 30 ppm to 60 ppm by equip ment category

• Limits met with low NOx burners

• Compliance schedule is based on equipment age and p ermit emission limit (older and higher emitting units first)

• Compliance to be phased in beginning 2010 for in-us e units

• Delayed compliance date for recent burner modificat ion

• Source Testing – Initial compliance testing

• Option for manufacturers to certify equipment (redu ces the number of individual source tests)

• Periodic random testing by the District to determin e state of compliance.

• Onsite recordkeeping and installation of fuel meter s7 

### ATTACHMENT B

KEY ISSUES AND RESPONSES

Propose Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneo us Sources

Issue – Air heating equipment operating at greater than 18% oxygen content cannot apply a simple conversion factor for measuring concentrat ion in ppm.
Response: One option is to calculate the emission rate in u nits of lbs per mmBtu. This would be an alternate limit in PR 1147.

Issue – Some types of equipment are similar in configura tion and operation. It would be burdensome and not necessary to source test each of these units.
Response: PR 1147 allows for a certification alternative fo r establishing compliance for similar types of equipment. Furthermore, staff has modified the proposed rule to replace the periodic source testing requirement tha t would be applicable to the owner/operator for each of their units subject to t he rule with a significantly less costly random testing program to be conducted by the Distr ict.

Issue – Some companies may have to retrofit many units i n one year. The rule should allow a more flexible schedule for companies with m ultiple units
Response: PR 1147 was revised to allow companies with 5 or more units to phase in compliance over 5 years.

Issue –Metal heat treating and forging furnaces are ofte n unique and must maintain temperature uniformity in order to meet customer sp ecifications.
Response: AQMD staff agrees that maintaining temperature un iformity for such applications is very important and commits to work with the affected parties and monitor implementation of the rule and will report back to the Stationary Source Committee on this issue prior to the effective date s of such units.8 

### ATTACHMENT C

RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Proposed Rule 1147 – NOx Reductions from Miscellane ous Sources

Fifteen (15) months spent in rule development. Initial Rule Development August 2007

• Four Task Force Meetings: February 12, 2008, March 12, 2008, August 13, 2008 and November 20, 2008

• Public Workshop: September 30, 2008

• Stationary Source Committee: October 17, 2008 and November 21, 2008

• Public Consultation Meeting: October 28, 2008

• Local Government & Small Business Assistance Adviso ry Group: November 14, 2008
Approximately 10,000 notices of the public workshop were mailed to regulated community, equipment manufacturers, trade associations, equipment suppliers, equipment installers and other intereste d parties.

Set Public Hearing: November 7, 2008 CEQA Draft EA Released for 30-Day Review Release Date: October 16, 2008

Public Hearing: December 5, 2008

, 20049 

### ATTACHMENT D

KEY CONTACTS LIST

Boeing Company BP West Coast Productions, LLC California Air Resources Board (CARB) Coalition for Clean Air County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County ECLIPSE, Inc. Energy Services John Zink Company Maxon Corporation Mission Foods Southern California Gas Company
U. S. EPA Wirth Gas Equipment, Inc.10 

### ATTACHMENT E

RESOLUTION NO. -

A Resolution of the Governing Board of the South Co ast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) certifying the Final Env ironmental Assessment for Proposed Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellane ous Sources.

A Resolution of the AQMD Governing Board adopting R ule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources.

WHEREAS, the AQMD Governing Board has determined with certai nty that Proposed Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Misce llaneous Sources, is a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Ac t (CEQA); and

WHEREAS, the AQMD has had its regulatory program certified pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.5 and has conducte d CEQA review and analysis pursuant to such program (AQMD Rule 110); and

WHEREAS, AQMD staff has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to its certified regulator y program and CEQA Guidelines § 15252, setting forth the potential environmental co nsequences of Proposed Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources; and

WHEREAS, the Draft EA was circulated for public review, no c omment letters were received relative to the Draft EA, and the Draft EA has been revised such that it is now a Final EA; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary that the adequacy of the Final EA b e determined by the AQMD Governing Board prior to its certification; and

WHEREAS , the Governing Board prior to voting on Proposed R ule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources, has re viewed and considered the Final EA; and

WHEREAS, the AQMD Governing Board voting on Proposed Rule 11 47
- NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources has rev iewed and considered the Final EA prior to its certification; and

WHEREAS , a Mitigation Monitoring Plan pursuant to Public R esources Code § 21081.6, has not been prepared since no miti gation measures are necessary; and11 

### WHEREAS, the AQMD Governing Board finds and determines, tak ing into consideration the factors in § (d)(4)(D) of th e Governing Board Procedures, that the modifications adopted which have been made to Propo sed Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources, since notice of public hearing was published do not significantly change the meaning of the proposed pr oject within the meaning of Health and Safety Code § 40726 and would not constitute si gnificant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft CEQA document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5; and

WHEREAS , California Health and Safety Code § 

### 40727 requires that prior to adopting, amending or repealing a rule or regulation, the AQMD Governing Board shall make findings of necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, non-duplication, and reference based on relevant information present ed at the public hearing and in the staff report; and

WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board obtains its authority to adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations from §§ 

### 39002, 40000, 40001, 40440, 40441, 40702, 40725 through 40728, 41508, and 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code; and

WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board has determined that ther e is a problem that Proposed Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions fr om Miscellaneous Sources will help alleviate, i.e., the Basin does not meet feder al and state ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, and Pro posed Rule 1147 will promote attainment of these standards; and

WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board has determined that a ne ed exists to adopt Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Mis cellaneous Sources to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides which is a precursor t o ozone and particulate matter; and

WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board has determined that Prop osed
Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sourc es, as proposed is written or displayed so that its meaning can be easily underst ood by the persons directly affected by it; and

WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board has determined that Prop osed
Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sourc es, as proposed is in harmony with, and not in conflict with or contradictory to, existing federal or state statutes, court decisions, or regulations; and

WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board has determined that Prop osed
Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sourc es, as proposed does not impose the same requirements as any existing state or fede ral regulation and the proposed rule12



### is necessary and proper to execute the powers and d uties granted to, and imposed upon, the District; and

WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board has determined that Prop osed
Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sourc es, as proposed, references the following statutes which the AQMD hereby implements , interprets or makes specific: Health and Safety Code 40001(a) (rules to meet air quality standards); 40440(a) (rules to carry out the plan); 40702 (adoption of rules an d regulations); and

WHEREAS , Health and Safety Code § 

### 40727.2 requires the AQMD to prepare a written analysis of existing federal air pollution control requirements applicable to the same source type being regulated whenever it adopts, or amends a rule, such that the AQMD’s analysis of Proposed Rule 1147 is included in the staff report;
and

WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board has determined that the socioeconomic impact assessment of the Proposed Rul e 1147 - NOx Reductions from
Miscellaneous Sources is consistent with the Govern ing Board March 17, 1989 and October 14, 1994 Board Socioeconomic Resolutions fo r rule adoption; and

WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board has determined that the socioeconomic impact assessment of the Proposed Rul e 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources is consistent with the provis ions of Health and Safety Code § 

### 40440.5, 40440.8 and 40728.5; and

WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board has reviewed and conside red the staff's findings related to cost impacts of Pro posed Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions
from Miscellaneous Sources set forth in the socioec onomic impact assessment made public with the agenda package for this meeting, an d hereby finds and determines that cost impacts are as set forth in that assessment; a nd

WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board has determined that Proposed
Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sourc es may result in increased costs to the industry, yet are considered to be reasonabl e, with total annualized costs as specified in the Final Socioeconomic Impact Assessm ent; and

WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board has actively considered the Socioeconomic Impact Assessment and has made a good faith effort to minimize such impacts; and

WHEREAS , a public hearing has been properly noticed in acc ordance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code § 

### 40725; and13 

### WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board has held a public hearin g in accordance with all provisions of law; and

WHEREAS , the AQMD Governing Board specifies the Manager of Proposed Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellane ous Sources as the custodian of
the documents or other materials which constitute t he record of proceedings upon which the adoption of this proposed project is based, whi ch are located at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 Copley Drive, Di amond Bar, California; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the AQMD Governing Board hereby certifies, pursuant to the authority g ranted by law, the Final EA for Proposed Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellane ous Sources; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that because no significant adverse environmental impacts were identified as a result o f implementing Proposed Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources, Findin gs, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan ar e not required; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the AQMD Governing Board hereby directs staff to present to the Board no lat er than June 1, 2011 a proposal for collecting fees, not to exceed $100 per unit annual ly, to implement a testing program for equipment subject to Proposed Rule 1147 - NOx Reduc tions from Miscellaneous Sources; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that in the spirit of permit streamlining and reducing associated costs, the AQMD Governing B oard does hereby direct staff, to the extent feasible, develop standardized permits f or units subject to Proposed Rule
1147.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the AQMD Governing Board does hereby adopt, pursuant to the authority granted by law, Rule 1147 - NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources, as set forth in the att ached and incorporated herein by
reference.

Dated: 

### Clerk of the District Board

### SOUTH COAST AIR QUALIT Y MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Final Environmental Assessment for Proposed Rule 1147 – NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources

December 2008

SCAQMD No. 081015JJI State Clearinghouse No: 2008101082

Executive Officer Barry R. Wallerstein, D. Env.

Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Elaine Chang, DrPH

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E.

Planning and Rules Manager Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Susan Nakamura

Author: Jeffrey J. Inabinet Air Quality Specialist

Contributors: Wayne Barcikowski Air Quality Specialist Rizaldy Calungcagin Air Quality Specialist

Reviewed By: Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Joe Cassmassi Planning and Rules Manager, Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources Gary Quinn, P.E. Program Superv isor, Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources Barbara Baird District Counsel Linda Vogel Senior De puty District CounselSOUTH COAST AIR QUALIT Y MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD

CHAIRMAN: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D. Speaker of the Assembly Appointee

VICE CHAIRMAN: S. ROY WILSON, Ed.D. Supervisor, Fourth District Riverside County Representative

MEMBERS:

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Supervisor, Fifth District Los Angeles County Representative

MICHAEL A. CACCIOTTI Councilmember, City of South Pasadena Cities of Los Angeles County, Eastern Region

BILL CAMPBELL Supervisor, Third District Orange County Representative

JANE CARNEY Senate Rules Committee Appointee

RONALD O. LOVERIDGE Mayor, City of Riverside Cities Representative, Riverside County

JOSEPH K. LYOU, Ph.D. Governor's Appointee

GARY OVITT Supervisor, Fourth District San Bernardino County Representative

JAN PERRY Councilwoman, 9 th District City of Los Angeles Representative

MIGUEL A. PULIDO Mayor, City of Santa Ana Cities Representative, Orange County

TONIA REYES URANGA Councilwoman, City of Long Beach Cities of Los Angeles County, Western Region

DENNIS YATES Mayor, City of Chino Cities Representative, San Bernardino County

EXECUTIVE OFFICER: BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.Env.PREFACE

This document constitutes the Final Environmen tal Assessment (EA) for Proposed Rule 1147 – NOx Emissions from Miscellaneous Sources. The Draf t EA was released for a 30-day public review and comment period from October 16, 2008 to November 14, 2008. No comment letters were received from the public relative to the Draft EA. The envi ronmental analysis in the Draft EA concluded that proposed Rule 1147 would not generate any si gnificant adverse environmental impacts.

Minor modifications were made to the proposed rule subsequent to release of the Draft EA for public review. To facilitate identifying modifications to the document, added and/ or modified text is underlined. Staff has reviewed these minor modificat ions and concluded that they do not make any impacts substantially worse or change any conclusi ons reached in the Draft EA. As a result, these minor revisions do not require recirculation of the document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. Therefore, this document now constit utes the Final EA for proposed Rule 1147.TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Introduction .................................................................................................................. .......... 1-1 California Environmental Quality Act....................................................................................... 1-2 Project Location............................................................................................................... .......... 1-2 Project Objective.............................................................................................................. .......... 1-3 Project Background............................................................................................................. ....... 1-4 Project Description............................................................................................................ ......... 1-5 Summary of Affected Equipment a nd Methods of Compliance................................................ 1-8

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRO NMENTAL CHECKLIST

Introduction .................................................................................................................. .......... 2-1 General Information............................................................................................................ ....... 2-1 Environmental Factors Pote ntially Affected.............................................................................. 2-2 Determination ................................................................................................................. ........... 2-3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion .................................................................................. 2-4

APPENDICES Appendix A – Proposed Rule 1147 Appendix B – Construction and Operations Calculations

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: South Coast Air Qual ity Management District.................................................. 1-3

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Proposed NOx Emission Limits......................................................................... 1-6 Table 1-2: Compliance Schedule for In-Use Units ............................................................. 1-7 Table 1-3: Summary of Equipment Cate gories, Proposed NOx Emission Limits, Compliance Methods and Impacts..................................................................... 1-8 Table 2-1: Air Quality Signi ficance Thresholds ................................................................. 2-8 Table 2-2A: Peak Construction Emissions Due to Retrofits of Ultra-Low NOx Burners Between 2010-2014 for One Unit ........................................................ 2-10 Table 2-2B: Peak Construction Emissions Due to Retrofits of Ultra-Low NOx Burners Between 2010-2014 for Ten Units....................................................... 2-10 Table 2-2C: Peak Construction Emissions Due to Retrofits of Ultra-Low NOx Burners Between 2015-2023 for One Unit ........................................................ 2-10 Table 2-2D: Peak Construction Emissions Due to Retrofits of Ultra-Low NOx Burners Between 2015-2023 for Ten Units....................................................... 2-11 Table 2-3: Baseline NOx Emissi on Inventory and Projected NOx Emission Reductions.......................................................................................... 2-12Table 2-4: Overall Net NOx Emi ssion Reductions During Peak Daily “Worst-Case” Construction Activities w ith Operational Overlap..................... 2-13 Table 2-5: Overall CO2 Equivalent (eq) Incr eases Due to Construction Activities ........... 2-17C H A P T E R 1 - P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N

Introduction

California Environmental Quality Act

Project Location

Project Objective

Project Background

Project DescriptionINTRODUCTION The California Legislature created the Sout h Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in 1977 1 as the agency responsible for developing and enforcing air pollution control rules and regul ations in the South Coast Ai r Basin (Basin) and portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin and Mo jave Desert Air Basin referred to herein as the district. By statute, the SCAQMD is required to adopt an air quality management plan (AQMP) demonstrating compliance with all federal and state ambient air quality standards for the district 2 . Furthermore, the SCAQMD must adopt ru les and regulations that carry out the AQMP 3 . The 2007 AQMP concluded that major reductions in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of sulfur (SOx) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are necessary to attain the air quality standard s for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Ozone, a criteria pollutant, is fo rmed when VOCs react with NOx in the atmosphere and has been shown to adversely affect human health. NOx also contributes to the formation of PM10 and PM2.5.

PR 1147 implements AQMP control measur es CMB-01 (NOx Reductions from NonRECLAIM Ovens, Dryers, and Furnaces) and MCS-01 (Facility Modernization). The objective of PR 1147 is to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from miscellaneous gas and liquid fuel fired combustion equipment. The proposed rule will regulate equipment that is not sp ecifically addresse d in rules under SCAQMD Regulation XI – Source Specific Standards. Proposed Rule 1147 applies to combustion equipment including, but not limited to: ovens, dryers, dehydrators, heaters, kilns, calciners, furnaces, heated pots, cookers, roasters, fr yers, closed and open heated tanks and evaporators, distillation units , degassing units, incinerators , and soil remediation units. This proposed rule does not a pply to solid fuel fired com bustion equipment, internal combustion engines regulate d under SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, gas turbines regulated by Rule 1134 , charbroilers regulated by Rule 1138 , refinery boilers regulated by Rule 1109

, water heaters regulated by Rule 1121 , thermal fluid heaters or enclosed process heaters subject to Rules 1146, 1146.1, or 1146.2. PR 1147 requires new, modified, relocated and in-use combustion equipment subject to the ru le to comply with equipment specific NOx emission limits.

Compliance is phased in for equipment based on age. Beginning July 1, 2010, equipment that is 25 years or older must meet an emission limit, followed a year later by equipment that is 20 to 25 years old and then equipment th at is 15 years old. Exceptions to the basic schedule include soil remediation equipment that must comply on or after January 1, 2011, when a combustion modification or change of location occurs or when a new unit begins operating. PR 1147 provides additiona l time for specific categories of equipment that have recently replaced burners or have a permit limit of less than one pound per day NOx at the time of rule adoption. These da tes are: 2014 to achieve the federal PM 2.5 standard and 2023 to achieve the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The proposed rule is

1 The Lewis-Presley Air Quality Management Act, 1976 Cal. Stats., ch 324 (codified at Health & Safety Code, §§40400-40540).

2 Health & Safety Code, §40460 (a).

3 Health & Safety Code, §40440 (a).estimated to reduce annual average emi ssions of NOx by 3.5 tons per day by 2014 and will increase the NOx reduction to 3.8 tons per day by 2023.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PR 1147 regulates NOx emissions from combus tion equipment including, but not limited

to: ovens, dryers, dehydrators, heaters, kilns, calciners, furnaces, heated pots, cookers, roasters, fryers, closed and open heated tanks and evaporators, distillation units, degassing units, incinerators, and soil remediation units. Because the proposed project requires discretionary approval by a public agency, it is a “project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . SCAQMD is the lead agency for the proposed project and has prepared this final Environmental Assessment (EA) with no significant adverse impacts pursuant to its Certified Regulatory Program. California Public Resources Code §21080.5 allows public agencies w ith regulatory programs to prepare a plan or other written document in lieu of an environmental impact report once the Secretary of the Resources Agency has certified the regulatory program. SCAQMD's regulatory program was certified by the Secretary of the Resources Agency on March 1, 1989, and is codified as SCAQMD Rule 110. Pursuant to Rule 110, SCAQMD has prepared this final EA.

CEQA and Rule 110 require that potential ad verse environmental impacts of proposed projects be evaluated and that feasible methods to re duce or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts of these projects be identified. To fulfill the purpose and intent of CEQA, the SCAQMD has prepared this final EA to address the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The final EA is a public disclosure document intended to: (a) provide the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers and the general public with information on the environmental effects of the proposed project; and, (b) be used as a tool by decision makers to facilitate decision making on the proposed project.

SCAQMD’s review of the proposed project sh ows that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15252, no alternatives or mitigation measures are required to be included in this final EA. The analysis in Chapter 2 supports the conclusion of no significant adverse environmental impacts.

PROJECT LOCATION PR 1147 would apply to applicable combustion equipment within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an area of 10,473 square miles, consisting of the four-county South Coast Ai r Basin (Basin) and the Riverside County portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) and the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). The Basin, which is a subarea of the district, is bounded by th e Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The 6,745 square-mile Basin includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernar dino counties. The Riverside County portion of the SSAB and MDAB is bounded by the San J acinto Mountains in the west and spans eastward up to the Palo Verde Valley. The federal non-attainment area (known as theCoachella Valley Planning Area) is a subreg ion of both Riverside County and the SSAB and is bounded by the San Jacint o Mountains to the west a nd the eastern boundary of the Coachella Valley to the east (Figure 1-1).

South Coast Air Quality Management District

SCAQMD Jurisdiction Mojave Desert Air Basin

Salton Sea Air Basin San Diego Air Basin South Central Coast Air Basin

South Coast

Air Basin

San Diego County Imperial County Riverside County Los Angeles County Kern County San Bernardino County

Orange County Santa
Barbara County

Ventura County San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

Figure 1-1 Boundaries of the South Coast Ai r Quality Management District

PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The general project objectives of PR 1147 are summarized as the following:

• Implement two 2007 AQMP control measures (CMB-01 and MCS-01)

• Regulate relatively uncontrolled NOx sources

• Reduce annual average emissions of NOx by at least 3.5 tons per day by 2014 and 3.8 tons per day by 2023

• Obtain NOx emissions reductions that will contribute to attain and maintain state and federal PM 2.5 and ei ght-hour ozone standards

• Promote facility modernizati on and implementation of BACT.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

PR 1147 would implement two control meas ures from the SCAQMD 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP): control measur es CMB-01 and MCS-01. Control measure CMB-01 (NOx Reductions from Non-RECLAIM Ovens, Dryers, and Furnaces) proposes reductions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from ovens, dryers, kilns, furnaces and otherequipment and process which are not curren tly regulated by SCAQ MD Regulation XI – Source Specific Standards. Control measur e MCS-01 (Facility Modernization) is a new control measure developed for the 2007 AQMP that would require affected facility operators to upgrade or replac e their existing stationary source equipment with the cleanest equipment or technologies availabl e. Facility modernization would require equipment to meet best available control technology (BACT) emission limits at the end of the equipment’s useful life through equipment replacement.

