UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document

for

EPA’s Evaluation of

Best Available Control Measures and Most Stringent Measures

for

Fine Particulate Matter Emissions

from

Stationary and Area Sources

in the

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Prepared by

Region 9 Air Division Rules Office

January 20162

1. Summary of California’s Submittal

Documents with information supporting California’s demonstration of BACM and

MSM include:

a. Appendix C of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan titled, “ BACM and MSM for Stationary and

Area Sources .”

b. Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan titled, “ Commitment to Leave No Stone Unturned to Evaluate Additional Opportunities .”

c. Email from Sheraz Gill (SJVAPCD) to Andrew Steck el (EPA), dated June 26, 2015, forwarding additional analysis in electronic files titled, “ AO Engine Retrofit Analysis ,” “ Wood-burning1 ,” and “ Evaluation of Covers Lagoons Manure Piles for

NH3 .”

These documents are summarized below.

a. Appendix C of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan includes almost 300 pages of SJVAPCD analysis to demonstrate implementation of Best Avai lable Control Measures (BACM) and Most Stringent Measures (MSM) for statio nary and area sources.

Section C.i provides background and identifies twel ve adopted SJVAPCD regulations that achieve new emission reductions af ter 2012.

Section C.ii summarizes SJVAPCD’s methodology for d etermining BACM and MSM based on EPA guidance. This includes: (1) deve lop a detailed emissions inventory; (2) model to identify significant and de minimis sources; (3) identify potential BACM and MSM in other SIPs or used in pra ctice, and evaluate their technological and economic feasibility; (4) compare potential BACM/MSM against SJVAPCD’s existing adopted control measures ; and (5) adopt and implement any potential BACM/MSM that is more strin gent than SJVAPCD’s existing regulations or provide a reasoned justific ation for rejecting it.

Section C.iii describes the organization of the rul e by rule evaluation that follows in sections C.1 – C.41. Generally, this includes a discussion of the rule applicability, adoption/amendment history, affected sources, emissions inventory, regulatory evaluation, analysis of technological fe asibility, cost effectiveness of potential additional BACM/MSM, and a summary of the findings. The inventory discussion lists annual and wintertime average PM 2.5 , NO x and SO x emissions for 2012-2020. The regulatory evaluation generally cons iders federal and State guidance and rules and local rules at least from So uth Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management D istrict (SMAQMD) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAP CD).3

Section C.iv explains that ammonia emission control s are not effective in significantly reducing PM 2.5 concentrations, so SJVAPCD does not need to

evaluate ammonia controls for BACM or MSM. Nonethe less, SJVAPCD performed a BACM/MSM evaluation for ammonia sources as described in
sections C.iii and C.41 to demonstrate that existin g requirements adequately implement BACM and MSM.

Sections C.1 – C.41 provide SJVAPCD’s evaluation de scribed in section C.iii for each category of sources. These range in detail fr om 1-2 page determinations that SJVAPCD found no more stringent requirements o r potential additional BACM/MSM measures (e.g., section C.39 for tub grind ing) to detailed analysis of more complex sources and associated requirements (e .g., 29 page analysis in section C.41 for SJVAPCD Rule 4570 regarding confin ed animal facilities).

b. Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan includes a general discussion of SJVACPD’s plans to continue evaluating all of its existing re gulations for potential additional emission reductions. It also includes specific sho rt-term commitments to evaluate three source categories and include any ad ditional actions for reducing
emissions in SJVAPCD’s 2012 PM 2.5 SIP in fall 2016. These commitments address flares (Rule 4311), warm mix asphalt and co nservation management practices (Rule 4550).

c. In response to discussions between EPA and SJVAP CD staff, SJVAPCD provided additional analysis regarding agricultural engines, wood burning devices, and covering manure storage ponds and stor age piles. The first document explains challenges with further lowering emission limits for existing spark-ignited agricultural engines. The second doc ument discusses the emissions impact of SJVAPCD’s most recent revision to Rule 4901 regarding wood burning devices. The third document provides an evaluation of potential ammonia reductions from covering manure storage pon ds and manure storage piles in the San Joaquin Valley.