New, modified, or relocated equipment that would be subject to PR 1147 must currently meet the requirements of SCAQMD Regulatio n XIII – New Source Re view (NSR), while existing equipment must comply with applicable rules in SCAQMD Regulation IV – Prohibitions. Equipment subject to NSR must meet a number of requirements, but the most important are BACT requirements and offsetting emission increases. The SCAQMD’s NSR program includes pre-constr uction permit review requirements for equipment and processes subject to permit re quirements. Equipment that is subject to NSR is required to utilize BACT and include: new equipment, relocation of existing permitted equipment, or modification of existing permitted equipment when the modification results in an emissions increase . BACT is defined as the most stringent emission limitation or control technique whic h: has been achieved in practice, is contained in any state implementation plan (SIP) approved by EPA, or is any other emission limitation or control technique found by the Executive Officer to be technologically feasible and is cost-effective as compared to adopted rules or measured listed in the AQMP.

Regulation IV includes a number of prohib itory rules that regulate most criteria pollutants. Regulation IV rules establish a lim it or emissions reduction requirement and regulated sources are prohibited from exceed ing applicable limits or requirements. However, emission limits required by BACT ar e more stringent than the emission limits in Regulation IV. For example, Rule 474 – Fuel Burning Equipment – Oxides of Nitrogen, has emission limits that vary fr om 125 ppm to 400 ppm (referenced to three percent oxygen) depending upon th e fuel and heat input rati ng of the equipment. NOx emission limits for combustion equipment subj ect to PR 1147 vary from 60 ppm to 20 ppm (referenced to thre e percent oxygen).

Proposed Rule 1147 affects manufacturers ( NAICS 333), distributor s and wholesalers (NAICS 423) of combustion equipment, as well as owners and operators of ovens, dryers, furnaces, and other equipment in the district (NAICS 23, 31, 32, and 33, respectively ). The units affected by the proposed rule are used in industrial, commercial and institutional settings for a wide variety of processes. The approximately 6,600 units subject to the emission limits of PR 1147 ar e located at approxima tely 3,000 facilities. However, approximately 1,600 units located at approximately 800 fa cilities currently meet the NOx emission limits of PR 1147. Staff estimates that there are as many as 2,500 permitted units (excluding remediation units) with NOx emission limits greater than one pound per day that will potent ially become subject to the proposed emission limits of PR 1147 between 2010 and 2014. An additional 2,500 permitted units with NOx emission limits of less than one pound per day will become subject to the emission limits of the proposed rule be tween 2015 and 2019. In additi on, staff estimates that 100to 200 remediation units per year will become subject to the NOx emission limits of PR 1147 starting in 2011, and all units will be required to meet the applicable NOx emission limit by 2023

.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following summarizes the key components of the proposed rule. A copy of PR 1147 is included in Appendix A.

Purpose and Applicability [subdivision (a)] The purpose of PR 1147 is to reduce NOx emis sions from gaseous and liquid fuel fired combustion equipment. PR 1147 applies to permitted equipment and processes that are not currently regulated under an ex isting source specific rule under SCAQMD Regulation XI. The equipment regulated by PR 1147 incl ude, but are not limited to: ovens, dryers, dehydrators, heaters, kilns, calciners, furn aces, heated pots, cookers, roasters, fryers, closed and open heated tanks and evapor ators, distillation units, degassing units, incinerators, soil remediation un its. This proposed rule does not apply to solid fuel fired combustion equipment, internal com bustion engines regu lated under SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, gas turbines regulated by Rule 1134 , charbroilers regulated by Rule 1138

, refinery boilers regulated by Rule 1109 , water heaters regulated by Rule 1121 , thermal fluid heaters or enclosed process heat ers subject to Rules 1146, 1146.1, or 1146.2. PR 1147 requires new, modified, relocated and in -use combustion equipment subject to the rule to comply with equipm ent specific NOx emission limits. In addition, PR 1147 does not apply to equipment subject to SCAQMD Rules 1111, 1112, 1117, or 1135.

Definitions [subdivision (b)]
The following definitions are included in PR 1147:

• “Annual capacity factor” [paragraph (b)(1)]

• “Annual heat input” [paragraph (b)(2)]

• “BTU” [paragraph (b)(3)]

• “Combustion modification” [paragraph (b)(4)]

• “Heater” [paragraph (b)(5)]

• “Heat input” [paragraph (b)(6)]

• “Heat output” [paragraph (b)(7)]

• “Independent testing labora tory” [paragraph (b)(8)]

• “NOx emissions” [paragraph (b)(9)]

• “Process heater” [paragraph (b)(10)]

• “Protocol” [paragraph (b)(11)]

• “Rated heat input capacity” [paragraph (b)(12)]

• “Responsible official” [paragraph (b)(13)]• “Therm” [paragraph (b)(14)]

• “Unit” [paragraph (b)(15)]

Requirements [subdivision (c)] PR 1147 requires new, modified, relocated a nd in-use combustion equipment subject to the rule to comply with the equipment specific NOx emission limits listed in Table 1-1. In addition to limits for sp ecific equipment, PR 1147 also includes limits based on process temperature. The proposed em ission limits are based on SCAQMD BACT determinations, recent SCAQMD permit applications and associated sources tests, and discussions with burner manufacturers and ve ndors. Other criter ia considered by SCAQMD staff in selection of the proposed NOx limits include cost effectiveness and availability from multiple manufacturers.

Table 1-1 Proposed NO x Emission Limits

NOx Emission Limit PPM @ 3% O 2 , dry or Pound/mmBtu heat input Equipment Category(ies)
Process Temperature
Gaseous Fuel-Fired Equipment ≤ 800 ° F > 800 ° F and
< 1200° F ≥ 1200 ° F

Asphalt Manufacturing Operation 40 ppm 40 ppm 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu Afterburner, Degassing Unit, Remediation Unit, Thermal Oxidizer, Catalytic Oxidizer or Vapor Incinerator 1 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

Evaporator, Fryer, Heat ed Process Tank, or Parts Washer 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

Metal Heat Treating, Metal Melting Furnace, Metal Pot, or Tar Pot 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

Oven, Dehydrator, Dr yer, Heater, Kiln, Crematory, Incinerator, Calciner, Cooker, Roaster, Furnace, or Heated Storage Tank 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

Make-Up Air Heater or other Air Heater located outside of building with temperature controlled zone inside building 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

Tenter Frame or Fabric or Carpet Dryer 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

Other Unit or Process Temperature 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtuTable 1-1 Proposed NO x Emission Limits (Concluded)

NOx Emission Limit PPM @ 3% O 2 , dry or Pound/mmBtu heat input Equipment Category(ies)
Process Temperature
Liquid Fuel-Fired Equipment ≤ 800 ° F > 800 ° F and
< 1200° F ≥ 1200 ° F

All liquid fuel-fired Units 40 ppm or 0.053 lb/mmBtu 40 ppm or 0.053 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.080 lb/mmBtu

1 Emission limit applies to burners in units fueled by 100% natural gas that are used to incinerate air toxics, VOCs, or other vapors; or to heat a unit. The emission limit applies solely when burning 100% fuel and not when th e burner is incinerating air toxics, VOCs, or other vapors. The unit shall be tested or cer tified to meet the emission limit while fueled with natural gas.

As specific NOx limits have not been made for every category of equipment and it is possible to group equipment base d on process characteristics, Table 1-1 also includes NOx emission limits for unspecified equipmen t based on process temperature. Higher process temperatures result in higher NOx em issions and this is reflected in the NOx limits in Table 1-1.

Compliance dates for in-use equipment to meet NOx emission limits are listed in Table 1- 2. Compliance is phased in for equipment ba sed on age starting July 1, 2010. Equipment that is at least 25 years old must meet the emission limit by 2010. Equipment that is 20 to 25 years old must meet the emission limit by 2011. Equipment that is 15 years old must meet the emission limit by 2012

. Table 1-2 Compliance Schedule for In-Use Units
Equipment Category(ies) Compliance Date Remediation unit; Upon combustion modification or change of location for units manufactured prior to 1998 Beginning January 1, 2011

Tar pot; Permit application for change of ownership or new equipment Beginning January 1, 2012

Afterburner, degassing unit, catalytic oxidizer, thermal oxidizer, vapor incinerator, evaporator, food oven, fryer, heated process tank, parts washer or spray booth make-up air heater manufactured prior to 1998 July 1, 2013

Other unit manufactured prior to 1986 July 1, 2010

Other unit manufactured prior to 1992 July 1, 2011

Other unit manufactured prior to 1998 July 1, 2012

Any unit manufactured after 1997 July 1 of the year the unit is 15 years oldThe compliance schedule for afterburners, degassing equipment, catalytic and thermal oxidizers, evaporators, vapor in cinerators, heated process ta nks, food ovens, fryers, parts washers and spray booth make-up air heaters differs in order to allow manufacturers additional time to certify equipment and develop a greater number of compliant equipment. PR 1147 provides additional time for operators of specific categories of equipment who have recently replaced burners or have a permit limit of less than one pound per day NOx at the time of rule adoption accord ing to the following criteria:

• Units with 75 percent or more of the burner capacity replaced before adoption of the rule have an additi onal ten years from the date of the burner modification to meet the emission limit.

• Units with emissions of less than one pound per day have five additional years to comply with the emission limit.

Additional requirements include keeping records of maintenance and combustion modifications and installation of meters to monitor fuel and equipment use. The recordkeeping and metering requ irements start January 1, 2011

.
Compliance Determination and Certification [subdivisions (d) and (e)] PR 1147 identifies test methods for determin ing compliance with rule requirements and establishes a framework for manufacturers who wish to certify the emission level of their products. Two of the approved test methods use portable analyzer s and one approved method is used to determine compliance with the lb/mmBtu emission limit option. Emissions testing using the lb/mmBtu compliance option is one alternative for evaluating emissions from processes that operate at high oxygen concentrations (18 percent or more).

Instead of requiring owners and operators of affected units to re-test each unit after a number of years, staff is proposing to implement a program of random testing to determine if specific categories of equipmen t might require routine testing to assure compliance with the emission limit. This te sting program could be implemented starting in 2012 after half of the equipment have re placed burners and completed their initial source tests and manufacturer s have certified equipment.

Enforcement [subdivision (f)] Copies of source test results and certificatio ns must be kept on site by the operators of affected units and made available to the SCAQMD upon request. The SCAQMD will inspect distributors, retailers and installers as well as operators and conduct tests as necessary to ensure compliance of affected units.Exemptions [subdivision (g)] Exemptions are provided for equipment and processes that are regulated by other SCAQMD source specific rules in Regulation XI. An exemption is also provided for flare, afterburner, degassing unit, remediation unit, thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, and vapor incinerator processes in which a fuel , including but not limited to natural gas, propane, butane or liquefied petroleum gases, is mixed w ith air toxics, VOCs or other combustible vapors prior to incineration in the unit in order to start-up or maintain combustion or temperature in the unit. This exemption does not appl y to a burner with a separate fuel line used to heat up or maintain temperature of a unit or incinerate air toxics, VOCs or other combustible vapors in a gas stream moving past the burner flame.

An exemption is also provided for flares, af terburners, degassing units, thermal oxidizers or vapor incinerators in whic h a fuel; including but not limite d to natural gas, propane, butane or liquefied petroleum gases; is only us ed to maintain a pilot for vapor ignition. PR 1147 also exempts solid fuel-fired units and provides an exemption for existing afterburners incorporat ing a heat exchanger that captures heat from and oven or furnace.

PR 1147 additionally provides a temporary exemption from the NOx emission limit for new afterburners, degassing units, thermal and catalytic oxidizers, vapor incinerators, and spray booth make-up air heaters installed af ter adoption of PR 1147 and before January 1, 2011. New food ovens, fryers, heated proces s tanks, parts washers, and evaporators installed after the date of adoption and before January 1, 2013 are also exempt from the emission limit in Table 1-1 at the time of inst allation. These two cate gories of units must comply with the NOx emission limit on or befo re July 1 of the year the unit becomes 15 years old. New and relocated remediation units installed before January 1, 2011 are exempt until the unit is moved or a combustion modification is made.

SUMMARY OF AFFECTED EQUIPMENT AND METHODS OF COMPLIANCE

The approximately 6,600 units subject to the emission limits of PR 1147 are located at approximately 3,000 facilities. However, approximately 1,600 units located at approximately 800 facilities currently meet the NOx emission limits of PR 1147. Staff estimates that there are as many as 2,500 pe rmitted units (excluding remediation units) with NOx emission limits greater than one pound per day that will potentially become subject to the proposed emission limits of PR 1147 between 2010 and 2014. An additional 2,500 permitted units with NOx em ission limits of less than one pound per day will become subject to the emission limits of the proposed rule between 2015 and 2019. In addition, staff estimates that 100 to 200 reme diation units per year will become subject to the NOx emission limits of PR 1147 starting in 2011, and all units will be required to meet the applicable NOx emission limit by 2023.

Compliance with the NOx emission limits in PR 1147 is expected to be achieved primarily by installing ultra-low NOx burners . For existing equipment, compliance with PR 1147 means that the owner/ operator will either retrofit th e existing unit with an ultralow NOx burner that has been guaranteed by th e manufacturer as co mpliant with the NOx emission standard or if the existing unit is at the end of its useful life, replace it with anew compliant unit. Retrofitting an existing unit would consist of ut ilizing a retrofit kit that requires removing the existing burner a nd replacing it with a compliant, ultra-low NOx burner. Similarly, compliance with PR 1147 for a new unit means that the equipment, at the time of manufacture, will be equipped with co mpliant ultra-low NOx burner technology that has been guaranteed by the manufacturer to achieve the NOx emission standards. No add-on control equipmen t is expected to be used for either new or existing units to comply with the new NOx emission limits because compliance with the proposed NOx limits can be achieved with ultra-lo w NOx burners. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology is a compliance option; however, it was not assumed due to the size of affected equipmen t (majority of equipment is assumed to be <10mmBTU) and the cost benef it of retrofitting equipment with ultra-low NOx burners compared to SCR.

Table 1-3 provides a summary of the various ty pes of equipment that will be affected, the proposed emission limits, the compliance method and the associated impacts.

Table 1-3 Summary of Equipment Categories, Proposed NOx Emission Limits, Compliance Methods and Impacts

NOx Emission Limit PPM @ 3% O 2 , dry or Pound/mmBtu heat input Equipment Category(ies)
Process Temperature
Gaseous Fuel-Fired Equipment ≤ 800 ° F > 800 ° F and
< 1200° F ≥ 1200 ° F

Asphalt Manufacturing Operation 40 ppm 40 ppm 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu Afterburner, Degassing Unit, Remediation Unit, Thermal Oxidizer, Catalytic Oxidizer or Vapor Incinerator 1 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

Evaporator, Fryer, Heat ed Process Tank, or Parts Washer 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

Metal Heat Treating, Metal Melting Furnace, Metal Pot, or Tar Pot 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

Oven, Dehydrator, Dr yer, Heater, Kiln, Crematory, Incinerator, Calciner, Cooker, Roaster, Furnace, or Heated Storage Tank 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

Make-Up Air Heater or other Air Heater located outside of building with temperature controlled zone inside building 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

Tenter Frame or Fabric or Carpet Dryer 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

Other Unit or Process Temperature 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtuTable 1-3 Summary of Equipment Categories, Proposed NOx Emission Limits, Compliance Methods and Impacts (Concluded)

NOx Emission Limit PPM @ 3% O 2 , dry or Pound/mmBtu heat input Equipment Category(ies)
Process Temperature
Liquid Fuel-Fired Equipment ≤ 800 ° F > 800 ° F and
< 1200° F ≥ 1200 ° F

All liquid fuel-fired Units 40 ppm or 0.053 lb/mmBtu 40 ppm or 0.053 lb/mmBtu 60 ppm or 0.080 lb/mmBtu

1 Emission limit applies to burners in units fueled by 100% natural gas that are used to incinerate air toxics, VOCs, or other vapors; or to heat a unit. The emission limit applies solely when burning 100% fuel and not when the burner is incinerating air toxics, VOCs, or other vapors. The unit shall be tested or certified to meet the emission limit while fueled with natural gas.C H A P T E R 2 - E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T

Introduction

General Information

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

Determination

Environmental Checklist and DiscussionFinal Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-1 October 2008 INTRODUCTION The environmental checklist provides a standard evaluation tool to identify a project's potential adverse environmental impacts. This checklist identifies and evaluates potential adverse environmental impacts that may be created by the proposed project.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Project Title: Proposed Rule 1147 – NOx Reductions From Miscellaneous Sources
Lead Agency Name: South Coast Ai r Quality Management District

Lead Agency Address: 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765
CEQA Contact Person: Mr. Jeffr ey Inabinet (909) 396-2453

Rule 1147 Contact Person Mr. Wa yne Barcikowski (909) 396-3077

Project Sponsor's Name: South Coast Air Quality Management District

Project Sponsor's Address: 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765
General Plan Designation: Not applicable

Zoning: Not applicable

Description of Project: PR 1147 will reduce NOx emissions from a large variety of equipment and processes that are currently required to have an SCAQMD permit to operate, but whose NOx emissions are not regulated by SCAQMD Regulation XI. The equipment regulated by PR 1147 include, but are not limited to: ovens, dryers, dehydrators, heaters, k ilns, calciners, furnaces, heated pots, cookers, roasters, fryers, closed and open heated tanks and evaporators, distillation units, de gassing units, incinerators, and soil remediation units. PR 1147 requires new, modified, relocated and in-use combustion equi pment subject to the rule to comply with equipment specific NOx emission limits (varies from 20-60 ppm based on specific equipment category). The proposed emission limits are based on SCAQMD surveys of applicable control technologies , recent SCAQMD permit applications and associated sources tests, and discussions with burner manufacturers and vendors. The proposed rule is estimated to reduce annual average emissions of NOx by 3.5 tons per day by 2014 and 3.8 tons per day by 2023.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Not applicable.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: Not applicable.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-2 October 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The following environmental impact areas have been assessed to determine their potential to be affected by the proposed project . As indicated by the checkli st on the following pages, environmental topics marked with an " 9 " may be adversely affected by the proposed project. An explanation relative to the determination of impacts can be found following the checklist for each area.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/ Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation

Solid/Hazardous Waste Transportation/ Traffic Mandatory Findings of SignificanceFinal Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-3 October 2008 DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:



### ; I find the proposed project, in accordance with those findings made pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15252, COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and that an ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT with no significant impacts will be prepared.

I find that although the propos ed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be signi ficant effects in this case because revisions in the project have been ma de by or agreed to by the project proponent. An ENVIRONMENTAL AS SESSMENT with no significant impacts will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, and an ENVIRONMEN TAL ASSESSMENT will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTA L ASSESSMENT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the propos ed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially signi ficant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Date: October 16, 2008 Signature: Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program SupervisorFinal Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-4 October 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL IST AND DISCUSSION

As discussed in Chapter 1, the main focus of PR 1147 is to reduce NOx emissions from a large variety of equipment and proces ses that are currently required to have an SCAQMD permit to operate, but whose NOx emissions are not regulated by SCAQMD Regulation XI. The equipment regulated by PR 1147 include, but are not limited to: ovens, dryers, dehydrators, heaters, kilns, calciners, furnaces, heated pots, cookers, roasters, fryers, closed and open heated tanks and evaporators, distillati on units, degassing units, incinerato rs, and soil remediation units. PR 1147 requires new, modified, relocated and in-u se combustion equipment subject to the rule to comply with equipment specific NOx emission limits (varies from 20-60 ppm based on specific equipment category). As a result, the proposed rule is estimated to reduce annual average emissions of NOx by 3.5 tons pe r day by 2014 and 3.8 tons per day by 2023.

Manufacturers, distributors, retailers, refurbishe rs, installers and operators of both existing and new units will be expected to comply with th e proposed requirements in PR 1147. Compliance with PR 1147 for an existing unit means that th e operator will either re place the existing unit with a new compliant unit at the end of the equipm ent’s useful life or retrofit the equipment with an ultra-low NOx burner that has been certified by the manufacturer as compliant with the NOx emission standard on a retrofit basis. Simila rly, compliance with PR 1147 for a new unit means that the equipment, at the time of manufacture, will be equipped with compliant ultra-low NOx burner technology that has been guaranteed by the manufacturer to achieve the NOx emission standards. Further, no add-on cont rol equipment is expected to be used for either new or existing units to comply with the new NOx emission lim its. As a result, complying with PR 1147 is expected to require minor activi ties using welders, forklifts, et c., to remove and install new equipment or replace old burners with compliant low NOx burners. Sinc e compliant equipment or low NOx burners will be installed in existing equipment locations, no site preparation or grading activities requiring large cons truction equipment will be necessary. Thus, answers to the following checklist items are based on the assu mption that compliant ultra-low NOx burner technology, either at the time of ma nufacture or retrofit, will be us ed to meet the requirements of
PR 1147.

Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ;

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not lim ited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ;

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ;Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-5 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

d) Create a new source of subs tantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ;

Significance Criteria The proposed project impacts on aesthetic s will be considered significant if:

- The project will block views from a scenic highway or corridor.

- The project will adversely a ffect the visual continu ity of the surrounding area.

- The impacts on light and glare will be consider ed significant if the project adds lighting which would add glare to reside ntial areas or sensitive receptors.

Discussion I.a), b), c) & d) PR 1147 applies to equipment and pro cesses that are required to have an SCAQMD permit to operate whose NOx emissions are not regulated by SCAQMD Regulation XI. Compliance with PR 1147 will be achieved by either installing new compliant units or retrofitting existing units by replacing existing burners with ultra-low NOx burner technology, generally at existing facilities . The footprint of a compliant new replacement unit versus the footprint of an existing, retrofitted unit that meet s the ultra-low NOx standa rds as proposed in PR 1147 is not expected to be substantially different from each other. Whether owners/operators replace their existing units with new compliant units or retrofit their existing units with ultra-low NOx burners, implementation of PR 1147 would not require the construction of new buildings or other structures that would obstruc t scenic resources or degrade th e existing visual character of a site, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcr oppings, or historic buildings. Further, PR 1147 would not involve the demolition of any ex isting buildings or facilities, require any subsurface activities, require the acq uisition of any new land or th e surrendering of existing land, or the modification of any existing land use designations or zoning or dinances. Thus, the proposed project is not expected to degrade the vi sual character of any site where a facility is located and that operates an affected unit or it s surroundings, affect any scenic vista, damage scenic resources. Since the proposed project does not require existing facilities to operate at night, it is not expected to create any ne w source of substantial light or glare.

Based upon these considerations, significant advers e aesthetics impacts are not anticipated and will not be further analyzed in this final EA. Since no significant aesthetics impacts were identified, no mitigation measur es are necessary or required.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-6 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Im portance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland mapping and Monitoring Program ofthe California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? ;

b) Conflict with existing z oning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ;

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmla nd, to non-agricultural
use? ;

Significance Criteria Project-related impacts on agricultural resources will be considered significant if any of the following conditions are met:

- The proposed project conflicts with existing zoning or agricultural use or Williamson Act

contracts.

- The proposed project will conve rt prime farmland, unique farmla nd or farmland of statewide importance as shown on the maps prepared pu rsuant to the farmland mapping and monitoring program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.

- The proposed project would involve changes in the existing envi ronment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conver sion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.

II.a), b), & c) Compliance with PR 1147 means either installing new compliant units or retrofitting existing units with ultra-low NOx bu rner technology. The businesses that will be affected by the implementation of PR 1147 are locat ed within urbanized ar eas that are typically designated as industrial or commer cial. Therefore, installing new equipment units or retrofitting existing units to comply with PR 1147 would not re sult in any new construction of buildings or other structures that would c onvert any classification of farm land to non-agricultural use or conflict with zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.

Based upon these considerations, si gnificant agricultural resource impacts are not anticipated and will not be further analyzed in this final EA. Since no significant agriculture resources impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are necessary or required.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-7 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact 

### No Impact

III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ;

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ;

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambien t air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ;

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ;

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ;

f) Diminish an existing air quality rule or future compliance requirement resulting in a significant increase in air pollutant(s)? ;

III.a) Attainment of the state and federal ambi ent air quality standards protects sensitive receptors and the public in general from the a dverse effects of criteria pollutants which are known to have adverse human health effects. Ba sed on the discussion under items III. b), c) and f), the lower future NOx emission limits proposed in PR 1147, contribute to carrying out the goals of the 2007 AQMP, specifically, the goals of control measure CM#2007MCS-01: Facility Modernization, by either upgradin g or replacing the affected units to meet current BACT standards. Further, reducing NOx emissions fr om all affected PR 1147 sources helps contribute to attaining and maintaining the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Thus, because PR 1147 implements a portion of this contro l measure in the 2007 AQMP which results in achieving NOx reductions, the proposed project does not obstruct implementation of the applicable AQMP.

III.b), c) & f) For a discussion of these items, refer to the following analysis.

Air Quality Significance Criteria To determine whether or not air quality impacts from adopting and implementing the proposed amendments are significant, impact s will be evaluated and compared to the criteria in Table 2-1. If impacts equal or exceed any of the criteria in Table 2-1, air quality impacts will be considered significant. All feasible mitigation measures will be identified and implemented to reduce significant impacts to the maximum extent feasible.

Construction Air Quality Impacts Compliance with PR 1147 means that owners/opera tors of the affected combustion equipment will either replace their existing equipment at the end of the equipment’s useful life and installFinal Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-8 October 2008 new equipment with compliant ultra-low NOx burners already installed, or retrofit their existing equipment by replacing the old burners with new, compliant ultra-low NOx burners.

Any operator who chooses to install new equipment or re trofit an existing un it to comply with PR 1147 is not expected to construct any new bu ildings or other struct ures as part of the equipment replacement or retrofit process. Ho wever, some physical modifications would be necessary depending on whether the operator choos es to replace the existing equipment with a new unit or to retrofit the existing unit with ultr a-low NOx burner. For example, for completely replacing existing equipment with new compliant equipment, the existing equipment would need to be shut down and allowed to cool, disconnected from fuel and electric utilities, dismantled and removed. For the purpose of this analysis, the ne w equipment is assumed to be installed at or near the location of the existing equipment.

The physical modifications that ar e typically involved with retrofitting existing equipment would be removing the old burners, installing new burne rs, and installing new or reworking existing flue gas ductwork. Specifically, owners/operators of affected facilities who choose to replace existing burners with ultra-low NOx burners will first need to pre-order and purchase the appropriate size, style and numbe r of burners, shut down the com bustion unit to let it cool, and change out the burners. The burner change-out may involve a contractor or vendor to remove the bolts, possibly cut and re-weld metal seals a nd re-fire the burners for equipment start-up. Additional work may be necessary such as upgrading the operation control system or installing a fuel injection system with electronic controls. Once the ultra-low NOx burners are in place, the combustion equipment can be fired up and can operate with lower NOx emissions. Thus, minimal secondary construction impacts are antici pated from the installation of the majority ultra-low NOx burners.

Table 2-1 Air Quality Significance Thresholds 4

Mass Daily Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operation

NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day

Sox 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day

Toxic Air Contaminants and Odor Thresholds
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) Accidental Release of Acutely Hazardous Materials (AHMs) MICR > 10 in 1 million ; HI > 1.0 (project increment) CAA §112(r) threshold quantities

Odor Project creates an odor nuisa nce pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402

4 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, November 1993.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-9 October 2008 Table 2-1 Air Quality Significance Thresholds (Concluded)

Ambient Air Quality for Criteria Pollutants (a)

NO2

1-hour average annual average SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of th e following attainment standards: 0.25 ppm (state) 0.053 ppm (federal)

PM10 24-hour average

annual geometric average

annual arithmetic mean 10.4 μ g/m 3 (construction) (b) & 2.5 μ g/m 3 (operation)

1.0 μ g/m 3

20 μ g/m 3

PM2.5 24-hour average 10.4 μ g/m 3 (construction) (b) & 2.5 μ g/m 3 (operation)

Sulfate 24-hour average 1 ug/m 3

CO

1-hour average 8-hour average SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of th e following attainment standards:

20 ppm (state) 9.0 ppm (state/federal)

(a) Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants ba sed on SCAQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2 unless otherwise stated. (b) Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403.

KEY: MICR = maximum individual cancer risk HI = Hazard Index ug/m 3 = microgram per cubic meter ppm = parts per million AHM = acutely hazardous material; TAC = toxic air contaminant

To estimate what the impacts would be for in stalling ultra-low NOx burners, the following general assumptions were made:

• Equipment replacement would occur at the end of the equipment’s useful life.

• 2,462 gaseous units that currently have NOx emissions greater than one pound per day will be retrofitted with ultra-lo w NOx burners between 2010 and 2014.

• 2,462 gaseous units that currently have NOx em issions equal to or less than one pound per day will be retrofitted with ul tra-low NOx burners between 2015 and 2023.

• Per unit, installation of an ultra-low NOx burner will take one day.

• 492 units on average will be retrofitted per year using an average of two per day (260 work days per year).

• To provide a “worst-case analysis”, it is assumed that up to 10 units will have an ultralow NOx burner installed in the same day.

• One contractor/vendor plus one welder pe r unit will be needed to retrofit existing equipment with an ultra-low NOx burner.

• One construction worker to install one ultra-low NOx burner.

• One pick-up truck to deliver one ultra-low NOx burner.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-10 October 2008 Tables 2-2A through 2-2D summarize the peak c onstruction emissions due to retrofits of ultralow NOx burners between the years 2010- 2014 and 2015-2023. U nder both compliance scenarios, construction ai r quality impacts do not exceed any a pplicable significance thresholds. Therefore, construction ai r quality impacts are concluded to be less than significant. There may be limited construction emissions prior to 2010 due to early retrofitting or equipment replacement. However, this scenario is expected to include a small number of facilities, and therefore, the respective air quality impacts are concluded to be less than significant.

Table 2-2A Peak Construction Emissions Due to Retrofits of Ultra-Low NOx Burners Between 2010-2014 for One Unit

PEAK CONSTRUCTION VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5
2010-2014 lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day Onsite Emissions (welding machine) 0.16 0.45 0.58 0.00 0.05 0.0476 Offsite Emissions (construction worker vehicle and pick-up truck deliveries) 0.30 2.25 2.11 0.00 0.08 0.0723 Total Emissions (one unit) 0.46 2.70 2.69 0.00 0.13 0.1199
SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD 75 550 100 150 150 55
SIGNIFICANT? NO NO NO NO NO NO

Table 2-2B Peak Construction Emissions Due to Retrofits of Ultra-Low NOx Burners Between 2010-2014 for Ten Units

PEAK CONSTRUCTION VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5
2010-2014 lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day Onsite Emissions (welding machines) 1.60 4.50 5.80 0.00 0.50 0.476 Offsite Emissions (construction worker vehicles and pick-up truck deliveries) 3.00 22.50 21.10 0.00 0.80 0.723 Peak Daily Total for 10 units installed in one day 4.60 27.00 26.90 0.00 1.30 1.20
SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD 75 550 100 150 150 55
SIGNIFICANT? NO NO NO NO NO NO

Table 2-2C Peak Construction Emissions Due to Retrofits of Ultra-Low NOx Burners Between 2015-2023 for One Unit

PEAK CONSTRUCTION VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5
2015-2023 lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day Onsite Emissions (welding machine) 0.11 0.40 0.46 0.00 0.04 0.0384 Offsite Emissions (construction worker vehicle and pick-up truck deliveries) 0.21 1.48 1.32 0.00 0.05 0.048 Total Emissions (one unit) 0.32 1.88 1.78 0.00 0.09 0.0864
SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD 75 550 100 150 150 55
SIGNIFICANT? NO NO NO NO NO NOFinal Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-11 October 2008 Table 2-2D Peak Construction Emissions Due to Retrofits of Ultra-Low NOx Burners Between 2015-2023 for Ten Units

PEAK CONSTRUCTION VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5
2015-2023 lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day Onsite Emissions (welding machines) 1.10 4.00 4.60 0.00 0.40 0.384 Offsite Emissions (construction worker vehicles and pick-up truck deliveries) 2.10 14.80 13.20 0.00 0.50 0.48 Peak Daily Total for 10 units installed in one day 3.20 18.80 17.80 0.00 0.90 0.864
SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD 75 550 100 150 150 55
SIGNIFICANT? NO NO NO NO NO NO

The specific number of units th at will be retrofitted on a given day is not known. Based on the peak daily impacts, however, from one unit re trofit, up to 37 units could be retrofitted on a given day, before the significance threshol d is triggered. Given the time it takes to engineer, order, and deliver ultra-low NOx burners, as well as the availability of construction workers and the staggered compliance schedule, it is unlikely th at 37 units would be retrofitted on a single day.

Refer to Appendix B for the construction estimat es for installing ultra- low NOx burners on the affected equipment.

Summary of Operational Air Quality Impacts The overall objective of the proposed project is to lower NOx emissions from a large variety of combustion equipment and processes. To comply with the lowered NOx emission limits in PR 1147, all affected units will either be replaced with new compliant equipment or retrofitted with compliant ultra-low NOx burners by July 1, 2013, or July 1 of the year the unit is 15 years old if the unit was manufactured af ter 1997. PR 1147 is expected to permanently reduce NOx emissions from these affected sour ce categories by approximately 3.5 tons per day by 2014 and 3.8 tons per day by 2023. No other operati onal emissions changes are expected from implementing PR 1147.

To determine the overall emission impact of the PR 1147, staff has first examined the effects of the proposed rule per topic category.

Changes to NOx Emissions PR 1147 would require affected equipment to meet NOx emission limits in the range of 20 ppm to 60 ppm (referenced to three percent oxyg en) depending upon the process and process temperature. Table 1-1 in Chapter 1 contains a summary of the affected equipment categories and gaseous fuel limits proposed in PR 1147. The proposed complia nce dates for each affected equipment category are presente d in Table 1-2 in Chapter 1.

As summarized in Table 2-3 , the 2002 NOx emissions inventory for equipment subject to Proposed Rule 1147 was 4.9 tons per day (2007 AQMP). The 2014 annual average inventory is projected to be 6.2 tons per day. Table 2-3 also shows the estimated NOx emission reductions and remaining emissions after implementation of proposed Rule 1147. By January 1, 2015, proposed Rule 1147 is expected to reduce the NOx inventory from affected equipment subject to the rule by 3.5 tons per day. An additional 0.3 ton of NOx per day will be reduced by 2023.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-12 October 2008 Emission reductions were calculated based on typical uncontrolled emissions, the proposed emission limits, and information from the SCAQMD permit database. Based on a review of equipment permit limits, approximately 25 percen t of the equipment in each category already meet the proposed rule NOx emission limits. Staff estimates the average reduction for uncontrolled units will be approximately 75 percent. Applying a 75 percent reduction to threefourths of the inventory produces an ove rall reduction of about 56 percent.

Emission reduction estimates for each rule categor y are based upon the number of units in that rule category and an average em ission reduction per unit. Yearly reduction estimates are based on the percentage of equipment which is anticipated to be subject to the emission limits in that year. The percent of equipment subject to emission limits in each specific year is based upon a survey of the SCAQMD permit database. Emission re ductions in the first five years are due to units with permitted NOx emission limits greater than one pound per day. Emission reductions in the last eight years are due to NOx reductio ns from units with permit limits of one pound per day or less.

Typical uncontrolled NOx emissions and projec ted NOx emissions reducti ons are presented in Table 2-3. Table 2-3 Baseline NOx Emission Inventory and Projected NOx Emission Reductions

Fuel Equipment Category Typical
Uncontrolled NOx Emissions Proposed NOx Emission

Limit No. of Units NOx Baseline Emission Inventory (tons/day) NOx Emission Reductions (tons/day)

Asphalt Operations 90-120 ppm 40 ppm 71 0.071 0.0550

Open Heated Tank or Evaporator 120 ppm 200 0.199 0.1540

Degassing, Incinerator, or Soil Remediation >
1200° F 120 ppm 480 0.478 0.3704

Fryer 120 ppm 101 0.100 0.0776

Metal Heat Treating 150-210 ppm 136 0.135 0.1048

Metal Melting Furnace 150-210 ppm 118 0.117 0.0909

Metal or Tar Pot 90-210 ppm 237 0.236 0.1841

Other > 1200° F 120 ppm 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

295 0.293 0.2275

Oven, Dehydrator, Dryer, Heater, etc. ≤ 800° F 120 ppm 20 ppm or 0.024 lb/mmBtu 2335 2.32 1.8019 Natural

Gas

Degassing, Incinerator, or Soil Remediation ≤ 1200° F 120 ppm 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu 479 0.477 0.3699Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-13 October 2008 Table 2-3 Baseline NOx Emission Inventory and Project ed NOx Emission Reductions (Concluded)

Fuel Equipment Category Typical
Uncontrolled NOx Emissions Proposed NOx Emission

Limit No. of Units NOx Baseline Emission Inventory (tons/day) NOx Emission Reductions (tons/day)

Make Up Air Heater 120 ppm 34 0.034 0.0260

Oven, Dehydrator, Dryer, Heater, etc. > 800 and

≤ 1200° F 120 ppm 161 0.160 0.1244

Tenter Frame or Carpet Dryer 90-120 ppm 45 0.048 0.0347

Other Air Heater Outside Building 120 ppm 15 0.015 0.0116 Natural

Gas

Other with Process Temperature ≤ 1200° F 120 ppm 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu

196 0.195 0.1511

Liquid Fuel > 1200° F 120-180 ppm 60 ppm or 0.080 lb/mmBtu 0 0.000 0.0000 Liquid

Fuel Liquid Fuel ≤ 1200° F 120-180 ppm 40 ppm or 0.053 lb/mmBtu 21 0.021 0.0162

Total: 4,924 4.899 3.8000

Accounting for construction NOx emissions for each year of construction, there will still be a net NOx emission reduction benefit. As already noted , none of the construction emissions for any year are estimated to exceed the construction si gnificance threshold for NOx. Based on the NOx emission reductions anticipated for the proposed project, the overall net air quality effects for NOx emissions during each year of construction activities for the proposed project will not exceed the NOx air quality significance threshold for construction. No other pollutants exceed the air quality significance thresholds during cons truction or operation. Th e analysis indicates that there will be an overall reduction in NOx emissions when the construction and operational phases overlap. Thus, there are no significant adverse construction or operational air quality impacts generated by the proposed project. Th e overall NOx emission reduction benefits are summarized in Table 2-4 . Refer to Appendix B for the oper ation estimates for installing ultralow NOx burners on the affected equipment.

Table 2-4 Overall 1 Net NOx Emission Reductions During Peak Daily “Worst-Case” Construction Activities with Operati onal Overlap (lbs/day)

Daily NOx Emission Reductions 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Asphalt Operations (71) -30.4 -30.4 -30.4 -5.0 -5.0 -2.6 -2.6 -2.6 -0.174 -0.174 -0.174 -0.174 -0.174Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-14 October 2008 Table 2-4 (Continued) Overall 1 Net NOx Emission Reductions During Peak Daily “Worst-Case” Construction Activities with Operati onal Overlap (lbs/day)

Daily NOx Emission Reductions 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Open Heated

Tank or Evaporator (200) -85 -85 -85 -14.2 -14.2 -7.3 -7.3 -7.3 -0.486 -0.486 -0.486 -0.486 -0.486

Degassing,

Incinerator or

Soil

Remediation > 1200° F (480) -204.8 -204.8 -204.8 -34.2 -34.2 -17.54 -17.54 -17.54 -1.17 -1.17 -1.17 -1.17 -1.17

Fryer (101) -42.8 -42.8 -42.8 -7.2 -7.2 -3.68 -3.68 -3.68 -0.244 -0.244 -0.244 -0.244 -0.244
Metal Heat Treating (136) -57.8 -57.8 -57.8 -9.6 -9.6 -4.96 -4.96 -4.96 -0.33 -0.33 -0.33 -0.33 -0.33

Metal Melting Furnace (118) -50.2 -50.2 -50.2 -8.4 -8.4 -4.3 -4.3 -4.3 -0.286 -0.286 -0.286 -0.286 -0.286

Metal or Tar

Pot (237) -101.8 -101.8 -101.8 -17.0 -17.0 -8.72 -8.72 -8.72 -0.582 -0.582 -0.582 -0.582 -0.582

Other > 1200° F (295) -125.8 -125.8 -125.8 -21.0 -21.0 -10.78 -10.78 -10.78 -0.718 -0.718 -0.718 -0.718 -0.718

Oven, Dehydrator, Dryer, Heater,

etc. ≤ 800° F (2335) -995.8 -995.8 -995.8 -166.0 -166.0 -85.36 -85.36 -85.36 -5.69 -5.69 -5.69 -5.69 -5.69

Degassing,

Incinerator or

Soil

Remediation

≤ 1200° F (479) -204.4 -204.4 -204.4 -34.0 -34.0 -17.52 -17.52 -17.52 -1.168 -1.168 -1.168 -1.168 -1.168

Make Up Air Heater (34) -1.44 -1.44 -1.44 -2.4 -2.4 -1.24 -1.24 -1.24 -0.082 -0.082 -0.082 -0.082 -0.082

Oven, Dehydrator, Dryer, Heater,

etc. > 800° and

≤ 1200° F (161) -68.8 -68.8 -68.8 -11.4 -11.4 -5.9 -5.9 -5.9 -0.392 -0.392 -0.392 -0.392 -0.392

Tenter Frame or

Carpet Dryer (45) -19.2 -19.2 -19.2 -3.2 -3.2 -1.64 -1.64 -1.64 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-15 October 2008 Table 2-4 (Concluded) Overall 1 Net NOx Emission Reductions During Peak Daily “Worst-Case” Construction Activities with Operati onal Overlap (lbs/day)

Daily NOx Emission Reductions 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Other Air

Heater Outside Building (15) -6.4 -6.4 -6.4 -1.0 -1.0 -0.54 -0.54 -0.54 -0.036 -0.036 -0.036 -0.036 -0.036

Other with

Process Temperature < 1200° F (196) -83.4 -83.4 -83.4 -14.0 -14.0 -7.16 -7.16 -7.16 -0.478 -0.478 -0.478 -0.478 -0.478

Liquid Fuel > 1200° F (0) -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0

Liquid Fuel

≤ 1200°F (21) -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -1.4 -1.4 -0.76 -0.76 -0.76 -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.052

Accumulated

Total NOx

Emission

Reductions -2100 -2100 -2100 -350 -350 -180 -180 -180 -12 -12 -12 -12 -12

2 Worst Case Daily NOx

Increases

during

Construction of

Ultra-Low NOx

Burners 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94

Net

Accumulated

NOx Emission

Reductions (Increase)

after

Construction -2093.1 -2093.1 -2093.1 -343.1 -343.1 -174.06 -174.06 -174.06 -6.06 -6.06 -6.06 -6.06 -6.06

NOx Significance

Threshold (For

Construction

Activities) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Significant For

NOx? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

1 Because NOx emission reductions are permanent, they accumulate each compliance date milestone until total NOx emissions are realized.