2. EPA’s General Evaluation of California’s Submitt al

For most stationary and area sources of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions in the SJV, we believe the District’s analyses adeq uately demonstrate that the SIP for the SJV area provides for the implementation of BACM and MSM. For several of these source categories, EPA has evaluated addition al control options as

summarized in section 3 below. We selected these s ource categories because they emit relatively large amounts of direct PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors and/or because SJVAPCD, CARB, EPA, and/or the public have recently identified potential

additional control measures. Based on these various analyses, we have identified no

additional control measures that have been demonstr ated to be technically and economically feasible for implementation in the SJV area.4

3. EPA’s Evaluation of Several Specific Rules

SJVAPCD and CARB will need to develop additional SI Ps in the next few years including a Serious Area PM 2.5 Plan for the 2006 NAAQS and a Moderate Area

PM 2.5 Plan for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. We expect that these additional attainment plans will build upon the BACM and MSM evaluations provided in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan and further in this TSD. To that end, we iden tify below several measures which SJVAPCD and CARB should analyze more fully in these future SIPs for potential

additional emission reductions.

a. Open Burning Rule 4103

1. Overview

Section C.1 (beginning page C-8) discusses SJVAPCD Rule 4103, Open Burning . Rule 4103 is designed to minimize impacts of smok e and other air pollutants from open burning of agricultural waste and other materials. The rule restricts the type of materials that may be bu rned and establishes other conditions and procedures for open burning in conju nction with SJVAPCD’s Smoke Management System (SMS). 1 EPA last approved Rule 4103 as meeting Reasonably Available Control Technology (RA CT) requirements in

2012. 2

Permitted burns must comply with Rule 4103 provisio ns regarding, for example, moisture (e.g., Section 5.5.4 and 5.5.9), time of day (Sections 5.5.11 and 5.5.12) and permits (Section 6.1). Under the SMS, SJVAPCD analyzes the daily impact of open burning on air qu ality in 103 zones in the SJV Air Basin and allocates daily burning allowance s based on local meteorology, air quality conditions, atmospheric ho lding capacity, burning already approved in an area, impacts on downwind po pulations and other

factors.

Additionally, SJVAPCD implements portions of Califo rnia Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) sections 41855.5 and 41855.6. 3 CH&SC section 41855.5 requires SJVAPCD to prohibit specific crop categori es from open burning according to a schedule, the final phase of which b egan on June 1, 2010. CH&SC section 41855.6 authorizes SJVAPCD to postpon e the burn prohibition for specific crop categories if SJVAPCD determines that there is no economically feasible alternative means of elimi nating the waste or

1 SJVAPCD also refers to its SMS as a “Smoke Managem ent Program” (see “San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Proposed Smoke Manag ement Program: Rules, Policies, and Procedures to Comply with the California Code of Regulations Titl e 17 Smoke Management Guidelines for Agricultural and Prescribed Burning,” adopted June 20, 2002).

2 See 77 FR 214, January 4, 2012.

3 See Table 9-1, Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning, lists prohibitions by specific crop type, approved into the SIP on 01/04 /2012 (77 FR 214).5 determines that there is no long-term federal or st ate funding commitment for the continued operation of biomass facilities in th e San Joaquin Valley or development of alternatives to burning.

SJVAPCD states that this rule implements BACM and M SM. The following are key points drawn from SJVAPCD’s analysis that s upport the District’s
BACM/MSM determination.

2. Comparison to Analogous Control Measures in Othe r Areas

The District compares Rule 4103 to several other op en burning rules in
California. 4 SJVAPCD finds no other requirements more stringent than those
in Rule 4103 but notes that SCAQMD Rule 444 restric ts burning on residential wood combustion (RWC) curtailment days. The District explains that although Rule 4103 does not contain the same r estriction, in practice SJVAPCD also generally limits burning on RWC curtai lment days. 5 According to SJVAPCD, there are also no more stringent federa l or state regulations or guidance such as contained in a Control Techniques Guidance (CTG), Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) documents, NSP S, NESHAP or MACT standard. Lastly, Rule 4103 is more stringent than other requirements as it is the only rule which prohibits burning of most agric ultural crop categories.

We are not aware of open burning programs in other areas that are more stringent than Rule 4103, considered as a whole. Al though Rule 4103 does not specifically restrict burning on RWC curtailmen t days, as does SCAQMD Rule 444, on balance we find that Rule 4103’s gener al prohibitions on the burning of specific agricultural crops are more eff ective means for reducing PM emissions than targeted restrictions on RWC curt ailment days.

3. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternativ e Control Techniques

As described above, the CH&SC requires SJVAPCD to p rohibit specific crop categories from open burning unless the District de termines that there is no economically feasible alternative means of eliminat ing the waste or determines that there is no long-term federal or st ate funding commitment for the continued operation of biomass facilities in th e San Joaquin Valley or for the development of alternatives to burning.

4 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, beginning on page C-14, and inclu ding BAAQMD Regulation 5, SMAQMD Rule 407, VCAPCD Rule 56, and SCAQMD Rule 44 4.

5 Described in 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C on pages C-9 – C-10. It is difficu lt to quantify the emission reductions resulting from this type of provision, a s banning open burning on RWC curtailment days coul d shift more waste to other days with more favorable meteorology, so overall there could be little chang e in the overall wintertime inventory. Any burning that occurs is subject to SJVAPCD’s SMS, which specifica lly allocates allowable burn acreage for 103 geographic zones, based on local meteorology to be protective of the NAAQS, thereby minimizing impacts of added s moke emissions. We also do not expect additional emission reductions from this provision because SJV APCD already implements it in practice.6 Beginning on page C-12, the District discusses its prior feasibility analyses

and the current status of biomass facilities. In a ddition, the 500-page staff report supporting SJVAPCD’s most recent revision to Rule 4103 includes over 150 pages of analysis detailing the economic a nd technical feasibility of prohibiting burning of each significant crop that w as burned at the time. 6 As a result of this analysis, SJVAPCD amended Rule 4103 in 2010 to incorporate CH&SC prohibitions and committed to review its dete rminations for any postponed burn prohibitions for crops and materials at least once every five years. As a condition of approval, CARB required an additional 2012 review

to determine if additional reductions were feasible

. The District prepared a 2012 Report that examines the feasibility of altern atives for each remaining crop type allowed to burn. The report indicated no significant changes in the economic feasibility and no long-term federal or st ate funding commitments for the operation of biomass facilities. 7 In 2015, the District again reviewed its determinations and found that since 2012, five out of eleven biomass power plants which previously accepted agricultural mater ials have ceased to operate, making additional postponements economical ly and technically

unfeasible. 8 On December 23, 2015, CARB concurred that the limi ted exemptions are appropriate through 2020. 9

4. Emissions Inventory

SJVAPCD estimates open burning will contribute 2.39 tpd NO x , 3.41 tpd

PM 2.5 , and 0.07 tpd SO x on an average winter day in 2020. This is above th e District’s selected BACM/MSM significance threshold for PM 2.5 and below the District’s selected significance threshold for NO x and SO x

.

5. Conclusions

We believe that the current version of Rule 4103 re quires all control measures for open burning activities in the San Joa quin Valley that are best available control measures considering technologica l and economic feasibility, for the reasons cited above as well as the following reasons:

A. EPA has not established specific control standar ds for open burning

activities.

6 See Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultu ral Burning, SJVAPCD, Revised July 21,

2010.

7 See 2012 Update: Recommendations on Agricultural Burnin g, May 2012, 14 pages.

8 See Final 2015 Agricultural Burning Review, December 20 15, 16 pages.

9 See Letter from Kurt Karperos, CARB to Samir Sheikh, da ted December 23, 2015.7 B. SJVAPCD conducted an economic analysis of altern atives to open burning for each crop category and determined that for each crop category allowed some burning in Table 9-1, there is no econ omically feasible alternative means of eliminating the waste. While we encourage SJVAPCD to continue refining this analysis, we do n ot have information to

contradict the conclusions at this time.

C. SJVAPCD determined that there is no long-term fe deral or state funding commitment for the continued operation of biomass f acilities in the San Joaquin Valley or development of alternatives to bu rning. We do not have

information to contradict this conclusion at this t ime.

D. SJVAPCD compared the control requirements in Rul e 4103 with analogous rules in other local districts and states and we agree that Rule 4103 is as stringent as or more stringent than thos e other rules.

E. SCAQMD Rule 444(c)(25) prohibits open burning of agricultural crops on days when residential wood burning is prohibited. S JV explains that in practice the District prohibits open burning of agr icultural crops on days when residential wood burning is prohibited. Howeve r, we recommend that SJVAPCD add this prohibition explicitly to SJV APCD Rule 4103.

Additionally, we believe Rule 4103 currently fulfil ls the requirements of MSM because we have compared the control requirements i n Rule 4103 with analogous rules in other local districts and states and believe that Rule 4103 is as stringent as or more stringent than those oth er rules.

b. Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters G reater than 5.0 MMBtu/hr

1. Overview

Section C.7 (beginning page C-35) discusses two SJV APCD rules for these sources. Rule 4306, Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters –

Phase 3 , establishes NO x emission limits and related operational requirements that all units must meet. Rule 4320, Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, an d Process Heaters
Greater than 5.0 MMbtu/hr , establishes more stringent NO x emission limits but allows sources to pay an emission fee in lieu o f compliance with the
emission limits. SJVAPCD concludes that these two rules together implement BACM and MSM for this source category.

Boilers, steam generators, and process heaters have significant variability in the technology, size, use and age of equipment, pot ential controls for various8 pollutants, 10 affected industry and regulatory strategies used b y different agencies. 11 As a result of this variability, the BACM/MSM demo nstration for this category of sources is more complex than for s ome categories with less variability. 12 However, the following summarizes key points draw n from SJVAPCD’s analysis that support the District’s BACM /MSM determination.