2 Based on worst-case construction scenario of the replacement of 10 units in one day.

* A minus sign denotes emission reductions.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-16 October 2008 Summary of Global Warming Impacts Significant changes in global climate patterns have recently been associated with global warming, an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface, attributed to accumulation of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heat s the surface of the Earth. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processe s, while others are cr eated and emitted solely through human activities. The emission of GHGs through the combustion of fossil fuels (i.e., fuels containing carbon) in conjun ction with other human activit ies, appears to be closely associated with global warmi ng. State law defines GHG to include the following: carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), a nd sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) (Health and Safe ty Code §38505(g)). The most common GHG that resu lts from human activity is CO 2 , followed by CH 4 and N 2 O. The combustion processes affected by the pr oposed project will generate GHG emissions, primarily CO 2 and CH 4 , which are evaluated in the followi ng section. The following analysis focuses on directly emitted CO 2 and CH 4 because these are the primary GHG pollutants emitted during the combustion process and are the GHG pollutants for which emission factors are available. Other GHGs cannot be analyzed at this time b ecause emission factors are not currently available. The remain ing GHGs, such as HFCs and PFCs, are determined to not result from the proposed project, and therefore, will not have an effect on the proposed project. CO 2 and CH 4 emissions were estimated using emission factors from CARB EMFAC2007 and Offroad2007 models and EPA’s AP-42.

The analysis of GHGs is a much different analysis than the analysis of criteria pollutants for the following reasons. For criteria pollutants, the significance threshol ds are based on daily emissions because attainment or non-attainment is based on daily exceedances of applicable ambient air quality standards. Further, seve ral ambient air quality standards are based on relatively short-term exposure e ffects on human health, e.g., one-hour and eight-hour standards. Since the half-life of CO2 is approximately 100 years, for example, the effects of GHGs occur over a longer term which means they affect the global climate over a relatively long time frame. As a result, the SCAQMD’s current position is to evaluate the effects of GHGs over a longer timeframe than a single day. Al though GHG emissions are typically considered to be cumulative impacts because they contribute to global climate effects, this final EA analyzes the GHG emissions as project specific impacts because of the close relationshi p between CO and CO2 emissions from the compliance options.

Based on the type and size of equipment affected by PR 1147, CO2 emissions from the operation of the retrofitted or replaced equipment are like ly to decrease from current levels due to improved burner efficiency. Therefore, no fuel penalty is associated with PR 1147 and CO2 emissions were not required to be evaluated for operational activities. However, there are construction emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs associated with in stalling ultra-low NOx burners. Table 2-5 summarizes the CO2 impacts from construction activities. Refer to Appendix B for the GHG estimates for instal ling ultra-low NOx burners on the affected equipment.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-17 October 2008 Table 2-5 Overall CO2 Equivalent (eq) Increases Due to Construction Activities (metric tons/year) 1

Compliance Years

Annual CO2eq Emission Increases Due to: 2010-2014 2015-2023 Installing Ultra-Low NOx Burners on 2,462 Gaseous Units > 1lb/day 424.13 0

Installing Ultra-Low NOx Burners on 2,462 Gaseous Units ≤ 1lb/day 0 433.59

CO2eq Increases (metric tons/year) 424.13 433.59

1 1 metric ton = 2,205 pounds

Neither SCAQMD nor any other air regulatory agency in California has formally established a significance threshold for GHG emissions yet. In the absence of a specific significance threshold, SCAQMD staff has evaluated significance for projects where it is the lead agency on a case-by-case basis. In this analysis, SCAQMD staff has used a variety of benchmarks to evaluate GHG impacts. As additional information is compiled with regard to the level of GHG emissions that constitute a significant cumulative climate change impact, SCAQMD will continue to revisit and possibly revise the level of GHG emissions considered to be significant.

In its CEQA & Climate Change document (January, 2008), the Ca lifornia Air Po llution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) identifies many potential GHG significance threshold options. The CAPCOA document indicates that establishing quantitative thresholds is a balance between setting the level low enough to capture a substa ntial portion of future residential and nonresidential development, while also setti ng a threshold high enough to exclude small development projects that will contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. For example, CAPCOA identif ies one potential signi ficance threshold as 10,000 metric tons per year, which was consid ered by the Market Advisory Committee for inclusion in a Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade System in California. Another potential threshold identified by CAPCOA is 25,000 metric tons per year, which is CARB’s proposed mandatory reporting threshold under Assembly Bill (AB) 32. As shown in Table 2-5 , GHG emissions increases from implementing PR 1 147 would be orders of magnitude lower than both of these reporting thresholds.

Finally, another approach to determining significan ce is to estimate what percentage of the total inventory of GHG emissions are represented by emi ssions from a single project. If emissions are a relatively small percentage of the total inventory, it is possible that the pr oject will have little or no effect on global climate change. According to available information, the statewide inventory of CO2 equivalent (CO2eq.) emissions is as follows: 1990 GHG emissions equal 427 million metric tons of CO2eq. and 2020 GHG emissions e qual 600 million metric tons of CO2eq. with business as usual (542 metric tons per year by 2010 and 571 metric tons per year by 2015 extrapolating known data).

The CO2 emission increase from PR 1147 constr uction activities would be approximately 424.13 metric tons of CO2 between 2010 and 2014 a nd 433.59 metric tons of CO2 between 2015 and 2023. This small percentage (0.000002 percent) of GHG emissions from PR 1147 construction activities as compared to the total projected st atewide GHG emissions inve ntory is another basisFinal Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-18 October 2008 for the SCAQMD’s conclusion that GHG emissi ons from implementing PR 1147 are less than significant.

PR 1147 is part of a comprehensive ongoing re gulatory program that includes implementing related SCAQMD 2007 AQMP control measures as ame nded or new rules to attain and maintain with a margin of safety all state and national am bient air quality standards for all areas within its jurisdiction. The 2007 AQMP estimates a CO2 reduction of 427,849 metric tons per year by 2014, and a CO2 reduction of 1,523,445 metric tons per year by 2020. Therefore, PR 1147 in connection with other 2007 AQMP control measures is not considered to be cumulatively considerable and, therefore, is not considered to be a sign ificant cumulative GHG impact.

Since GHG emissions are considered cumulative impacts, and the GHG emission increases from PR 1147 construction activities are considerably below the 10,000 metric ton per year Market Advisory Committee threshold, 25,000 metric ton per year CARB proposed mandatory reporting threshold under AB 32, a small percentage of th e total statewide GHG inventory, and, with other control measures in the 2007 AQM P, which is a comprehensive ongoing regulatory program that would reduce overall CO2 emissions; adverse cumulative GHG impacts from PR 1147 are not considered significant.

Conclusion Based on the preceding discussion, PR 1147 is expected to reduce NOx emissions by approximately 3.5 tons per day by 2014, which is an air quality benefit. An additional 0.30 ton per day of NOx emissions will be reduced by 2023. Thus, PR 1147 is not expected to result in significant adverse air quality im pacts. Further, implementing PR 1147 would not diminish an existing air quality rule or future compliance requirement, nor conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality pla n. The proposed project has no provision that would cause a violation of any ai r quality standard or directly contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Since air quality impacts from implementing PR 1147 are seen as benefits and do not exceed any of the air quality significance thresholds in Table 2-1, air quality impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15065(c). Therefore, the propose d project is not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.



### III.d) Affected facilities are not expected to increase exposure by sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentra tions from the implementation of PR 1147 for the following reasons: 1) the affected facilities are existing fac ilities located in industria l or commercial areas; 2) the limited emission increases associated w ith the proposed changes (equipment replacement or retrofitting existing equipment) are conc luded to be less than significant; and, 3) installation of any new, or retrofits of any existing equipmen t subject to PR 1147 is expected to reduce NOx emissions from affected equipment. Therefor e, significant adverse air quality impacts to sensitive receptors are not expe cted from implementing PR 1147.

III.e) Historically, the SCAQMD has enforced odor nuisance complaints through SCAQMD Rule 402 - Nuisance. Affected f acilities are not expected to crea te objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people for the following reas ons: 1) the affected facilities are existing facilities located in industrial or commercial areas with appropr iate controls in place; 2) no heavy-duty construction equipment with associated diesel exhaust odors ar e necessary to install ultra-low NOx burners; 3) typically no odors are associated with combustion equipment operating in accordance with Rule 1147; and, 4) installation of any new or retrofits of anyFinal Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-19 October 2008 existing equipment subject to PR 1147 is expected to reduce NOx emissions from affected equipment. Therefore, no significant odor impact s are expected to result from implementing the
PR 1147.

Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ;

b) Have a substantial adve rse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ;

c) Have a substantial ad verse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by §404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coasta l, etc.) th rough direct removal, filling, hydrol ogical interruption, or other means? ;

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with establis hed native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ;

e) Conflicting with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological res ources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ;Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-20 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

f) Conflict with the provisi ons of an adopted Habitat Conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habi tat conservation plan? ;

Significance Criteria Impacts on biological resources wi ll be considered significant if any of the following criteria apply:

- The project results in a loss of plant communitie s or animal habitat considered to be rare, threatened or endangered by fede ral, state or local agencies.

- The project interferes substantially with the m ovement of any resident or migratory wildlife species.

- The project adversely affects aquatic communities through construction or operation of the project.

Discussion IV.a), b), c), & d) PR 1147 would only affect combus tion equipment located at existing facilities in industrial or comm ercial areas, which have alrea dy been greatly disturbed. Compliance with PR 1147 means either installing new compliant units or retrofitting existing units with ultra-low NOx burner technology. Th erefore, installing new equipment units or retrofitting existing units to comply with PR 11 47 would not result in any new construction of buildings or other structures. In general, the areas where affected equipment are located currently do not typically suppor t riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, or migratory corridors. Additionally, special st atus plants, animals, or natura l communities are not expected to be found in close proximity to the affected facilities.

IV.e) & f) PR 1147 is not envisioned to conflict wi th local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources nor local, regional, or stat e conservation plans becau se it will only affect combustion equipment primarily located at existing facilities in industrial or commercial areas. Additionally, PR 1147 will not conf lict with any adopted Habita t Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other relevant habitat c onservation plan for the same

reason.

The SCAQMD, as the Lead Agency for the proposed project, has found that, when considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed pr oject will have potential for any new adverse effects on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Accordingly, based upon the preceding information, the SCAQMD has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in §753.5 (d), Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

Based upon these considerations, significant a dverse biological resources impacts are not anticipated and will not be furt her analyzed in this final EA. Since no significant adverse biological resources impacts were identified, no m itigation measures are necessary or required.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-21 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? ;

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? ;

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ;

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside a formal cemeteries? ;

Significance Criteria Impacts to cultural resources will be considered significant if:

- The project results in the distur bance of a significant prehisto ric or historic archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a co mmunity or ethnic or social group.

- Unique paleontological resources are present that could be di sturbed by construction of the proposed project.

- The project would disturb human remains.

Discussion V.a), b), c), & d) Since only minor construction-related activities associated with installing compliant equipment at affect ed facilities are expected, the implementation of PR 1147 is expected, so no impacts to historical resources ar e expected to occur as a result of this project. PR 1147 is not expected to require physical ch anges to the environment, which may disturb paleontological or archaeological re sources. Furthermore, it is envisioned that the areas where the affected facilities exist ar e already either devoid of signif icant cultural resources or whose cultural resources have been previously disturbed.

Based upon these considerations, significant advers e cultural resources imp acts are not expected from the implementing PR 1147 and will not be further assessed in this final EA. Since no significant cultural resources impacts were iden tified, no mitigation measures are necessary or required.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-22 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ;

b) Result in the need for new or substantially altered power or natural gas utility systems? ;

c) Create any significant effects on local or regional energy supplies a nd on requirements for additional energy? ;

d) Create any significant effects on peak and base period demands for electri city and other forms of energy? ;

e) Comply with existing energy standards? ;

Significance Criteria Impacts to energy and mineral resources will be considered significant if any of the following criteria are met:

- The project conflicts with adopted en ergy conservation plans or standards.

- The project results in substantial depleti on of existing energy resource supplies.

- An increase in demand for utilities impacts the current capacities of th e electric and natural gas utilities.

- The project uses non-renewable resources in a wasteful and/or inefficient manner.

Discussion VI.a) & e) PR 1147 would only affect equipment and processes that are re quired to have an SCAQMD permit to operate, but whose NOx emissions are not currently regulated by SCAQMD Regulation XI. Compliance with PR 1147 means either installing new compliant units or retrofitting existing units with ultra-low NOx bu rner technology. Installation of new ultra-low NOx burners or replacing existing equipment w ith new compliant equipment is expected to result in a slight reduction in demand for natura l gas, as new burners or new construction is expected to be more efficient than existing affected equipment. As a result, PR 1147 would not conflict with energy conservation plans, use non-renewable resour ces in a wasteful manner, or result in the need for new or substantially alte red power or natural gas systems. Since PR 1147 would affect primarily existing equipment operating at existi ng facilities, it will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans because existing facilities would be expected to continue implementing any existing energy conservation plans, because it is expected that compliant equipment will be more efficient than existing equipment. Additionally, operators of affected facilities are expected to comply with existing energy cons ervation plans and standards to minimize operating costs, while still complying w ith the requirements of PR 1147. Accordingly these impact issues will not be further analyzed in the final EA.

VI.b), c), & d) PR 1147 would not create any significa nt effects on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of ener gy since no construction of buildings or otherFinal Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-23 October 2008 structures are anticipated as a result of the affect ed facilities operating equipment that is either manufactured or retrofitted with ultra-low NOx burner technology.

The majority of the universe of sour ces that would be regulated by PR 1147 is fired with natural gas. As discussed in the ai r quality section regarding GHG em issions, due to ultra-low NOx burner retrofits, implementation of PR 1147 is expected to result in a slight decrease in the demand for natural gas. Based upon these considerat ions, the proposed projec t is not expected to use energy in a wasteful manner, and will not exceed SCAQMD energy significance thresholds. There will be no substantial depletion of energy resources nor will significant amounts of fuel be needed when compared to existing supplies.

In light of the preceding discussion, PR 1147 w ould not create any signi ficant effects on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy and it is expected to comply with existing energy standards. Therefore, PR 1147 is not expected to generate significant adverse energy resources impacts and will not be discussed further in this final EA. Since no significant energy impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are necessary or required.

Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structur es to potentia l substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ;

• Rupture of a known ear thquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ;

• Strong seismic ground shaking? ;

• Seismic–related ground failure, including liquefaction? ;

• Landslides? ;

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ;

c) Be located on a geologi c unit or soil that is unstable or that would b ecome unstable as a result of the project, and potent ially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ;

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ;Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-24 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ;

Significance Criteria Impacts on the geological environment will be c onsidered significant if any of the following criteria apply:

- Topographic alterations would result in signif icant changes, disruptions, displacement, excavation, compaction or over cove ring of large amounts of soil.

- Unique geological resources (pal eontological resources or unique outcrops) are present that could be disturbed by the construction of the proposed project.

- Exposure of people or structures to major geologic hazards such as earthquake surface rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction or landslides.

- Secondary seismic effects could occur whic h could damage facility structures, e.g., liquefaction.

- Other geological hazards exist which could ad versely affect the faci lity, e.g., landslides, mudslides.

Discussion VII.a) Southern California is an ar ea of known seismic activity. Structures must be designed to comply with the Uniform Building Code Zone 4 re quirements if they are located in a seismically active area. The local city or county is responsib le for assuring that a proposed project complies with the Uniform Building Code as part of th e issuance of the building permits and can conduct inspections to ensure compliance. The Uniform Building Code is considered to be a standard safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life. The goal of the code is to provide structures that will: 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage ; 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but wi th some non-structural damage; an d 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some stru ctural and non-st ructural damage.

The Uniform Building Code bases seismic desi gn on minimum lateral seismic forces (“ground shaking”). The Uniform Building Code require ments operate on the prin ciple that providing appropriate foundations, among other aspects, help s to protect buildings from failure during earthquakes. The basic formulas used for th e Uniform Building Code seismic design require determination of the seismic zone and site coefficient, which represent the foundation conditions at the site. Accordingly, buildings and equipmen t at existing affected facilities are likely to conform with the Uniform Building C ode and all other applicable stat e codes in effect at the time they were constructed.

PR 1147 would only affect combus tion equipment located primarily at existing facilities in industrial or commercial areas. Since impl ementing PR 1147 is expected to involve the installation of new compliant equipment or the re trofitting of existing units with ultra-low NOx burners at existing facilities, no new buildings or struct ures are expected to be constructed in response to the proposed project. As a result, s ubstantial exposure of peopl e or structure to theFinal Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-25 October 2008 risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-re lated activities is not anticipated and will not be further analyzed in this final EA.

VII.b) PR 1147 would only affect combustion equi pment located at ex isting facilities in industrial or commercial areas. Since impl ementing PR 1147 is expected to involve the installation of new compliant equipment at th e end of the equipment’s useful life or the retrofitting of existing units with ultra-low NOx burners at existing facilities, no soil disruption from excavation, grading, or fil ling activities; changes in topogr aphy or surface relief features; erosion of beach sand; or changes in existing si ltation rates are anticipated in response to the proposed project.

VII.c) Since PR 1147 would only affect co mbustion equipment located primarily at existing facilities, it is expected that th e soil types present at the affected facilities will not be further susceptible to expansion or lique faction. Subsidence is not anticip ated to be a problem since no excavation, grading, or filling activi ties will occur at affected fac ilities. Further, the proposed project does not involve drilling or removal of underground products (e.g., water, crude oil, et cetera) that could produce new, or make worse existing subsidence effects. Additionally, the affected areas are not envisioned to be prone to new risks from landslides or have unique geologic features since the affected facilities are located in indus trial or commerci al areas where such features have already been altered or removed. Finally, since affected equipment are located at existing facilities, th e proposed project is not expected to alter or make worse any existing potential for subsid ence, liquefaction, etc.

VII.d) & e) Since the proposed project will affect operations at primarily existing facilities, it is expected that people or property will not be exposed to new impacts relative to expansive soils or soils incapable of supporting water disposal, no r will any existing impacts be made worse. Further, the proposed project does not require inst allation of septic tanks or other alternative waste water systems. The main effect of the proposed project will be the installation of new compliant equipment or the retrofitting of exis ting units with ultra-lo w NOx burners at the affected facilities.

Based upon these considerations, si gnificant geology and soils impacts are not expected from the implementation of PR 1147 and will not be further analyzed in this final EA. Since no significant geology and soils impacts were identi fied, no mitigation measures are necessary or required.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-26 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, disposal of hazardous materials? ;

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ;

c) Emit hazardous emissions, or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ;

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significan t hazard to the public or the environment? ;

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the pr oject result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ;

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ;

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ;

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or deat h involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ;

i) Significantly increased fire hazard in areas with flammable materials? ;Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-27 October 2008 Significance Criteria Impacts associated with hazards will be consid ered significant if any of the following occur:

- Non-compliance with any applicab le design code or regulation.

- Non-conformance to National Fire Protection Association standards.

- Non-conformance to regulations or generally ac cepted industry practices related to operating policy and procedures concerning the design, construction, security, leak detection, spill containment or fire protection.

- Exposure to hazardous chemicals in concentratio ns equal to or greater than the Emergency Response Planning Guideline (ERPG) 2 levels.

Discussion VIII.a) There are no provisions in PR 1147 that would increase the amount of hazardous materials used or generated by facility owners/ope rators. Further, because implementation of PR 1147 would involve the installation of new compliant equipment at the end of the equipment’s useful life or the retrofitting of existing units with ultra-low NOx burners at existing facilities, no raw material deliveries or waste disposal truck trips that handl e hazardous materials will be associated with the proposed project after the applicable compliance dates

.

As indicated in the discussion under ener gy, PR 1147 applies to combustion equipment operations that are mainly fired with natural gas, though a small percentage are fired with liquid fuel; both are flammable substances. Because the ultra-low NOx burner technology is more efficient than existing burner technologies , implementation of PR 1147 is expected to slightly reduce the demand for fuel compared to what is currently used at ex isting affected facilities. As a result , implementation of PR 1147 is not expected to noticeably change or may slightly reduce

any existing flammability hazard that may be associated with operating these combustion devices. In summary, implementa tion of PR 1147 is not expected to increase any existing flammability hazard associated with firing ultra-low NOx burners.

VIII.b) & i) Since PR 1147 would primarily affect existing combustion equipment that is primarily located at existing facilities , existing emergency planning is anticipated to adequately minimize the risk associated installing new co mpliant equipment or retrofitting existing equipment with ultra-low NOx burners. Busi nesses are required to re port increases in the storage or use of flammable and otherwise hazardous materials to local fire departments. As noted in item VIII.a), PR 1147 is not expected to increase the amount of materials used or generated at affected faciliti es that would contain hazardou s materials nor is it expected to significantly increase the demand of fuels (natural gas and liquid fuel) or other flammable substances.

In addition, local fire departments ensure that adequate permit conditions are in place to protect against potential risk of upset. The Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code set standards intended to minimize risks from flammable or otherwise hazardous materials. Local jurisdictions are requiredto adopt the uniform codes or co mparable regulations. Local fire agencies require permits for the use or storag e of hazardous materials and permit modifications for proposed increases in their use. Permit conditions depend on the type and quantity of the hazardous materials at the facility. Permit conditions may include, but are not limited to, specifications for sprinkler system s, electrical systems, ventilat ion, and containment. The fireFinal Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-28 October 2008 departments make annual business inspections to ensure compliance with permit conditions and other appropriate regulations.

Further, all hazardous materials ar e expected to be used in comp liance with established OSHA or Cal/OSHA regulations and procedures, includi ng providing adequate ventilation, using recommended personal protective equipment and clothing, posting appropriate signs and warnings, and providing adequate worker health and safety training. When taken together, the above regulations provide comprehensive measures to reduce hazards of explosive or otherwise hazardous materials. Compliance with these and other federal, state a nd local regulations and proper operation and maintenance of equipment s hould ensure the potentia l for explosions or accidental releases of hazardous materials is not significant.

VIII.c), e), & f) In general, the purpose of PR 1147 is to achieve NOx emissi on reductions from large variety of combustion equipment at existi ng facilities, which will ultimately improve air quality and reduce adverse human h ealth impact related to poor ai r quality. Since operations of these equipment categories occur primarily at existing facilities located in industrial or commercial areas, implementation of PR 1147 is not expected to increase existing, or create any new hazardous emissions which would advers ely affect existing/proposed schools or public/private airports located in close proximity to the affected facilities. Accordingly, these impact issues are not further evaluated in this final EA.

VIII.d) Even if some affected facilities are designated pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 as a large quantity generator of hazardous waste, it is not anticipated that complying with PR 1147 will alter in any way how operators of affected facilities mana ge their hazardous wastes and that they will continue to be managed in a ccordance with all applicab le federal, state, and local rules a nd regulations.

VIII.g) Aside from the use of natural gas and liquid fuel for fueling the equipment, it should again be noted that the proposed rule has no provi sions that dictate the us e of, or generate any new hazardous material. Under PR 1147, owners or operators of the affected facilities have the flexibility of choosing th e type of compliant com bustion equipment (i.e. to install new equipment or retrofit existing equipment with ultra-low NOx burners) for their operations. Either way, the installation of new compliant equipment or the retrofit of existing equipment will not pose a substantial safety hazard. Therefore, it is not anticipated that PR 1147 w ould require changes to impair implementation of or physic ally interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

In addition, Health and Sa fety Code §25506 specifically requires all businesses handling hazardous materials to submit a business emergency response plan to assist local administering agencies in the emergency release or threatened release of a hazardous material. Business emergency response plans generally require the following:

• Identification of individuals who are re sponsible for various actions, including reporting, assisting emergency response pe rsonnel and establishing an emergency response team;

• Procedures to notify the administering agency, the appropriate local emergency rescue personnel, and the Californi a Office of Emergency Services;Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-29 October 2008 • Procedures to mitigate a release or thr eatened release to minimize any potential harm or damage to persons, property or the environment;

• Procedures to notify the necessary persons who can respond to an emergency within the facility;

• Details of evacuation plans and procedures;

• Descriptions of the emergency equi pment available in the facility;

• Identification of local emergency medical assistance; and

• Training (initial and refresher) programs for employees in:
1. The safe handling of hazardous materials used by the business;
2. Methods of working with the local public emergency response agencies;
3. The use of emergency response reso urces under control of the handler;
4. Other procedures and resources th at will increase public safety and prevent or mitigate a releas e of hazardous materials.

In general, every county or city and all facilities using a mini mum amount of hazardous materials are required to formulate detailed contingency plans to eliminat e, or at least minimize, the possibility and effect of fires, ex plosion, or spills. In conjuncti on with the California Office of Emergency Services, local jurisdictions have enacted ordinances that set standards for area and business emergency response plans. These requirements include immediate notification, mitigation of an actual or threatened releas e of a hazardous material, and evacuation of the

emergency area.

VIII.h) Since the facilities that operate equipment subject to the requirements in PR 1147 are located at existing industrial or commercial sites in urban areas where wildlands are not prevalent, risk of loss or injury associated with wildland fires is not expected. Accordingly, this impact issue is not further evaluated in this final EA.

Based upon these considerations, significant ha zards and hazardous materials impacts are not expected from the implementation of PR 1147 and will not be further analyzed in this final EA. Since no significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are necessary or required.

Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ;Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-30 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantia lly with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e .g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ;

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? ;

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite? ;

e) Create or contribute ru noff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ;

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ;

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ;

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would imp ede or redirect flood flaws? ;

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a resu lt of the failure of a levee or dam? ;

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ;

k) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ;Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-31 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

l) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing faci lities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ;

m) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage faci lities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant e nvironmental effects? ;

n) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ;

o) Require in a determina tion by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ;

Significance Criteria Potential impacts on water resources will be considered significant if any of the following criteria apply:

Water Quality:

- The project will cause degradation or deple tion of ground water resources substantially affecting current or future uses.

- The project will cause the degradation of surf ace water substantially affecting current or future uses.

- The project will result in a violation of Na tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements.

- The capacities of existing or proposed wastewater treatment facilities and the sanitary sewer system are not sufficient to m eet the needs of the project.

- The project results in substantial increases in the area of impervious surfaces, such that interference with groundwater recharge efforts occurs.

- The project results in alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters.

Water Demand:

- The existing water supply does not have the cap acity to meet the increased demands of the project, or the project would use a substantial amount of potable water.

- The project increases demand for water by more than five million gallons per day.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-32 October 2008 Discussion The expected options for compliance with the proposed future NOx emission limits will either involve the installation of new compliant equipmen t at the end of the equi pment’s useful life or the retrofitting of existing units with ultra-low NOx burners at existing f acilities. No additional water demand or wastewater generation is expect ed to result from the operation of the units equipped with ultra-low NOx burne rs at the affected facilities because this type of control technology does not entail the use of water in the NOx control pr ocess. Further, PR 1147 has no provision that would require the construction of additional water re source facilities, increase the need for new or expanded water entitlements, or alter existing drainage patterns. The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. PR 1147 would not create or contribute runoff wa ter that would exceed the capacity of existing or planne d stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Fu rther, since compliance with PR 1147 does not invol ve wastewater processes, there would be no change in the composition or volume of existing wastewater streams from the affected facilities. In additi on, the proposed amended rule is not expected to require additional wastewater dis posal capacity, violate any water qua lity standard or wastewater discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrad e water quality.

IX.a), f), k), l), & o) Complying with the proposed project w ill not change exis ting operations at affected facilities, nor would it result in genera tion of increased volumes of wastewater because the ultra-low NOx burners do not require wa ter as part of the NOx control process . As a result, there are no potential changes in wastewater vol ume or composition exp ected from facilities complying with the requirements in PR 1147. Further, PR 1147 is not expected to cause affected facilities to violate any water quality standard or wastewater discharge requirements since there would be no wastewater volumes generated as a result of implementing with PR 1147. PR 1147 is not expected to have signi ficant adverse water demand or water quality impacts for the following reasons:

• The proposed project does not increase demand for water by more than 5,000,000 gallons per day.

• The proposed project does not require construction of new water conveyance infrastructure.

• The proposed project does not create a s ubstantial increase in mass inflow of effluents to public wastewat er treatment facilities.

• The proposed project does not result in a substantial degradation of surface water or groundwater quality.

• The proposed project does not result in substantial increases in the area of impervious surfaces, such that interfer ence with groundwater recharge efforts

occurs.

• The proposed project does not result in alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters.

IX.b) & n) Because the NOx control process of the burners in the equipment affected by PR 1147 does not rely on water, no in crease to any affected facili ties’ existing water demand is expected. Because ultra-low NOx burner techno logy does not utilize wate r, implementation of PR 1147 will not increase demand for, or otherwise affect groundwater supplies or interfere withFinal Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-33 October 2008 groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. In additi on, implementation of PR 1147 will not increase demand for water from existing entitlements and re sources, and will not re quire new or expanded entitlements. Since equipment affected by PR 1147 generally occur in existing structures at existing facilities, no paving is required that might interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, no water demand impacts are expected as the result of implementing PR 1147.

IX.c), d), & e) Implementation of PR 1147 will occur at ex isting facilities, th at are typically located in industrial or commercial areas that are paved and already have drainage infrastructures in place. Since PR 1147 does not involve major construction activities including site preparation, grading, etc. , no changes to storm water runoff, drainage patterns, groundwater characteristics, or flow are expected. Theref ore, these impact areas are not expected to be affected by PR 1147.

IX.g), h), i), & j) The proposed project will not require construction of new housing, contribute to the construction of new building structures, or require modifications or changes to existing structures. Further, PR 1147 is not expected to re quire additional workers at affected facilities. Therefore, PR 1147 is not expected to generate construction of a ny new structures in 100-year flood areas as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map. As a result, PR 1147 is not expected to expose people or structures to significant new flooding risks, or make worse any existing fl ooding risks. Finally, PR 1147 will not affect in any way any potential flood hazards inundation by se iche, tsunami, or mud flow that may already exist relative to existing facilities or cr eate new hazards at existing facilities.

IX.m) PR 1147 will not increase storm water disc harge, since no construction activities are expected at affected facilities. Further, no new areas at existing affected facilities are expected to be paved, so the proposed project will not increase st orm water runoff during operation. Therefore, no new storm water discharge treatment facilities or m odifications to existing f acilities will be required due to the implementation of PR 1147. Accordingly, PR 1147 is not expected to generate significant adverse impacts relative to construction of new storm water drainage facilities.

Based upon these considerations, si gnificant hydrology and water qua lity impacts are not expected from the implementation of PR 1147 and will not be further analyzed in this final EA. Since no significant hydrology and water quality impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are necessary or required.

Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ;Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-34 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific pla n, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) a dopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ;

c) Conflict with any applic able habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan? ;

Significance Criteria Land use and planning impacts will be considered significant if the project conflicts with the land use and zoning designations es tablished by local jurisdictions.

Discussion X.a) PR 1147 would only affect combustion equipment primarily at existing facilities. The expected options for compliance with the propo sed future NOx emission limits in PR 1147 will involve the installation of new compliant equipmen t at the end of the equi pment’s useful life or the retrofitting of existing units with ultra-lo w NOx burners. Since PR 1147 affects equipment operating at existing facilities, it does not include any component s that would require physically dividing an established community.

X.b) & c) There are no provisions in PR 1147 that w ould affect land use plans, policies, or regulations. Land use and other planning considerations are determined by local governments and no land use or planning requirements will be altered by regulating NOx emissions from affected natural gas-fired or liquid fuel fired combustion equipmen t. Replacing one type of combustion equipment with another similar type of combustion equipment or replacing old burners with new ultra-low NOx bur ners is not considered a cha nge in operations at affected facilities that would require changes to an existing conditional use permit. Since PR 1147 would establish lower NOx emission lim its for these combustion devices , PR 1147 would not affect in any way habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans, agri cultural resources or operations, and would not create di visions in any existing communities. Therefore, present or planned land uses in the region wi ll not be significantly adversel y affected as a result of PR
1147.

Based upon these considerations, significant land use and planning impact s are not expected from the implementation of PR 1147 and will not be further analyzed in this final EA. Since no significant land use and planning impacts were id entified, no mitigation measures are necessary or required.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-35 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ;

b)Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, speci fic plan or other land use plan? ;

Significance Criteria Project-related impacts on mineral resources wi ll be considered significant if any of the following conditions are met:

- The project would result in the loss of availabi lity of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

- The proposed project results in th e loss of availab ility of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a lo cal general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

Discussion XI.a) & b) There are no provisions in PR 1147 that w ould result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region and the residents of the stat e, or of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local genera l plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

Based upon these aforementioned considerations, si gnificant mineral res ources impacts are not expected from the implementation of PR 1147 and will not be further analyzed in this final EA. Since no significant mineral resources impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are necessary or required.

Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

XII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise or dinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ;

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or gr oundborne noise levels? ;

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ;Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-36 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in th e project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ;

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airpor t or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ;

f) For a project within the vi cinity of a private airship, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ;

Significance Criteria Impacts on noise will be considered significant if:

- Construction noise levels exceed the local nois e ordinances or, if the noise threshold is currently exceeded, project noise sources increase ambient noise levels by more than three decibels (dBA) at the site boundary. Construction noise levels will be considered significant if they exceed federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) noise standards for workers.

- The proposed project operational no ise levels exceed any of the local noise ordinances at the site boundary or, if the noise threshold is curr ently exceeded, project noise sources increase ambient noise levels by more than three dBA at the site boundary.

Discussion XII.a) PR 1147 would only affect combustion equipmen t at existing facilities. Since installation of new equipment or retrofitting existing equi pment does not require heavy-duty construction equipment, significant adverse noise impacts are not anticipated during th e construction phase. The expected options for compliance with the proposed future NOx emission limits in PR 1147 will involve either the installation of new equipment at the end of the equipment’s useful life or the retrofitting of existing units with ultra-low NOx burners. No other physical modifications or changes associated with the implementation of PR 1147 are expected. Thus, the proposed project is not expected to expose persons to the generation of excessive noise levels above current facility levels because th e proposed project will result in affected facilities operating the same type of equipment at equivalent or similar noise levels and low NOx combustion technology is not typically a noise intensive technology . It is expected that any facility affected by PR 1147 will comply with all existing noise control laws or ordinances. Further, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and California-OSHA have established noise standards to protect worker he alth. It is expected that all wo rkers at affected facilities will continue complying with a pplicable noise standards.

XII.b) PR 1147 is not anticipated to expose pe ople to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels since no major construction activities are expected to occur at the existing facilities and the affected equipmen t are not inherently noisy or create excessive vibrations

.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-37 October 2008 XII.c) A permanent increase in ambient noise leve ls at the affected facilities above existing levels as a result of implementing the proposed projec t is unlikely to o ccur because any new equipment that would be installed as part of implementing PR 1147 w ill be replacing existingequipment with the same or similar noise profiles and retrofitting existing equipment with ultralow NOx burners will not change the noise profile of the existing equipment. Therefore, the existing noise levels are unlikely to change and raise ambient noise le vels in the vicinities of the existing facilities to above a level of significance in re sponse to implementing PR 1147.

XII.d) No increase in periodic or temporary ambient noise levels in the vicinity of affected facilities above levels existing prior to PR 1147 is anticipated because the proposed project would not require construction-related activities at affected facilities or change the existing operations at the affected facilities. See also the response to item XII.a).

XII.e) & f) Implementation of PR 1147 would not c onsist of improvements within the existing facilities requiring major construction activities. Even if an affected faci lity is located near a public/private airport, there are no new noise impacts expected from any of the existing facilities as a result of complying with the proposed project. Thus, PR 1147 is not expected to expose people residing or working in the project viciniti es to excessive noise levels. See also the response to item XII.a).

Based upon these considerations, significant noi se impacts are not expected from the implementation of PR 1147 and are not further evaluated in this final EA. Since no significant noise impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are necessary or required.

Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g. through ex tension of roads or other infrastructure)? ;

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the constr uction of replacement housing elsewhere? ;

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the constr uction of replacement housing elsewhere? ;

Significance Criteria Impacts of the proposed project on population and housing will be considered significant if the following criteria are exceeded:Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-38 October 2008 - The demand for temporary or permanent housing exceeds the existing supply.

- The proposed project produces additional popul ation, housing or employment inconsistent with adopted plans either in term s of overall amount or location.

Discussion XIII.a) Because the installation of new equipmen t or retrofitting of ex isting equipment only requires two construction workers at most (one to deliver material s and one to install it), it is expected that construction workers can be dr awn from the existing labor pool in southern California. Further, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate any significant effects, either direct or indirect, on th e district's population or populati on distribution as no additional workers are anticipated to be re quired at facilities subject to the proposed amendments. Human population within the ju risdiction of the SCAQM D is anticipated to grow regardless of implementing PR 1147. As such, PR 1147 will not result in changes in population densities or induce significant growth in population.

XIII.b) & c) Because the proposed project primarily affects existing facilities located mostly in industrial and commercial areas, PR 1147 is not exp ected to result in the creation of any industry that would affect population growt h, directly or indirectly induce the construction of single- or multiple-family units, or require the displacement of people elsewhere.

Based upon these considerations, significant popul ation and housing impacts are not expected from the implementation of PR 1147 and ar e not further evaluated in this final EA. Since no significant population and housing impacts were iden tified, no mitigation m easures are necessary or required.

Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governme ntal facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
a) Fire protection? ; b) Police protection? ; c) Schools? ; d) Parks? ; e) Other public facilities? ;Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-39 October 2008 Significance Criteria Impacts on public services will be considered si gnificant if the project results in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically alte red government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant e nvironmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response time or other performance objectives.

Discussion XIV.a) & b) PR 1147 would only affect combustion equipment at existing facilities. The expected options for compliance with the propo sed future NOx emission limits in PR 1147 will involve either the installation of new equipment at the end of th e equipment’s useful life or the retrofitting of existing units with ultra-low NOx burners that will be compliant with fire department standards. No other physical m odifications or changes associated with the implementation of PR 1147 are expected. The overall amount of natura l gas and liquid fuel usage at any one facility over thei r current levels is not expected to change substantially or increase the chances for fires or explosions that c ould affect local fire departments. Finally, PR 1147 is not expected to incr ease the need for security at affect ed facilities, which could adversely affect local police departments.

XIV.c) & d) The local labor pool (e.g., workforce) of particular affected facility areas is expected to remain the same since PR 1147 woul d not trigger any changes to current facility operations. Therefore, with no increase in local population antici pated, no significant adverse impacts are expected to local schools or parks.

XIV.e) The proposed project will result in repl acing existing equipment with functionally identical new equipment at the end of the existi ng equipment’s useful life or retrofitting existing equipment with ultra-low NOx burners at existing facilities. Besides permitting the equipment or altering permit conditions, there is no other need for government services. Implementation of PR 1147 would not result in the need for new or physica lly altered government f acilities in order to maintain acceptable service rati os, response times, or other perf ormance objectives. There will be no increase in population and, therefore, no ne ed for physically altered government facilities.

Based upon these considerations, significant public services impacts are not expected from the implementation of PR 1147 and are not further evaluated in this final EA. Since no significant public services impacts were identified, no m itigation measures are necessary or required.

Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

XV. RECREATION.
a) Would the project incr ease the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the faci lity would occur or be accelerated? ;Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-40 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ;

Significance Criteria Impacts to recreation will be considered significant if:

- The project results in an increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities.

- The project adversely affects ex isting recreationa l opportunities.