2. Comparison of Rule 4306 to Analogous Control Mea sures in Other Areas

Rule 4306 establishes mandatory NO x emission limits ranging from 5 - 30 ppm (depending on boiler type, see Rule 4306, table 1). According to SJVAPCD, these limits are at least as stringent as state and federal regulations and guidance, including federal NESHAP, MACT and NSPS standards, and EPA ACT guidance. In addition, they are in the same range as analogous prohibitory rules from other nonattain ment areas that generally have among the most stringent requirements in the c ountry, including SMAQMD Rule 411 (9 – 30 ppm), SCAQMD Rule 1146 (5 – 25 ppm) and are generally more stringent than rules in Bay Area and Ventura. We generally agree with this analysis, but note that SCAQMD Rule 1146 is more stringent. In 2010, EPA approved Rule 4306 as fulfilling RACT requirements for NO x under CAA section 182(b)(2). 13

3. Comparison of Rule 4320 to Analogous Control Mea sures in Other Areas

Rule 4320 establishes NO x limits (5 – 12 ppm) 14 lower than those in Rule 4306 (5 – 30 ppm). 15 However, sources may exceed these limits if they pay an emission fee described in Rule 4320 section 5.3. The only other traditional prohibitory rule that we are aware of with emission limits in the same range as 4320 is SCAQMD Rule 1146. For example, in SJVAPCD Rule 4320, units above 20 MMBtu/hr have a limit of 7 ppm while in SC AQMD Rule 1146, units between 20 and 75 MMBtu/hr have a limit of 9 ppm (l ess stringent than Rule 4320), but units above 75 MMBtu/hr have a limit of 5 ppm (more stringent than Rule 4320). 16 SCAQMD Regulation XX (RECLAIM) also regulates unit s within the same size range as Rule 4320 but allows sources to comply with emission caps by purchasing RECLAIM Trading Credits (RTCs). 17 According

10 E.g., 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, section C.7 discusses low tempera ture oxidation, EM x and SCONO x for NO x ; and alternative fuels, baghouses, ESPs, wet scrub bers for PM 2.5

. 11 E.g., different subcategories, different limits, SC AQMD’s RECLAIM program, etc.

12 E.g., sections C.19 regarding sulfuric acid mist, a nd C.21 regarding residential water heaters.

13 See 75 FR 1715, January 13, 2010.

14 See Rule 4320, Table 1.

15 See Rule 4306, Table 1.

16 See SJVAPCD Rule 4320 Table 1, Category B and SCAQMD Ru le 1146 Section (c)(1)(F).

17 RECLAIM is a market incentive program designed to allow facilities flexibility in achieving emission reduction requirements for NO x and SO x using methods which include, but are not limited t o: add-on controls, equipment modifications, reformulated pro ducts, operational changes, shutdowns, and the purchase of excess emission reductions. (Rule 2000, Section (a).) The Allocations of RECLAIM Trade Credits (RTCs) are based on historical throughput a nd emission factors for each source type (Rule 2002

,9 to information provided by SCAQMD, there are 1074 b oilers that are subject to Rule 1146 and 230 non-refinery boilers subject t o RECLAIM. 18 Given that we do not know the rated heat input of these units and that the relative stringency between the rules varies with rated heat input, we cannot conclude
that the lower NO x emission limits in Rule 1146 have been demonstrate d to be technically and economically feasible for the wi de variety of sources subject to Rule 4320.

4. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternativ e Control Techniques

SJVAPCD summarizes analysis of control technologies which could further reduce emissions, and explains why they are not dem onstrated to be generally cost-effective at this time. This include s low temperature oxidation

and EM x for NO x , and alternative fuels, ESP and wet scrubbers for direct

PM 2.5 . For low temperature oxidation, the District conc ludes “the technology has not been achieved in practice and [is] cost pro hibitive without significant

subsidies.” 19 The District states that EMx has only been used f or turbines, not

boilers. 20 For ESP and wet scrubbers, the District calculate d cost effectiveness of $44,997,329/ton of PM and $3,151,4 20,104/ton of PM, respectively. 21 We do not have information at this time that contr adicts the District’s conclusions. However, in the future, we recommend that SJVAPCD further analyze the technical and economic feasibil ity and the potential for additional emission reductions achievable by implem enting the following

measures.

A. Rule 4320 Table 1 establishes “Standard Schedule ” NO x emission limits for various subcategories of boilers (e.g., 9 ppm f or oilfield steam generators with a RHI between 5.0 and 20.0 MMBtu/hr ). SJVAPCD could consider requiring that all units within individual categories comply with the Standard Schedule limits instead of allowing them t o pay fees and emit

more.