Discussion XV.a) & b) As previously discussed under “Land Use and Planning,” there are no provisions in the PR 1147 that would affect land use plans, policies, or regulati ons. Land use and other planning considerations are determined by lo cal governments and no land use or planning requirements will be altered by the changes proposed in PR 1147. The proposed project would not increase the demand for or use of exis ting neighborhood and regi onal parks or other recreational facilities or require the construction of new or expansion of existing recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environm ent because it will not directly or indirectly increas e or redistribute population.

Based upon these considerations, significant recr eation impacts are not expected from the implementation of PR 1147 and are not further evaluated in this final EA. Since no significant recreation impacts were identified, no mitigat ion measures are necessary or required.

Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

XVI. SOLID/HAZARDOUS WASTE. Would the project:
a)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? ;

b)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to so lid and hazardous waste? ;

Significance Criteria The proposed project impacts on solid/hazardous waste will be considered significant if the following occurs:Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-41 October 2008 - The generation and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste exceeds the capacity of designated landfills.

Discussion XVI.a) & b) Implementation of PR 1147 would require faci lity operators to either install new compliant equipment at the end of the equipment’s useful life or retrofit existing equipment with ultra-low NOx burners beginning on or after July 1, 2010 through July 1, 2013. The date the lower NOx emission limits become effective as a result of implementi ng PR 1147 are in addition to other requirements for existing equipm ent that already comply with a 12 ppm NOx limit. PR 1147 may involve replacing older equipment w ith newer lower NOx emitting equipment or retrofitting existing equipment with ultra-low NOx burners. Because affected equipment has a finite lifetime, it will ultimately have to be repl aced at the end of its useful life. For some equipment, PR 1147 may accelerate re placement. However, affected equipment may be refurbished and used elsewhere or the scrap meta l from replaced units ha s economic value and is expected to be recycled, so any solid or hazardous waste impacts sp ecifically associated with PR 1147 are expected to be minor . As a result, no substantial change in the amount or character of solid or hazardous waste streams is expected to occur. PR 1147 is not expected to increase the volume of solid or hazardous wastes from affect ed facilities, require additional waste disposal capacity, or generate wast e that does not meet applicable loca l, state, or federal regulations.

Based upon these considerations, PR 1147 is not e xpected to increase the volume of solid or hazardous wastes that cannot be handled by ex isting municipal or hazardous waste disposal facilities, or require additional waste disposal capacity. Further, implementing PR 1147 is not expected to interfere with any aff ected facility’s ability to comply with applicable local, state, or federal waste disposal regulati ons. Since no solid/hazardous wa ste impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are necessary or required.

Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., resu lt in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ;

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ;

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ;Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-42 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

d) Substantially increase h azards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ;

e) Result in inadequa te emergency access? ;

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ;

g) Conflict with adopted po licies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ;

Significance Criteria Impacts on transportation/traffic will be consider ed significant if any of the following criteria apply:

- Peak period levels on major arteri als are disrupted to a point where level of service (LOS) is reduced to D, E or F for more than one month.

- An intersection’s volume to capacity ratio incr ease by 0.02 (two percent) or more when the LOS is already D, E or F.

- A major roadway is closed to all through traffic, and no al ternate route is available.

- There is an increase in traffic that is substant ial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system.

- The demand for parking facilitie s is substantially increased.

- Water borne, rail car or air tr affic is substantially altered.

- Traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians are substantially increased.

- The need for more than 350 employees

- An increase in heavy-duty transport truck traffi c to and/or from the facility by more than 350 truck round trips per day

- Increase customer traffic by more than 700 visits per day.

Discussion XVII.a) & b) PR 1147 affects a large variety of combustion equipment operating primarily at existing facilities and has no potenti al to adversely affect transportation. The expected options for compliance with the proposed future NOx emission limits in PR 1147 will involve the installation of new compliant equipment at th e end of the equipment’s useful life or the retrofitting of existing units with ultra-lo w NOx burners, which would only require two construction workers at most to deliver mate rials and install them. PR 1147 would have no affect on existing operations at the affected faci lities that would cha nge or cause additional transportation demands or servi ces. Therefore, since only two additional construction-related trips per facility and no operational-related trips per facility are anticipated, the implementation of PR 1147 is not expected to significantly a dversely affect circulation patterns on local roadways or the level of servic e at intersections near affected facilities. Finally, affected facilities are dispersed throughout th e District, so it is no t expected that cons truction-related trips to affected facilities would overlap to an appreciable extent.Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-43 October 2008 XVII.c) The expected options for compliance with the proposed future NOx emission limits in PR 1147 will involve the installation of new comp liant equipment or the retrofitting of existing units with ultra-low NOx burners. However, PR 1147 will not require operators of existing facilities to construct buildings or other structures that could interfere with flight patterns so the height and appearance of the existing structures are not expected to change. Therefore, implementation of PR 1147 is not e xpected to adversely affect air traffic patterns. Further, PR 1147 will not affect in any way air traffic in th e region because it will not require transport of any materials by air.

XVII.d) As the physical modifications that are expected to occur by implementing PR 1147 are limited to the confines of existing facilities, no o ffsite modifications to roadways are anticipated for the proposed project that would result in an additional design hazard or incompatible uses.

XVII.e) Any equipment replacements or retrofits associated with implementing PR 1147 will likely occur in or about the same location within the confines of each exis ting facility such that no changes to emergency access at or in the vicinity of the affected facili ties would be expected. As a result, PR 1147 is not expected to adversely impact emergency access.

XVII.f) Other than the equipment replacements or retrofits associated with implementing PR 1147, no changes to the parking capacity at or in the vicinity of the affected facilities are expected. Further, PR 1147 is not expected to requi re additional workers (with the exception of retrofitting or equipment replacement) , so additional parking capacity will not be required. Therefore, PR 1147 is not expected to advers ely impact on- or off-site parking capacity.

XVII.g) Other than the equipment replacements or retrofits associated with implementing PR 1147, no facility modifications or changes are e xpected that would conf lict with alternative transportation, such as bus turnout s, bicycle racks, et cetera.

Based upon these considerations, PR 1147 is not expected to generate significant adverse transportation/traffic impacts and, therefore, this topic will not be considered further. Since no significant transportation/traffic impacts were id entified, no mitigation measures are necessary or required.

Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlif e species, cause a fish or wildlife population to dr op below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ;Final Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-44 October 2008 Potentially Significant

Impact Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of othe r current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ;

c) Does the project have envi ronmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ;

XVIII.a) As discussed in the “Bio logical Resources” section, PR 1147 is not expected to significantly adversely affect plant or animal sp ecies or the habitat on which they rely because the affected equipment is located at primarily existing facilities in industrial or commercial areas which have already been greatly disturbed and that currently do not support such habitats. Additionally, special status plants , animals, or natural communities are not expected to be found within close proximity to the facilities affected by PR 1147.

XVIII.b) Based on the foregoing analyses, since PR 1147 will not generate an y project-specific significant environmental impacts, PR 1147 is not expected to cause cumulative impacts in conjunction with other projects th at may occur concurre ntly with or subse quent to the proposed project. Related projects to the currently pr oposed project include exis ting and proposed rules and regulations, as well as 2007 AQMP control m easures. Furthermore, the effects of PR 1147 will not be "cumulatively considerable" because there are no, or minor, incremental impacts and there will be no contribution to a significant cumulative impact caused by other projects that would exist in absence of the proposed project. For example, the environmental topics checked ‘No Impact’ (e.g., aesthetic s, agriculture resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resour ces, noise, population and housi ng, public services, recreation, solid/hazardous waste and transportation and tra ffic) would not be expected to make any contribution to potential cumulative impacts whatsoever. For the environmental topic checked ‘Less than Significant Impact’ (e .g., air quality), the analysis indicated that project impacts would not exceed any project-specific significance thresholds. This conclusion is based on the fact that the analyses for each of these enviro nmental areas concluded that there would be no incremental effects of the proposed project would be minor and, ther efore, not considered to be cumulatively considerable. Also, in the case of air quality impacts, the net effect of implementing the proposed project with othe r proposed rules and re gulations, and control measures in the 2007 AQMP is an overall reduction in district-wide emissions contributing to the attainment of state and national ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the proposed project has no potential for generating significant advers e cumulative or cumulatively considerable impacts.

XVIII.c) Based on the foregoing analyses, PR 1147 is not expected to cause adverse effects on human beings. Significant air quality impacts ar e not expected from the implementation of PRFinal Environmental Assessment: Chapter 2

PR 1147 2-45 October 2008 1147. The direct impact from the proposed project , however, is an air quality benefit with an overall average NOx reduction of 3.5 tons per day by 2014, increasing to 3.8 tons per day by 2023. No significant adverse impacts to aesthetics, agriculture resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, h azards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and plan ning, mineral resources, nois e, population and housing, public services, recreation, solid/ hazardous waste and transportation a nd traffic are expect ed as a result of the implementation of PR 1147.

As discussed in items I through XVIII above, th e proposed project has no potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects.A P P E N D I X A

P R O P O S E D R U L E 1 1 4 7(September 9, 2008)

PROPOSED RULE 1147. NOx REDUC TIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES

(a)Purpose and Applicability The purpose of this rule is to reduce ni trogen oxide emissions from gaseous and liquid fuel fired combustion equipment as defi ned in this rule. This rule applies to ovens, dryers, dehydrators, heat ers, kilns, calciners, furn aces, heated pots, cookers, roasters, fryers, closed and open heated tanks and evaporators, distillation units, degassing units, incinerators, soil remediation units and other combustion equipment with nitrogen oxide emissions that requires a District permit and is not specifically required to comply with a nitrogen oxide emission limit by other District Regulation XI rules. This rule does not apply to solid fuel fired combustion equipment, internal combustion engines subject to District Rule 1110.2, turbines, charbroilers, or boilers,
water heaters, thermal fluid heaters and encl osed process heaters subject to District Rules 1109, 1121, 1146, 1146.1, or 1146.2 and equipm ent subject to District Rules 1111, 1112, 1117, or 1135. This rule applies to ma nufacturers, distri butors, retailers, refurbishers, installers, owners, operators, and maintenance and repair of units subject

to this rule.

(b)Definitions (1) ANNUAL CAPACITY FACTOR mean s the ratio of the ANNUAL HEAT INPUT of a unit in a calendar year to th e amount of fuel it could have burned if it had operated at the rated heat input capacity fo r 100 percent of the time during the calendar year. (2) ANNUAL HEAT INPUT means the actua l amount of heat released by fuels burned in a unit during a calendar year , based on the fuel's higher heating

value. (3) BTU means British thermal unit or units. (4) COMBUSTION MODIFICATION mean s replacement of a burner(s) or combustion control system(s). (5) HEATER means any combustion equipmen t that is fired with gaseous and/or liquid fuels and which transf ers heat from combusted fu el to materials or air contained in the unit or in an adjoining cabinet, container or structure. Heater does not include any boiler or PROCESS HEATER desi gned to transfer heatto water or process streams that is subject to any NOx emission limits of District Rules 1109, 1146, 1146.1 or 1146.2, and does not include any internal combustion engine or turbine. (6) HEAT INPUT means the higher heating va lue of the fuel to the unit measured as BTU per hour. (7) HEAT OUTPUT means the enthalpy of the working fluid output of the unit. (8) INDEPENDENT TESTING LABORATORY means a testing laboratory that meets the requirements of District Ru le 304, subdivision (k) and is approved by the District to conduct certific ation testing unde r the PROTOCOL. (9) NOx EMISSIONS means the sum of n itrogen oxide and nitr ogen dioxide in the flue gas, collectively expr essed as nitrogen dioxide. (10) PROCESS HEATER means any equipment that is fired with gaseous and/or liquid fuels and which transfers heat from combusted fuel to water or process

streams. PROCESS HEATER does not in clude any furnace, kiln or oven used for melting, heat treating, anneali ng, drying, curing, baking, cooking, calcining, or vitrifying; or any unfired wast e heat recovery heat er that is used to recover sensible heat from the exhaust of any combustion equipment. (11) PROTOCOL means a South Coast Air Quality Management District approved test protocol for determining compliance with emission limits for applicable equipment. (12) RATED HEAT INPUT CAPACITY means the gro ss HEAT INPUT of the combustion UNIT, which shall be sp ecified on a permanent rating plate attached by the manufacturer to th e device and supported by required

documentation. If the UNIT ha s been altered or modifi ed such that its gross HEAT INPUT is higher or lower than the rated HEAT INPUT capacity specified on the original manufacturer’s permanent rating plate, the new gross

HEAT INPUT shall be considered as the rated HEAT INPUT capacity and shall be specified on a permanent suppl emental rating plate attached to the

device. (13) RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL means: (A) For a corporation: a president or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business func tion or a duly authorized person who performs similar policy-making functions for the corporation; or(B) For a partnership or sole proprieto rship: general part ner or proprietor, respectively. (14) THERM means 100,000 BTU. (15) UNIT means any oven, dryer, dehydr ator, heater, kiln, calciner, furnace, heated pot, cooker, roaster, fryer, heated tank an d evaporator, distillation unit, degassing unit, incinerator, soil reme diation units and other combustion equipment with nitrogen oxide emissions requiring a District permit and not specifically required to comply with a NOx emission limit by other District Regulation XI rules. UNIT does not m ean any solid fuel fired combustion equipment, internal combustion engi ne subject to District Rule 1110.2,
turbine, charbroiler, or boiler, water h eater, thermal fluid heaters or enclosed process heater subject to District Rules 1109, 1121, 1146, 1146.1, or 1146.2 or equipment subject to Dist rict Rules 1111, 1112, 1117, or 1135. (c)Requirements (1) On or after (date of adoption) any pe rson owning or operati ng a unit subject to this rule shall not operate the unit in a manner that exceeds the applicable nitrogen oxide emission limit specified in Table 1 at the time a District permit is required for operation of a new, relo cated or modified unit or, for in-use units, in accordance with the compliance schedule in Table 2, or at the time of

a combustion modification.

Table 1 – NO x Emission Limit
Equipment Category(ies) Gaseous Fuel Limit

(ppm @ 3% O 2 , dry) or (lb/mmBtu heat input)
Asphalt Operations 40 ppm

Degassing, Incinerator, or Soil Remediation > 1200 ° F 1

Fryer

Heated Open Tank or Evaporator

Metal Heat Treating

Metal Melting Furnace

Metal or Tar Pot

Other - Process Temperature > 1200 ° F 60 ppm or 0.073 lb/mmBtu

Oven, Dehydrator, Dryer, Heater, Kiln, Calciner, Cooker, Roaster or Furnace with Process Temperature

≤ 800 ° F 20 ppm or 0.024 lb/mmBtuTable 1 – NO x Emission Limit (continued) Equipment Category(ies) Gaseous Fuel Limit

(ppm @ 3% O 2 , dry) or (lb/mmBtu heat input)
Degassing, Incinerator, or Soil Remediation ≤ 1200 ° F 1

Make-Up Air Heater Oven, Dehydrator, Dryer, Heater, Kiln, Calciner, Cooker, Roaster or Furnace with Process Temperature
> 800 ° F and ≤ 1200 ° F

Tenter Frame or Carpet Dryer Other Air Heater located outside of building with temperature controlled zone inside building

Other with Process Temperature ≤ 1200 ° F 30 ppm or 0.036 lb/mmBtu

Equipment Category(ies) Liquid Fuel Limit

(ppm @ 3% O 2 , dry) or (lb/mmBtu heat input )
Units with Process Temperature > 1200 ° F 60 ppm or 0.080 lb/mmBtu

Units with Process Temperature ≤ 1200 ° F 40 ppm or 0.053 lb/mmBtu

1 Emission limit applies when burning 100% natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, propane or butane.

Table 2 – Compliance Schedule for In-Use Units

Equipment Category (ies) Compliance Date Combustion modification or change of

location for Soil Remediation UNIT January 1, 2011

Degassing, Evaporator, Incinerator, Tank, or Spray Booth Make-Up Air Heater manufactured prior to 1998 July 1, 2013

Other UNIT manufactured prior to 1986 July 1, 2010

Other UNIT manufactured prior to 1992 July 1, 2011

Other UNIT manufactured prior to 1998 July 1, 2012

Any UNIT manufactured after 1997 excluding Soil Remediation UNIT July 1 of the year the unit is 15 years old

(2) Unit age shall be based on the original date of manufacture and determined by: (A) Original manufacturer's identificat ion or rating plate permanently fixed to the equipment. If not available, then;(B) Invoice from manufacturer for pu rchase of equipment. If not
available, then; (C) Information submitted to AQMD with prior permit applications for the specific unit. If not available, then; (D) Unit is deemed by AQMD to be 20 years old. (3) Owners or operators of units operating with flue gas oxygen concentrations greater than 19% shall use a District approved test protocol to determine compliance with the emission limit specified in Table 1. The test protocol

shall be submitted to the District at leas t 90 days prior to the scheduled test and be approved by the Distri ct Source Testing Division. (4) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (c)(1), units with combustion modifications completed prior to (date of adoption) that resulted in replacement of more than 75% of the of the rated heat input capacity shall comply with the applicable emission limit specified in Table 1 of paragraph (c)(1) ten years from the date th e modification was performed. (5) The date a combustion modification, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(4), is performed; shall be determin ed according to subparagraph (c)(2)(B), if not available, then subparagraph (c)(2)(C). (6) Notwithstanding the requirements of pa ragraph (c)(1), a unit with a District permit to construct or permit to operate, and with a permit emission limit of one pound per day or less of nitrogen oxides on (date of adoption), shall comply with the applicable emission limit specified in Table 1 of paragraph (c)(1) five years later than the applicable compliance date in Table 2 of (c)(1). (7) On or after January 1, 2010, any pers on owning or operating a unit subject to this rule shall perform combustion syst em maintenance in accordance with the manufacturer's schedule and specificati ons as identified in a manual and other written materials supplied by the manufact urer or distributor. The owner or operator shall maintain on site at the f acility where the unit is being operated a copy of the manufacturer’s and/or distri butor's written instructions and retain a record of the maintenance activity for a period of not less th an three years. The owner or operator shall maintain on s ite at the facility where the unit is being operated, for as long as the unit is re tained, a copy of the most recent

District certification or Di strict approved source test reports, conducted by an independent third party, demonstrating the specific unit complies with theemission limit. The source test report(s) must identify that the source test was conducted pursuant to a Di strict approved protocol. The model and serial numbers of the specified unit shall clea rly be indicated on the source test report(s). The maintenance instructions, maintenance records and the source test report(s) or District certification sh all be made available to the Executive Officer upon request. (8) On or after January 1, 2010, any pers on owning or operating a unit subject to

this rule shall install and maintain in service non-resettable, totalizing, fuel and time meters for each unit’s fuel(s). Owners or operators of a unit with a combustion system that operates at onl y one firing rate shall install a nonresettable, totalizing, time or fuel meter for each fuel. (9) Meters specified in paragraph (c)(8) that require electric power to operate shall be provided a permanent supply of electric power that cannot be unplugged, switched off, or reset except by the main power supply circuit for the building and associated equipment. Any person operating a unit subject to this rule shall not shut off electric powe r to a unit meter unless the unit is not operating and is shut down for maintenance or safety. (10) A unit may be demonstrated to meet the applicable emission limit in Table 1 pursuant to the provisions of subdivisions (d) or (e). A unit shall demonstrate compliance with the emission limit in Table 1 every five years. (11) Compliance by Certification For units that do not allow adjustment of the fuel and combustion air for the combustion system by the owner or operator, and upon approval by the Executive Officer, an owner or operator may demonstrate compliance with the emission limit and demonstration requirement of this subdivision by certification granted to the manufacturer for any model of equipment sold for

use in the District. A ny unit certified pursuant to subdivision (e) shall be deemed in compliance with the emissi on limit in Table 1 and demonstration requirement of this subdivision for a peri od of five years from the date the unit

is installed.(12) Identification of Units (A) New Manufactured Units The manufacturer shall display the model number and the rated heat input capacity of the unit comply ing with subdivision (c) on the shipping container and permanent rati ng plate. The manufacturer shall also display the District certificatio n status on the shipping container and on the unit when applicable. (B) Modified Units A unit with a modified combustion sy stem (new or modified burners) shall display the new rated heat input capacity on a new permanent supplemental rating plate. The gross heat input shall be based on the maximum fuel input corrected for fuel heat content, temperature and pressure. Gross heat input shal l be demonstrated by a calculation based on fuel consumption recorded by an in-line fuel meter. (13) The owner or operator shall main tain on site a copy of all documents identifying the unit’s rated heat input capacity for as long as the unit is retained. The rated heat input capacity shall be identified by a manufacturer’s

or distributor’s manual or invoice and a permanent rati ng plate attached to the
unit. If a unit is modified, the rated heat input capacity sh all be calculated pursuant to subparagraph (c)(12)(B). The documentation of rated heat input capacity for modified units shall include the name of the company and person modifying the unit, a description of all modifications, the dates the unit was

modified and calculation of rated heat input capacity. The documentation for modified units shall be signed by th e highest ranking person modifying the

unit.

(d) Compliance Determination (1) All emission determinations shall be made using a District approved test protocol. (2) All parts per million emission limits specified in subdivision (c) are referenced at 3 percent volume stack gas oxygen on a dry basis averaged over a period of 15 consecutive minutes or more.(3) Compliance with the NO x emission limits of subdivision (c) and determination of stack-gas oxygen and car bon dioxide concentrations for this rule shall be determined according to the following procedures: (A) District Source Test Method 100.1 – Instrumental Analyzer

Procedures for Continuous Gase ous Emission Sampling (March 1989);

or (B) District Source Test Method 7.1 – Determination of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources (March 1989); or (C) ASTM Method D6522-00 – Standard Test Method for Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in

Emissions from Natural Gas-Fi red Reciprocating Engines,
Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers; or (D) United States Environmental Protection Agency Conditional Test Method CTM-030 – Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Engines,

Boilers and Process Heaters Us ing Portable Analyzers; and (E) District Source Test Method 10.1 – Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide by Gas Chromatograph/Non- Dispersive Infrared Detector (GC/NDIR) – Oxygen by Gas Chro matograph-Thermal Conductivity (GC/TCD) (March 1989); or (F) Any alternative test method determ ined approved before the test in writing by the Executive Officers of th e District, the California Air

Resources Board and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency. (4) Records of source tests shall be maintain ed for as long as the unit is retained and made available to District pers onnel upon request. Emissions determined to exceed any limits established by this rule through the use of any of the test methods specified in subparagraphs (d)(3)(A) through (d)(3)(F) shall

constitute a viola tion of this rule. (5) For any operator who chooses the pound per million Btu of heat input compliance option of subdivision (c), NO x emissions in pounds per million Btu of heat input shall be calculated using procedures in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 19, Sections 2 and 3.(e)Certification (1) Unit Certification For units that do not allow adjustment of the fuel and combustion air for the combustion system by the owner or operator, any manufacturer that

distributes for sale or sells units or bur ner systems for use in the District may elect to apply to the Executive Officer to certify such units or burner systems as compliant with subdivision (c). (2) Manufacturer Confirmation of Emissions Any manufacturer’s applicati on to the Executive Officer to certify a model of equipment as compliant with the emission limit and demonstration requirement of subdivision (c) shall obt ain confirmation from an independent testing laboratory prior to applying for certification that each unit model complies with the appli cable requirements of subdivision (c). This confirmation shall be based upon District approved emission tests of standard model units and a District approved prot ocol shall be adhered to during the confirmation testing of all units subject to this rule. Emission testing shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5). (3) When applying for unit(s) certifica tion, the manufacturer shall submit to the Executive Officer the following: (A) A statement that the model is in compliance with subdivision (c). The statement shall be signed and date d by the manufacturer’s responsible

official and shall attest to the accuracy of all statements; (B) General Information (i) Name and address of manufacturer, (ii) Brand name, if applicable, (iii) Model number, as it app ears on the unit rating plate; and (iv) Rated Heat Input Capacit y, gross output of burner(s) and
number of burners; (C) A description of each m odel being certified; and (D) A source test report verifying comp liance with the applicable emission limit in subdivision (c) for each model to be certified. The source test report shall be prepared by the confirming independent testing laboratory and shall contain all of the elements identified in the District approved Protocol for each unit tested. The source test shallhave been conducted no more than ninety (90) days prior to the date of

submittal to the Executive Officer. (4) When applying for unit certificati on, the manufacturer shall submit the information identified in paragraph (e)(3 ) no more than ninety (90) days after

the date of the source test identified in subparagraph (e)(3)(D) and at least 120 days prior to the date of the proposed sale and installati on of any District

certified unit. (5) The Executive Officer shall certify a unit model which complies with the provisions of subdivision (c) and of paragraphs (e )(2), (e)(3), and (e)(4). (6) Certification status shall be valid fo r four years from the date of approval by the Executive Officer. After the fourth year, recertification shall be required by the Executive Officer according to the requirements of paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(4).

(f) Enforcement The Executive Officer may insp ect distributors, retailers, and installers of units
located in the District, and conduct such te sts as are deemed necessary to ensure compliance with subdivisions (c) and (e).

(g)Exemptions (1) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to units: (A) subject to the nitrogen oxide limits of District Rules 1109, 1110.2,
1111, 1112, 1117, 1121, 1134, 1135, 1146, 1146.1, or 1146.2; or (B) located at RECLAIM facilities. (2) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to charbroilers. (3) New degassing units, evaporators, in cinerators, tanks, and spray booth makeup air heaters installed after (date of adoption) and before January 1, 2011 are exempt from the emission limit in Table 1 until July 1 of the year the unit is 15 years old. (4) New or relocated remediation units installed after (date of adoption) and before January 1, 2011 are exempt from the emission limit in Table 1 until a combustion modification or change of location on or after January 1, 2011.A P P E N D I X B

C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D O P E R A T I O N S C A L C U L A T I O N SAppendix BPR 1147 B-2 July 2008LIST OF WORKSHEETSWorksheet B-1: Retrofit with Ultra-Low NOx Burners between 2010-2014........................... B-3Worksheet B-2: Retrofit with Ultra-Low NOx Burners between 2015-2023........................... B-6Worksheet B-3: Emissions Summary Due to Retrofits of Ultra-Low NOx .............................Burners between 2010-2014 and 2015-2023 ......................... B-9Appendix BPR 1147 B-3 July 2008Worksheet B-1: Retrofit withUltra-Low NOx Burners between 2010-2014PAR 1147 Affected Equipment No. of Units Construction Activity1 Install Ultra-Low NOx burners on 2,462 gaseous units between 2010-2014Construction Schedule - 1 day per unitActivity Equipment TypeNo. ofEquipment Hrs/day Crew SizeOff-Road Mobile Source Operations Welding Machine 1 2 1Off-Road Mobile Source Operations Pick-up Truck 1 - 1Construction Equipment EmissionFactors VOC CO NOx Sox PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4Equipment Type*lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hrWelding Machine (composite) 0.0805 0.2246 0.2920 0.0003 0.0270 0.0259 25.6000 0.0073*Equipment is assumed to be diesel fueled.Source: CARB’s Off-Road Mobile Source Emission Factors for Scenario Year 2010http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/offroad/offroadEF07_25.xlsConstruction Vehicle (Mobile Source) Emission Factors for Years 2010-2014VOC CO NOx Sox PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4Construction Related Activitylb/mile lb/mile lb/mile lb/milelb/mile lb/mile lb/mile lb/mileOffsite (Construction Worker Vehicle)0.00091 0.00826 0.00092 0.00001 0.00009 0.00005 1.09568 0.00008146Offsite (Pickup truck deliveries) 0.00258 0.01840 0.02060 0.00003 0.00075 0.00064 2.73220 0.00012576Passenger Vehicles/DeliveryTrucks for Scenario Year 2010http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroadEF07_26.xlsAppendix BPR 1147 B-4 July 2008Construction Worker Number of Trips and Trip LengthVehicleNo. of One-WayTrips/DayTrip Length(miles)Offsite (Construction Worker) 2 25Offsite (Delivery Truck – MediumDuty) 2 50Incremental Increase in Onsite Combustion Emissions from Construction EquipmentEquation: Emission Factor (lb/hr) x No. of Equipment x Work Day (hr/day) = Onsite Construction Emissions (lbs/day)VOC CO NOx Sox PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4Equipment Typelb/day lb/day lb/daylb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/dayWelding Machine 0.16 0.45 0.58 0.00 0.05 0.048 51.20 0.0146TOTAL 0.16 0.45 0.58 0.00 0.05 0.048 51.20 0.0146Incremental Increase in Offsite Combustion Emissions from Construction VehiclesEquation: Emission Factor (lb/mile) x No. of One-Way Trips/Dayx Number of workers x Trip length (mile) = Offsite Construction Emissions (lbs/day)VOC CO NOx Sox PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4Vehiclelb/day lb/day lb/daylb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/dayOffsite (Construction Worker Vehicle)0.05 0.41 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.78 0.004073Offsite (Pickup truck deliveries) 0.26 1.84 2.06 0.00 0.08 0.06 273.22 0.012576TOTAL 0.30 2.25 2.11 0.00 0.08 0.07 328.00 0.016649Source: EMFAC 2007 (v2.3) Emission Factors (On-Road Vehicles, Scenario Year 2010)http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroadEF07_26.xlsTotal Incremental Combustion Emissions from Construction ActivitiesVOC CO NOx Sox PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/dayGroup I: Equipment & Workers’Vehicles (1 unit)0.46 2.70 2.69 0.00 0.13 0.11 379.20 0.031249Significant Threshold 75 550 100 150 150 55 n/a n/aExceed Significance? NO NONO NO NO NO n/a n/aAppendix BPR 1147 B-5 July 2008Incremental Increase in Fuel Usage From Construction Equipment and Workers’ VehiclesConstruction ActivityTotal ProjectHours ofOperation*EquipmentTypeDieselFuelUsage(gal/hr)**Diesel FuelUsage(gal/project)**GasolineFuelUsage(gal/yr)***Operation of Portable Equipment 2WeldingMachines 1.182 2.36 N/AWorkers’ Vehicles – Commuting N/ALight-DutyTrucks N/A N/A 2.50Workers’ Vehicles – OffsiteDelivery/Haul N/APickup truckfordeliveries**** N/A N/A 5.00TOTAL 2.36 7.50*Assume construction will take approximately 1 day (8 hrs/day max), but welder will only be needed for ~2 hours per day.**Based on CARB’s Off-Road Model (Version 2.0) for Equipment Year 2010.***Assume that construction workers’ commute vehicle and pick-uptruck use gasoline and get 20 mi/gal and round trip length is50 miles.Appendix BPR 1147 B-6 July 2008Worksheet B-2: Retrofit withUltra-Low NOx Burners between 2015-2023PAR 1147 Affected Equipment No. of Units Construction Activity1 Install Ultra-Low NOx burners on 2,462 gaseous units between 2015-2023Construction Schedule - 1 day per unitActivity Equipment TypeNo. ofEquipment Hrs/day Crew SizeOff-Road Mobile Source Operations Welding Machine 1 2 1On-Road Mobile Source Operations Pick-up Truck 1 - 1Construction Equipment EmissionFactors VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4Equipment Type*lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hrWelding Machine (composite) 0.0534 0.1994 0.2301 0.0003 0.0187 0.0179 25.6 0.0048*Equipment is assumed to be diesel fueled.Source: CARB's Off-Road Mobile SourceEmission Factors for Scenario Year 2015http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/offroad/offroadEF07_25.xlsConstruction Vehicle (MobileSource) Emission Factors for Year2015-2023 VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4Construction Related Activitylb/mile lb/mile lb/mile lb/milelb/mile lb/mile lb/mile lb/mileOffsite (Construction Worker Vehicle)0.00066 0.00614 0.00060 0.00001 0.00009 0.00006 1.10920 0.00005923Offsite (Pickup truck deliveries) 0.00173 0.01169 0.01285 0.00003 0.00050 0.00041 2.81240 0.00008076Source: Passenger Vehicles/Delivery Trucks for Scenario Year 2015http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroadEF07_26.xlsConstruction Worker Number of Trips and Trip LengthVehicleNo. of One-WayTrips/DayTrip Length(miles)Offsite (Construction Worker) 2 25Offsite (Pickup truck deliveries) 2 50Appendix BPR 1147 B-7 July 2008Incremental Increase in Onsite Combustion Emissions from Construction EquipmentEquation: Emission Factor (lb/hr) x No. of Equipment x Work Day (hr/day) = Onsite Construction Emissions (lbs/day)VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4Equipment Typelb/day lb/day lb/daylb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/dayWelding Machine 0.11 0.40 0.46 0.00 0.04 0.038 51.20 0.0096TOTAL 0.11 0.40 0.46 0.00 0.04 0.038 51.20 0.0096Incremental Increase in Offsite Combustion Emissions from Construction VehiclesEquation: Emission Factor (lb/mile) x No. of One-Way Trips/Dayx Number of workers x Trip length (mile) = Offsite Construction Emissions (lbs/day)VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4Vehiclelb/day lb/day lb/daylb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/dayOffsite (Construction Worker Vehicle)0.03 0.31 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 55.46 0.0029615Offsite (Delivery Truck - pickup truck) 0.17 1.17 1.29 0.00 0.05 0.04 281.24 0.008076TOTAL 0.21 1.48 1.32 0.00 0.05 0.04 336.70 0.0110375Source: EMFAC 2007 (v2.3) Emission Factors (On-Road Vehicles, Scenario Year 2015)http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroadEF07_26.xlsTotal Combustion Emissions from Construction ActivitiesVOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/dayGroup I: Equipment & Workers'Vehicles (1 unit) 0.32 1.88 1.78 0.00 0.09 0.078 387.90 0.0206375Significant Threshold 75 550 100 150 150 55 n/a n/aExceed Significance? NO NONO NO NO NO n/a n/aIncremental Increase in Fuel Usage From Construction Equipment and Workers' VehiclesConstruction ActivityTotal ProjectHours ofOperation*EquipmentTypeDieselFuelUsage(gal/hr)**Diesel FuelUsage(gal/project)**GasolineFuelUsage(gal/yr)***Operation of Portable Equipment 2WeldingMachines 1.179 2.36 N/AWorkers' Vehicles - Commuting N/ALight-DutyTrucks N/A N/A 2.50Workers' Vehicles - OffsiteDelivery/Haul N/APickup truckfordeliveries**** N/A N/A 5.00TOTAL 2.36 7.50Appendix BPR 1147 B-8 July 2008*Assume construction will take approximately 1 day (8 hrs/day max), but welder will only be needed for ~2 hours per day.**Based on CARB's Off-Road Model (Version2.0) for Equipment Year 2015.***Assume that construction workers' commute vehicle and pick-uptruck use gasoline and get 20 mi/gal and round trip length is50 miles.Appendix BPR 1147 B-9 July 2008Worksheet B-3: Emissions SummaryDue to Retrofits of Ultra-LowNOx Burners between 2010-2014 and 2015-2023Emissions Summary Due to Retrofits of Ultra-Low NOx Burners between 2010-2014 and 2015-2023Peak Construction VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 CO2 CH4 CO2eqlbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/year lbs/yearMetrictons/year2010-2014TOTAL for 1 unit in one day 0.46 2.70 2.69 0.00 0.13 0.07 379.20 0.031249n/a n/a n/aPeak Daily TOTAL for 10 unitsinstalled in one day 4.65 27.02 26.90 0.04 1.33 0.67 3792.04 0.31249n/a n/a n/aPeak TOTAL for 2,462 units installedin one yearn/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a933600.25 76.94 424.13SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD 75 550 100 150 150 55 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aSIGNIFICANT? NO NO NO NO NO NO n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a2015-2023TOTAL for 1 unit in one day 0.32 1.88 1.78 0.00 0.09 0.78 387.90 0.0206375n/a n/a n/aPeak Daily TOTAL for 10 unitsinstalled in one day3.20 18.80 17.80 0.04 0.90 7.80 3879.00 0.206375n/a n/a n/aPeak TOTAL for 2,462 units installedin one yearn/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a955009.80 50.81 433.59SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD 75 550 100 150 150 55 n/a n/a n/a n/aSIGNIFICANT? NO NO NO NO NO NO n/a n/a n/a n/a

### SOUTH COAST AIR QUALIT Y MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Final Socioeconomic Report For Proposed Rule 1147

─ NOx Reduction from Miscellaneous Sources

November 2008

Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Elaine Chang, DrPH

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Laki T. Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E.

Director, Strategic Initiatives Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Jill Whynot

Author: Shah Dabirian, Air Quality Specialist

Reviewed By: Sue Lieu, Program Supervisor Gary Quinn, P.E, Program Supervisor Linda Vogel, Senior De puty District CounselSOUTH COAST AIR QUALIT Y MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD

Chairman: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D. Speaker of the Assembly Appointee

Vice Chairman: S. ROY WILSON, Ed.D. Supervisor, Fourth District Riverside County Representative MEMBERS:

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Supervisor, Fifth District Los Angeles County Representative

MICHAEL A. CACCIOTTI Councilmember, City of South Pasadena Cities of Los Angeles County, Eastern Region

BILL CAMPBELL Supervisor, Third District Orange County Representative

JANE W. CARNEY Senate Rules Committee Appointee

RONALD O. LOVERIDGE Mayor, City of Riverside Cities Representative, Riverside County

JOSEPH K. LYOU, Ph.D. Governor’s Appointee

GARY OVITT Supervisor, Fourth District San Bernardino County Representative

JAN PERRY Councilmember, Ninth District City of Los Angeles

MIGUEL PULIDO Mayor, City of Santa Ana Cities Representative, Orange County

TONIA REYES URANGA Councilmember, City of Long Beach Cities Representative, Los Angeles County, Western Region

DENNIS YATES Mayor, City of Chino Cities of San Bernardino County Representative

EXECUTIVE OFFICER: BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.Env.

### Proposed Rule 1147 Fina l Socioeconomic Report

SCAQMD ES-1 November 2008 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Proposed Rule (PR) 1147 reduces NOx emis sions from gaseous and liquid fueled combustion equipment including, but not limited to, ovens, dryers, dehydrators, heaters, kilns, calciners, furnaces, heated pots, cooke rs, roasters, fryers, closed and open heated tanks and evaporators, incinerato rs and distillation, degassing, and soil remediation units. A socioeconomic assessment was conducte d for PR 1147 and a summary of the assessment and findings is presented below.

Elements of the Proposed Rule PR 1147 reduces NOx emissions from gas and liquid fueled combustion equipment. These t ypes of equipment are required to meet NOx emission limits in the range of 20 ppm to 60 ppm, depending upon the process and pr ocess temperature, with an upgrade to low-NOx burners. It is projected that 3.5 and 3.8 tons per day of NOx emissions w ould be reduced, as a result, by 2014 and 2023, respectively.
Affected Facilities PR 1147 would affect 2,162 facilit ies with a total of 4,924 units in the district. Of these 2,162 f acilities, 1,307 are located in Los Angeles County, 478 in Orange County, 174 in Riverside County, and the remaining 203 facil ities are in San Bernardino County. Sixty percent of total a ffected facilitie s belong to the manufacturing sector. The second la rgest affected sectors, retail and wholesale trade make up about 14 percent of the total affected facilities. The repair and maintenances services sector makes up about seven percent of the total affected facilities. The remaining 19 percent of the aff ected facilities are spread among a number of sectors in the economy. Assumptions of Analysis It is assumed that affected fac ilities would use low-NOx burners to comply with the proposed rule. The average capital cost of retrofitting a boiler with a lo w-NOx burner is estimated at $16,000 for units with permitted emissions of greater than one pound per day and $10,000 for units permitted emissions of less than or equal to one pound per day. Each retrofit is assumed to last 10 years. The affected units are also required to install fuel and time meters to assure compliance with the permitted emission limits. The capital cost of a fuel and time meter is estimated at $500 and the meters ar e expected to last 10 years. Source testing is required every five years. The cost of a source test is $1,200 per unit. No additional operating and maintenance costs are assumed for these units beyond their current operations. A retrofit burner will also be subject to a permit modification fee of $3,245 if its permitted emissions are greater than one pound a day, and $2,052 if its permitted emissions are less than one pound per day, respectively. Compliance Costs The average annual cost of the proposed rule is estimated at $9.12 million between 2010 and 2025. The sectors of fabricated

### Proposed Rule 1147 Fina l Socioeconomic Report

SCAQMD ES-2 November 2008 metal, primary metal, and printi ng and related s upport activities are expected to incur higher sh ares of the total cost ($1.53, $0.78, and $0.7 million, respectively). Employment Impacts Based on the above assumptions, the compliance cost of PR 1147, and the application of the Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) model, it is projected that an average of 102 jobs could be forgone annually between 2010 and 2025. Some sectors would see job creation. Th e sectors of fabricated metal products and professional and tec hnical services would create most of these jobs. Projected jobs forgone are spread among many sectors of the economy. Competitiveness Affected sectors would experi ence minor increases in the relative cost of production and re lative delivered price with respect to their counterparts in the rest of the U.S.