Section (d)(1)(A).) After every calendar quarter, f acilities have to calculate their total emissions a nd hold any RTCs necessary to reconcile their allocations w ith their emissions. (Rule 2004, Section (b)(1)). Trading of RTCs is subject to requirements in Rule 2007. Rule 2011 describes all of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for RECLAIM facilities a nd Rule 2010 ensures that “RECLAIM facilities which exceed their Allocation provide compensating emissi on reductions.” (Section (a).) Therefore, neither SCAQMD’s RECLAIM program nor SJVAPCD’s Rule 4320 re quire that each source individually meet a specific NO x emission limit. However, SCAQMD has demonstrated that the emission reductions
associated with the allocations in RECLAIM are enfo rceable, because sources that exceed the allocation
must obtain enforceable RTCs elsewhere. In contras t, SJVAPCD has not yet demonstrated that the

emission reductions associated with the limits in R ule 4320 are fully enforceable.

18 See Email from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to Idalia Perez (USEPA), 7/21/15.

19 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-39.

20 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-39.

21 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-42.10 B. Rule 4320 Table 1 establishes “Enhanced Schedule ” NO x emission limits for various subcategories of boilers (e.g., 6 ppm f or oilfield steam generators with a RHI between 5.0 and 20.0 MMBtu/hr ) which sources must meet if they elect to delay compliance with th e Standard Schedule limits. SJVAPCD could consider requiring that all units within individual categories comply with the Enhanced Schedule limits , when feasible.

C. Requiring a 2 ppm limit for refinery boilers lar ger than 110 MMBtu/hour,
which SCAQMD determined was Best Available Retrofit Control Technology 22 (BARCT) in 2015. 23 In contrast, SJVAPCD Rule 4230 Table 1 currently establishes a 5 ppm limit for these sou rces.

5. Emission Fee as Deterrent

The emission fee option in Rule 4320 provides compl iance flexibility to sources with high emission control costs. Operators choosing this compliance option calculate fees annually based on permitted e mission limits and fuel use during the year. 24 SJVAPCD may directly enforce the requirement to pa y the fee against regulated sources. As a result of EPA’s incorporation of Rule 4320 into the SIP, 25 EPA and citizens may also enforce these fee requirements against regulated sources pursuant to CAA §§113 and 304.

The CAA explicitly allows states to use economic in centives as a tool to attain the NAAQS. See, for example, CAA §110(a)(2)(A), req uiring that each SIP

“include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such a s fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights)... as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of [the Act]”. EPA has issued guidance on “financial mechanism economic in centive programs (EIPs),” among other kinds of economic incentive pr ograms. 26 As stated in EPA guidance, “Financial mechanism EIPs include fee s or taxes on
emissions... While financial mechanisms do not limi t total emissions directly, they indirectly reduce emissions by increasing cost s for high emitting

activities.” 27 Because the emission fee is a compliance option in the rule, we have considered this fee provision as part of our e valuation of the District’s

22 Defined in the CA Health and Safety Code Section 4 0406 as “an emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable, taking into account environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or category of source.”

23 See presentation for SCAQMD NO x RECLAIM Working Group Meeting, April 29, 2015. Av ailable on

slide 7 at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/P roposed-Rules/regxx/noxreclaim_wgm_042915b.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

24 See Rule 4320, Section 5.3.

25 See 76 FR 16696, March 25, 2011.

26 Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Prog rams, EPA, January 2001 (2001 EIP Guidance).

27 See 2001 EIP Guidance, Section 8.0, page 119.11 BACM demonstration. We use the 2001 EIP Guidance as a policy framework to evaluate the fee provision’s effectiveness as a pollution deterrent.

The 2001 EIP Guidance highlights several attributes of emission fees that may make them effective as financial mechanism EIPs

, 28 including the following.

A. Fees are levied on emissions or on an activity o r commodity that is reasonably related to actual emissions or potential emissions.

Rule 4320 requires calculation and payment of fees based on the relevant emission unit’s potential emissions as determined b y permitted emission limits and actual fuel usage. 29 Accordingly, the fee provisions of Rule 4320 are levied on activities reasonably related to actu al emissions.

B. The fees are reasonable, but significant enough to motivate emission

reductions.

The cost of the emission fee in Rule 4320 relies on SJVAPCD Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review, adopted in 2005. 30 At that time, the cost was set to increase twice, but only the “2008 and beyond” c ost, set at $9,350/ton

of NO x , was relevant to Rule 4320, which was adopted in 2 008. The annual costs of this compliance option for a sample set of units is shown in Table B-1. When developing Rule 4320, SJVAPCD ca lculated cost effectiveness and the annualized cost over ten year s for various representative retrofit scenarios, but not for ever y affected facility. Although the limits used in the District’s cost cal culations presented in Table B-1 do not precisely represent all scenarios in Rule 4320, we use these annualized cost figures for comparison. We ch ose sample heat inputs to be comparable to the units for which SJVA PCD calculated cost effectiveness of retrofits, 31 and to fall within the ranges of each category in Rule 4230 that had units at the time of rule adopti on. 32 33

28 See 2001 EIP Guidance, Section 3.1(b), page 26.

29 See Rule 4320, sections 5.1 and 5.3.

30 See Rule 4320 Section 5.3.1.4, and Rule 9510 Section 7 .2.1.

31 See SJVAPCD Rule 4230 Staff Report, Tables C-2 through C-7, October 16, 2008.

32 See SJVAPCD Rule 4230 Staff Report, Table B-2.

33 The assumptions of operating capacity were also bas ed on information available in Table B-2 of the Staff Report. The PTO limits were chosen to be the previously applicable emission limits consistent wi th the approach taken by the District to calculate emi ssion reductions for the rule in Table B-2.12

Table B-1. Annual Cost of Compliance with Emission Fees and Emission Limitations

34 Applicable limit in Rule 4306.

35 Applicable “Standard Schedule” limit in Rule 4320.

36 Emission Fee = (NO x emission limit in PTO)(assumed fuel)(9,350) + Admi nistrative Fee.

37 References are to Tables in Appendix C of Rule 432 0 Staff Report, October 16, 2008.

38 SJV did not provide information for units of this size and type. Heat Input (MMBtu/hr) Capacity

Factor Old

limit

34 New

limit

35 Annual

Fee 36 Comparable

Scenario Reference

37 Annualized

Cost ($/yr) Cost

Effectiveness ($/ton NO

x )
General Category (Categories A and B in Rule 4320)

10 0.50 15 9 $3,833

– 38

– – –

20 0.50 15 9 $7,666 Retrofit with
SCR to

decrease

emissions

from 15 ppm to 5

ppm C-3 $41,841 $80,930

30 0.50 9 7 $7,028 Retrofit with
SCR to

decrease

emissions from 9 ppm to 5 ppm C-5 $46,768 $148,470

100 0.50 9 7 $23,425 $60,255 $57,332

200 0.50 9 7 $46,850 $86,726 $41,259

Oilfield Steam Generator (Category C in Rule 4320)

10 0.75 15 9 $5,750
– – – –
20 0.75 15 9 $11,500 Retrofit with
SCR to

decrease

emissions

from 15 ppm to 5

ppm C-2 $41,841 $53,988

30 0.75 15 7 $17,249 $46,768 $28,816

100 0.75 15 7 $57,498 $60,255 $15,546

200 0.75 15 7 $114,996 $86,726 $11,186

Oilfield Steam Generators firing < 50% PUC quality gas

50 0.75 15 9 $28,749
– – – – Refinery units (Category D in Rule 4320)

8 0.75 30 9 $89,200 Retrofit with

ULNB to

decrease

emissions

from 30 ppm to 9

ppm C-7 $8,544 $12,400

15 0.75 30 9 $17,249 $12,477 $10,337

33.8 0.75 25 6 $33,470 $27,716 $9,988

92 0.75 25 6 $91,102 $54,166 $7,17013 Table B-1 estimates the annualized costs to comply with Rule 4320 emission limits as ranging from $8,544 to $86,726, and the annual costs to comply instead through fees as ranging from $7,028 to $91,102. For units where the fee is higher than the cost of meeting th e emission limits, this fee structure serves as a deterrent and encourages direct emission reductions by complying with the Rule 4230 emission limits. This is supported by data from CARB indicating that 472 of 1164 units (40.5%) are complying with the rule by paying a fee. 39 If, in contrast, the fee had been set too low, we would expect many more sources would select the fee payment compliance option.

Table B-1 suggests that the deterrent value of the fee varies among subcategories (e.g., by boiler size and capacity fa ctor), as sometimes the fee is estimated to cost more than direct complianc e and sometimes less.
We recommend that SJVAPCD evaluate how sources are complying with Rule 4320 within each subcategory to determine whet her changes are appropriate to the fee structure. If, for example, all oilfield steam generators between 20 – 30 MMBtu/hr comply with Rul e 4320 by paying the fee, it might be because compliance with the em ission limits is too costly, or it might be that the fee is too low to b e a useful deterrent. We also note that this would be an appropriate evaluat ion to perform as part of a program evaluation as discussed in the EIP guidan ce. 40

The District’s discussion of “Additional Emission R eduction Opportunities” (Section C.7) does not consider the possibility of increasing the emission fee to encourage more units to comply directly with the emission limits

over time. The emission fee has not been increased since rule adoption and does not increase with inflation. We suggest SJ VAPCD consider increasing fees over time to continue ensuring the deterrent effect. For example, SJVAPCD Rule 3170’s fee rate in section 5. 1 is adjusted to the U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index for all-urba n consumers, in

accordance with CAA § 502(b)(3)(B)(v).

6. Emission Fee May Provide Emission Reductions

Where a State relies upon a discretionary EIP in a SIP, EPA evaluates the programmatic elements of the EIP to determine wheth er the resulting

emission reductions are quantifiable, surplus, enforceable and permanent

, terms referred to as the integrity elements of EIPs

. See 2001 EIP Guidance at Section 4.1. EPA has previously determined that ce rtain incentives programs implemented by the District achieve emission reduct ions that meet these EIP integrity elements. 41

39 See ARB 2015 PM 2.5 Plan Staff Report, Appendix B, Section II.D, Compl iance with Rule 4320.

40 See 2001 EIP Guidance, Section 5.3(b) at page 73.

41 See 79 FR 29327, May 22, 2014.14 Regarding Rule 4320, SJVAPCD states that “these fee s are used by the
District to achieve cost effective NO x reductions through District incentive programs, the District’s Technology Advancement Pro gram, and other routes” (see Appendix C, page C-35). SJVAPCD provided no fu rther demonstration of what types of programs are funded and how these meet the EIP integrity elements. Because of this, emission reductions achi eved by Rule 4320 may not be credited for attainment planning purposes at this time.

Nonetheless, it appears that the fees collected und er Rule 4320 are contributing to improved air quality by supporting SJV’s incentive funding programs. While we cannot quantify these reduction s at this time, we believe these fees create an incentive to reduce pollution and thereby support the BACM determination for this source category.

7. Emission Inventory

The District states that emissions from boilers, st eam generators, and process heaters greater than 5.0 MMBtu/hr are lower than the District’s selected BACM/MSM significance thresholds. (See pag e C-36.) Given the size of the inventory subject to Rules 4306 and 423 0 (1.61 tpd of NO x in 2015 and 1.36 tpd of NO x in 2020), the potential emission reductions from t his category are relatively small.

8. Conclusion and Recommendations

For the reasons discussed above, we propose to find that Rule 4306 and Rule 4320 together establish BACM and MSM control r equirements for this source category at this time. We recommend, howeve r, that SJVAPCD continue evaluating the technical and economic feas ibility of the following

measures in the future:

A. Require that all units within individual categor ies comply with Rule 4320 “Standard Schedule” limits instead of allowing them to pay fees and emit

more.

B. Require that all units within individual categor ies comply with Rule 4320 “Enhanced Schedule” limits, when available.

C. Require that all units comply with SCAQMD Rule 1 146 limits.

D. Require a 2 ppm limit for refinery boilers large r than 110 MMBtu/hour.

E. Require the emission fee to increase annually.

F. Evaluate how sources are complying with the rule within each subcategory to determine whether changes are appropriate to the fee structure.15

c. Flares

1. Overview

Section C.11 (beginning page C-58) discusses SJVAPC D Rule 4311, Flares

. Rule 4311, as adopted June 18, 2009, is designed to limit VOC, NO x , and
SO x emissions from flaring by requiring specific opera tional practices. For example, Section 5.0 requires that flares in the Va lley have automatic ignition systems and meet specified VOC and NO x emission limits. Beyond that, all refinery flares and other flares with capacity abov e five MMBtu/hour must submit a flare minimization plan (FMP) to evaluate equipment and potential preventative measures and demonstrate that the oper ator appropriately minimizes flaring.

Flaring is primarily used to control emissions and as a safety device. SJVAPCD states that most flares in SJV operate as e mergency control devices unlike, e.g., SCAQMD and BAAQMD which have significantly larger flares that operate as part of refinery processes. 42 EPA approved Rule 4311 as meeting VOC RACT requirements under CAA section 182(b)(2) in 2011. 43 SJVAPCD states that this rule implements BACM and M SM. The following are key points drawn from SJVAPCD’s analysis that s upport the District’s
BACM/MSM determination.

2. Comparison to Analogous Control Measures in Othe r Areas

In section C.11, the District compares Rule 4311 to analogous requirements from several other California districts that genera lly have among the most stringent air pollution requirements in the country , including SCAQMD Rule 1118, BAAQMD Rule 12-11 and 12-12, VCAPCD Rule 54, and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) Rul e 359 and concludes, “Rule 4311 currently has in place the most stringen t measures feasible to implement in the Valley and therefore meets or exce eds both BACM and MSM requirement for this source category.” 44 SJVAPCD also concludes that Rule 4311 is as stringent as or more stringent than the applicable federal NESHAP, MACT, and NSPS and there are no applicable CTGs or ACTs. 45 The operational requirements in section 5.0 of the rule include having a flame present when combustible gas is vented, automatic i gnition or pilot flame on the flare, purge gas requirement, and ground level enclosed flare VOC and

NO x limits. These requirements make the rule more str ingent than VCAPCD Rule 54 and equivalent to SBAPCD Rule 359. In ligh t of Rule 4311’s detailed FMP requirements, on balance Rule 4311 appears equa lly as stringent as

42 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.11, page C-60.

43 See 76 FR 68106, November 3, 2011.

44 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.11, page C-84.

45 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.11, page C-72.16 SCAQMD Rule 1118 and BAAQMD Rule 12-12. Our evalua tion below focuses on two elements of SJVAPCD Rule 4311: (A) a pplicability of FMP and required contents of FMPs, 46 and (B) monitoring requirements. We also address below in paragraph (C) a third element of R ule 4311, SO 2 performance targets, which the District did not spe cifically address in section
C.11.

A. According to the District, SJVAPCD, SBCAPCD, SCA QMD, BAAQMD, and VCAPCD all require FMPs, but SCAQMD only requir es it from facilities where emission targets are exceeded. Al l five districts require FMPs from refinery flares while SJVAPCD, SBCAPCD, a nd VCAPCD also require FMPs from other industrial flares. All fiv e district rules require that

similar information be included in submitted FMPs. They include, at a minimum, a description of the flare system and a de scription of emission reductions systems or activities. FMPs are specifi c to each source and these plans, along with associated causal analysis reports, 47 require

facilities to determine what measures are technical ly and economically feasible to reduce flaring events. SJVAPCD states that their flaring differs from other California districts as it mainly occurs in the oil and gas production industry. In contrast, BAAQMD, SCAQMD a nd SBCAPCD flaring occurs primarily in the petroleum refining industry which generally has higher emissions per flare. 48 SJVAPCD states that this further supports why FMPs, rather than specific additional controls, are an appropriate control measure, as flaring conditions vary in different

industries.

B. SJVAPCD, SCAQMD, BAAQMD, SBCAPCD, and VCAPCD rul es all require monitoring and recordkeeping of flaring eve nts. SJVAPCD, SCAQMD, BAAQMD, and SBCAPCD additionally require re porting of flaring events to the local air district. The info rmation required in the monitoring reports by the different rules is simila r (e.g., volume and composition of flared gas), but the frequency with which these reports must be submitted varies. SJVAPCD and SBCAPCD requ ire reports annually, SCAQMD quarterly and BAAQMD monthly. We note that

46 SJVAPCD also completed a 39-page study on Rule 4311 and flares in 2014 which summarized and analyzed the flares in the District, their FMPs, an nual monitoring reports, reportable events, and a comparison of Rule 4311 to other federal, state and local requirements. This study report provided the total number (235) and types of flares in the distr ict, the flares requiring FMPs (95), the emissions from reported flaring (347.4 MMscf), and identified meas ures in FMPs to minimize flaring. The report concluded “that flare operators are doing their due diligence to reduce emission from flaring in the V alley,” and “the District recommends no rulemaking action f or Rule 4311.” There is no detailed discussion on

emission reductions achieved in the district due to FMPs. Rule 4311 required sources to submit FMPs beginning in 2011 and to submit annual reports star ting in 2012. At the time of the flares study, the District had only evaluated 2011-2012 reports and n ot 2012-2013 reports. SJVAPCD, “Rule 4311 (Flares) Further Study 2014,” September 16, 2014.

47 See SJVAPCD Rule 4311 amended June 18, 2009 section 6.2 .2.1.

48 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.11, page C-62.17 SCAQMD and BAAQMD’s more frequent reporting require ments were designed primarily for large refineries, while SJVA PCD’s reporting requirements were designed for smaller sources.

C. Rule 4311 Section 5.9 also establishes petroleum refinery SO 2 performance targets of 1.5 tons per million barrels of crude processed
after 2011 and 0.5 tons after 2017. SCAQMD Rule 11 18 has analogous targets of 0.7 tons after 2010 and 0.5 tons after 2 012. Therefore, by 2017, Rule 4311 and Rule 1118 will have the same performa nce targets. 49

3. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternativ e Control Techniques

SJVAPCD summarizes analysis of control measures whi ch could further reduce emissions, 50 and explains why they are not demonstrated to be generally