### Proposed Rule 1147 Fina l Socioeconomic Report

SCAQMD 1 November 2008 

### INTRODUCTION

Proposed Rule (PR) 1147 reduces NOx emis sions from gaseous and liquid fueled combustion equipment including, but not limited to, ovens, dryers, dehydrators, heaters, kilns, calciners, furnaces, heated pots, cooke rs, roasters, fryers, closed and open heated tanks and evaporators, incinerato rs and distillation, degassing, and soil remediation units. These types of equipment are required to meet NOx emission limits in the range of 20 ppm to 60 ppm, depending upon th e process and process temper ature, with an upgrade to low-NOx burners. It is projec ted that 3.5 and 3. 8 tons per day of NOx emissions would be reduced, as a result, by 2014 and 2023, respectively.



### LEGISLATIVE MANDATES

The socioeconomic assessments at the Sout h Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) have evolved over time to reflect th e benefits and costs of regulations. The legal mandates directly related to the assessm ent of the proposed rules and amendments include the AQMD Governing Bo ard resolutions and various sections of the California Health & Safety Code (H&SC).

AQMD Governing Board Resolutions

On March 17, 1989 the AQMD Governing Board adopted a resolution that calls for preparing an economic analysis of each proposed rule or amendment for the following elements:

• Affected Industries

• Range of Control Costs

• Cost Effectiveness

• Public Health Benefits

On October 14, 1994, the Board passed a resolu tion which directed staff to address whether the proposed rules or amendments br ought to the Board for adoption are in the order of cost effectiveness as defined in the AQMP. The in tent was to bring forth those rules that are cost-effective first.

Health & Safety Code Requirements

The state legislature adopted le gislation that reinforces a nd expands the Governing Board resolutions for socio economic assessments. H&SC S ections 40440.8(a) and (b), which became effective on January 1, 1991, require that a socioeconomic analysis be prepared for any proposed rule or rule amendment that "will significantly a ffect air quality or emissions limitations." Specifically, the scope of the analysis should include:

• Type of Affected Industries

• Impact on Employment and the Economy of the Basin

• Range of Probable Costs, Incl uding Those to Industries

• Emission Reduction Potential

### Proposed Rule 1147 Fina l Socioeconomic Report

SCAQMD 2 November 2008 • Necessity of Adopting, Amending or Rep ealing the Rule in Order to Attain State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards

• Availability and Cost Effectivene ss of Alternatives to the Rule

For the items 1, 4, 5, and 6 above, please refer to Staff Report of Proposed Rule 1147. Additionally, the AQMD is required to activel y consider the socioeconomic impacts of regulations and make a good fa ith effort to minimize adve rse socioeconomic impacts. H&SC Section 40728.5, which became effectiv e on January 1, 1992, requires the AQMD

to:

• Examine Business and Small Business Impacts; and

• Consider Socioeconomic Impacts in Rule Adoption

H&SC Section 40920.6, which became effective on January 1, 1996, requires that incremental cost effectiveness be performed for a proposed rule or amendment relating to ozone, carbon monoxide (CO) , oxides of sulfur (SO
x ), oxides of nitrogen (NO
x ), and their precursors. Incremental cost effectiveness is defined as the differe nce in costs divided by the difference in emission reductions between one level of control and the next more stringent control.



### AFFECTED FACILITIES

PR 1147 would affect 2,162 faciliti es with a total of 4,924 units in the di strict. Of these 2,162 facilities, 1,307 are located in Los A ngeles County, 478 in Orange County, 174 in Riverside County, and the remaining 203 faciliti es are in San Bernar dino County. Sixty percent of total affected faci lities belong to the manufacturi ng sector. The second largest affected sectors, retail and w holesale trade make up about 14 pe rcent of the total affected facilities. The repair and ma intenances services sector ma kes up about seven percent of the total affected facilities. The remaining 19 percent of the affected facilities are spread among a number of sectors in the economy.

Small Businesses

The AQMD defines a "small business" in Ru le 102 as one which employs 10 or fewer persons and which earns less than $500,000 in gr oss annual receipts. In addition to the AQMD's definition of a small business, th e federal Small Business Administration (SBA), the federal Clean Air Act Amen dments (CAAA) of 1990, and the California Department of Health Services (DHS) also provide their own definitions of a small business.

The SBA's definition of a small business uses the criterion of either gross annual receipts (ranging from $0.75 million to $35.5 million), number of employees (ranging from 50 to 1,500), megawatt hours generated (4 million), or assets ($175 million), depending on the industry type (US SBA, 2008). The SBA defin itions of small businesses vary by 6-digit North American Industrial Clas sification System (NAICS) code . For instance, the sector of commercial screen printing (NAICS 323113) has 500 employees as the threshold below which a business is considered small. For the sector of plas tic materials and basic

### Proposed Rule 1147 Fina l Socioeconomic Report

SCAQMD 3 November 2008 forms and shapes merchant wholesalers (NAICS 424610), fewer than 100 employees is the criterion below which a business is considered small.

The CAAA classifies a facility as a "small bus iness stationary sour ce" if it: (1) employs 100 or fewer employees, (2) does not emit more than 10 tons per yearof either VOC or NOx, and (3) is a small business as defined by SBA.

Based on the 2008 Dun and Bradst reet financial information on individual facilities, revenue and employees data were availabl e for 1,337 out of 2,162 facilities. Under the AQMD definition of a small business, there are 194 small businesses. Using the SBA definition of a small business, there are 1,225 small businesses. Under the CAAA definition of a small business, 978 are small businesses.



### COMPLIANCE COST

The average annual cost of the proposed ru le is estimated to be $9.12 million between 2010 and 2025, as shown in Table 1. The sectors of fabricated metal, primary metal, and printing and related support activities are expect ed to incur higher share of the total cost ($1.53 and $0.78, and $0.7 million, respectively).

The overall cost-effectivene ss of PR 1147 is estimated be tween at $5,000 and $8,000 per ton of NOx reduced based on burner size a nd annual capacity fact or of 20 percent. 1

1 Based on the input from manufacturers of equipment a ffected by PAR 1147, sta ff has estimated a capacity factor range of 20 percent. The capacity factor is used to represent the annual heat output and emissions of a burner relative to the theoretical annual maximum. A 20 percent cap acity is conservative and most pieces of equipment subject to PR 1147 are expect ed to have significantly higher usage.

### Proposed Rule 1147 Fina l Socioeconomic Report

SCAQMD 4 November 2008 Table 3 Average Annual Compliance Costs by Industry (in million of dollars)

Industry Title NAICS Code 2010 2015 2025 Average Annual (2010-2025) Oil and gas extraction and Mining 211-212 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.002 Utilities 22 0.181 0.101 0.087 0.091 Construction 23 0.691 0.781 0.502 0.478 Wood Product manufacturing. 321 0.088 0.102 0.065 0.062 Nonmetallic Mineral Product manuf acturing 327 0.296 0.240 0.174 0.173 Primary Metal manufacturing. 331 1.431 0.976 0.763 0.777 Fabricated Metal Product manuf acturing 332 2.500 2.209 1.550 1.525 Machinery manufacturing 333 0.208 0.149 0.114 0.115 Computer and electronic product manufacturing 334 0.461 0.562 0.353 0.333 Electrical equipment, applianc e manufacturing 335 0.779 0.457 0.383 0.398 Motor vehicle manufacturi ng 3361-3363 0.258 0.170 0.135 0.138 Transportation equip. excl. moto r vehicles 3364-3369 0.236 0.348 0.207 0.190 Furniture and related product ma nufacturing 337 0.510 0.778 0.458 0.420 Miscellaneous manufactu ring 339 0.225 0.156 0.121 0.123 Food manufacturing 311 0.866 0.851 0.574 0.557 Beverage and tobacco product manufacturing 312 0.005 0.010 0.005 0.005 Textile mills 313-314 0.132 0.236 0.133 0.120 Apparel manufacturing 315 0.000 0.065 0.028 0.022 Leather and allied product manuf acturing 316 0.005 0.028 0.013 0.011 Paper manufacturing 322 0.115 0.088 0.065 0.066 Printing and related support activities 323 1.058 1.102 0.728 0.701 Petroleum and coal products ma nufacturing 324 0.439 0.480 0.312 0.298 Chemical manufacturing 325 0.466 0.550 0.349 0.330 Plastics and rubber products ma nufacturing 326 0.356 0.283 0.207 0.207 Wholesale trade 42 0.208 0.655 0.333 0.284 Retail trade 44-45 0.203 0.797 0.393 0.329 Transportation and Warehousing 482,484-486,488,493 0.170 0.129 0.096 0.097 Information 511-512,516,51 8,519 0.060 0.069 0.044 0.042 Monetary Authorities 521,522,525 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.002 Real estate 531 0.022 0.013 0.011 0.011 Rental and leasing servic es 532-533 0.038 0.016 0.016 0.017 Professional and technical se rvices 54 0.230 0.657 0.339 0.291 Management of companies and enterprises 55 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.001 Administrative and support se rvices 561 0.005 0.067 0.030 0.024 Waste management and remediation services 562 0.000 0.018 0.008 0.006 Educational services 61 0.027 0.022 0.016 0.016 Ambulatory health care se rvices 621 0.016 0.029 0.016 0.015 Museums, historical sites, zoos, and park s 712 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.005 Amusement, gambling, and re creation 713 0.011 0.008 0.006 0.006 Accommodation and food serv ices 721-722 0.022 0.107 0.051 0.042 Other Services 811-813 1.047 0.967 0.667 0.653
Government 92 0.115 0.280 0.148 0.129

TOTAL $13.505 $14.566 $9.512 $9.116

The affected facilities were divided by equi pment category and by county. Based on the AQMD permit database, it was assumed that 50 percent of units in each equipment category and in each county have permitted emissions of more than one pound per day and would comply with the proposed rule in 2010. The remaining 50 percent were assumed to have permitted emissions of less than or equal to one pound per day and would comply with the propos ed rule in 2015. Th e total annual cost s of PR 1147 are higher in 2010 and 2015 than the rest of years from 2010 to 2025 due to the one-time

### Proposed Rule 1147 Fina l Socioeconomic Report

SCAQMD 5 November 2008 permit modification fee on equipment. Other costs included are the capital cost of lowNOx burner and the fue1 and time meter, and th e cost of source tests required every five

years.

Units with Permitted Emissions Greater than One Pound per Day

It was assumed that the affected units in this category have, on average, a rated heat input capacity of five million Btu/hr. According to the vendors’ cost data, the average capital cost of retrofitting a unit with a low-NOx is estimated at $16,000 per unit. Each retrofit is assumed to last 10 years. These units are also required to install a fuel and time meter to assure compliance with the permitted emission limits. The capital cost of a fuel and time meter is estimated at $500 and the meter is expected to last 10 years. Source testing is required every five years. The cost of a source test is $1,200 per unit. No additional operating and maintenance costs are assumed for these retrofit boilers beyond their current operations.
Owners of the affected units would be require d to apply for permit modifications and pay a one-time permit application fee of $3,245 for each unit. The total one-time cost of this requirement is estimated at $8 million. Th e average annual equipm ent cost (including fuel and time meters) to retrofit 2,462 units is estimated at $5 million.

Units with Permitted Emissions Less than or Equal to One Pound per Day

It was assumed that the affected units in th is category to have, on average, a rated heat input capacity of two million Bt u/hr. According to the ven dors’ cost data, the average capital cost of retrofitting a unit with a low-NOx or is estimated at $10,000 per unit. Each retrofit is assumed to last 10 years. These units are also required to install a fuel and time meter to assure compliance with th e permitted emission limits. The capital cost of a fuel and time meter is estimated at $500 a nd the meter is expected to last 10 years. Source testing is required every five years. The cost of a source test is $1,200 per unit. No additional operating and maintenance costs are assumed for these retrofit boilers beyond their current operations.
Owners of the affected units would be require d to apply for permit modifications and pay a one-time permit application fee of $2,052 for each unit. The total one-time cost of this requirement is estimated at $5.05 million. The average annual equipment cost (including fuel and time meters) to retrofit 2,462 units is estimated at $3.18 million.



### JOBS AND OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

The REMI model (version 9.5.26) is used to a ssess the total socioeconomic impacts of a policy change. The model links the economic activities in the coun ties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino. The REMI model for each county is comprised of a five block structure that includes (1 ) output and demand, (2) labor and capital, (3) population and labor force, (4) wages, prices an d costs, and (5) market shares. These five blocks are interrelated. Within each c ounty, producers are made up of 165 private nonfarm industries, three government sectors, a nd a farm sector. Trade flows are captured between sectors and borders as well as across counties and the rest of U.S. Market shares of industries are dependent upon their produ ct prices, access to production inputs, and

### Proposed Rule 1147 Fina l Socioeconomic Report

SCAQMD 6 November 2008 local infrastructure. The demogr aphic/migration component has 160 ages/gender/race/ethnicity cohorts and capture s population changes in births, deaths, and migration.

The assessment herein is performed relati ve to a baseline wit hout PR 1147. Direct effects of the policy change (Proposed Rule) ha ve to be estimated and used as inputs to the REMI model in order for the model to assess secondary and induced impacts for all the actors in the four-county economy on an annual basis and acr oss a user-defined horizon (2010-2025). Direct effects of the proposed rule include additional costs of proposed requirements to affected industries and additional goods and services provided by local vendors at the county (o r finer) level and by industry.

The proposed rule would create an additio nal demand for low-NOx burners in the fabricated metal products (NAICS 332) industry, for time and fu el meters in the computer and electronic product sector (NAICS 334), for installati on of these meters by local contractors in the construction sector (NAICS 23), and for services rendered by the sector of miscellaneous professiona l services (NAICS 54) for source testing services. Additional revenue from permit fees on burners would help finance the AQMD expenditure.

Additional costs of doing business to the affect ed facilities include the annualized cost of low NOx burners and time and fuel meters, annual cost of source testing, and one-time permit modification fees. Affected govern ment agencies would reduce expenditures elsewhere in order to compensate for the co mpliance cost due to the proposed rule.

Employment

The total employment impact of the proposed ru le across industries in key years is shown in Table 2. It is projected that an averag e of 102 jobs could be forgone annually from 2010 to 2025 in the local economy. This repres ents about 0.0009 percent of the average annual jobs forecasted in the four-county area from 2010 to 2025.
In 2010, 311 additional jobs could be created in the overall economy. This is mainly due to additional spending on goods and services provided by the industries of fabricated metal products, and professional and technical services, computer and electronic product sector, construction, and local government. Despite having a large share of the total compliance cost, the fabricated metal products s ector is projected to create jobs in some years due to the fact that this sector is e xpected to provide the low-NOx burners required by PR 1147. As the cost of doing business ki cks in and is maintained, and the positive impact of spending gradually s ubsides, jobs forgone are expected to begin. The reduction in disposable income from the overall jobs forgone dampens the demand for goods and services in the local economy, thus resulti ng in a small number of overall jobs forgone projected in sectors such as rest of ma nufacturing, retail trade, wholesale, and accommodation and food services. Jobs for gone in 2025 are fewer due to expenditure on replacing control equipment as th eir end of life approaches.

### Proposed Rule 1147 Fina l Socioeconomic Report

SCAQMD 7 November 2008 Table 2 Job Impacts by Industry by Year Year Average Annual Industry (NAICS) 2010 2015 2018 2025 (2010-2025)
Construction ( 23 ) 16 1 -16 -3 -8 Primar y metal manufacturin g ( 331 ) 2 -1 -3 -2 -2 Fabricated Metal Products ( 332 ) 123 63 -8 48 15 Com p uter and electronic p roduct Mf g

. ( 334 ) 0 -1 -2 -1 -1 Electrical e q ui p, a pp liance Manufacturin g ( 335 ) -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 Furniture

, related p roduc t Manufacturin g ( 337 ) -1 -3 -4 -4 -3 Rest of Manufacturin g -2 -13 -18 -16 -15 Wholesale Trade ( 42 ) 6 -1 -8 -3 -5 Retail Trade ( 44-45 ) 6 -8 -21 -9 -15 Real Estate and Rental and Leasin g ( 53 ) 3 -4 -11 -4 -8 Professional and Technical Se r vices ( 54 ) 28 30 -15 19 -3
Mana g ement of com p anies and enter p rises ( 55 ) 3 0 -3 -1 -1 Administrative

, Su pp ort and Waste Services ( 56 ) 11 1 -14 -4 -9 Educational Services ( 61 ) 2 -1 -5 -2 -4 Health Care and Social Assistance ( 62 ) 5 -3 -14 -9 -10 Accommodation and Food Services ( 72 ) 5 -10 -15 -5 -10 Re p air and maintenance ( 811 ) 2 0 -3 -2 -2 Other Industries 15 16 -29 -12 -20 Governmen t 88 46 -11 -13 1

Total 311 92 -202 -25 -102

The job impacts incl ude all the companies (affected and una ffected by PR1147) in the respective industries.

Competitiveness

The additional cost brought on by the proposed rule would increase the cost of production of the affected industries relative to their national counterparts. Changes in relative production costs would thus be a good indicator of changes in relative competitiveness. The magnitude of the impact depends on the size and diversification of , and infrastructure in a local economy as well as interactions am ong industries. A large, diversified, and resourceful economy would absorb the impact w ith relative ease. Implementation of PR 1147 increases the cost of doing business for affected industries.

An index of 0 indicates that there is no cha nge in the cost of pr oduction relative to the rest of the United States. An index of above or below 0 means that the cost of production in the four-county areas resulting from the proposed rule is higher or lower, respectively, than that in the rest of the U.S.

Table 3 shows the impact of the proposed ru le on the cost of production by industry and for selected years. The sect or of manufacturing would experi ence the largest increase in the relative cost of production (e.g., 0.004% in 2015). In 2025, the relative cost of production in this sector w ould decrease to 0.002%.

Changes in production costs will affect pric es of goods produced locally. The relative delivered price of a good is based on its pr oduction cost and the tr ansportation cost of

### Proposed Rule 1147 Fina l Socioeconomic Report

SCAQMD 8 November 2008 delivering the good to where it is consumed or used. The average price of a good at the place of use reflects prices of the good produ ced locally and imported elsewhere.

Based on the measurement of relative delivered prices in the REMI model, the proposed rule is projected to result in higher delivered prices. These impacts are similar to those on the relative cost of production. For ex ample, the manufacturing sector would experience an increase in re lative delivered prices in 2015 (Tab le 3), while other industries will experience minimal increas e in relative delivered prices after 2015.

Table 3 Impacts on Relative Cost of Pr oduction and Delivered Prices (Relative to the U.S.)

Relative Cost of Production Relative Delivered Price Industry 2010 2015 2025 2010 2015 2025
Utilities 0.002% 0.001% 0.001% 0.001% 0.001% 0.000%
Construction 0.002% 0.002% 0. 001% 0.002% 0.002% 0.001% Manufacturing 0.005% 0.004% 0.002% 0.003% 0.003% 0.001%
Wholesale 0.001% 0.001% 0.000% 0.001% 0.001% 0.000%
Retail 0.001% 0.001% 0.000% 0.001% 0.001% 0.000%
Other Services 0.004% 0.003% 0.001% 0.003% 0.002% 0.001%



### RULE ADOPTION RELATIVE TO THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS

On October 14, 1994, the Governing Board adopt ed a resolution that requires staff to address whether rules being proposed for adop tion are considered inthe order of costeffectiveness. The 2007 Air Quality Manage ment Plan (AQMP) ranked, in the order of cost-effectiveness, all of the proposed control measur es for which costs were quantified. It is generally recommended that the most cost-effective actions be taken first.

Proposed Rule 1147 implements two control measures from the 2007 AQMP: Control Measure CMB-01 (NOx Reduction from Non- RECLAIM Ovens, Dryers, and Furnaces) and Control Measure MSC-01 (Facility Modern izations). Control Measure CMB-01 was ranked 6 th with cost-effectiveness from $4,000 to $13,000 per ton of NOx reduced and Control measure MSC-01 was ranked 9 th with cost-effectiveness from $10,600 to $17,000 per ton of NOx reduced. Cost-effect iveness of the Proposed Rule 1147 is estimated at $5,000 to $8,000 per ton of NOx re duced and is within the ranking order of cost-effectiveness in the 2007 AQMP.

### Proposed Rule 1147 Fina l Socioeconomic Report

SCAQMD 9 November 2008 

### REFERENCES

Regional Economic Modeling Inc. (REMI). Policy Insight for the South Coast Region (169 sector model) . Version 9.5.26.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). Proposed Rule 1147)

─ NOx Reduction from Miscellaneous Sources. September 2008a.

______(AQMD). Draft Staff Report fo r Proposed Amended Rule 1147)

─ NOx Reduction from Miscellaneous Sources. September 2008b.

AQMD. 2007 Air Quality Manage ment Plan (AQMP). June 2007.

U.S. Small Business Administration (US SB A). “Table of Small Business Size Standards.” Downloaded October 29, 2008, from http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documen ts/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf.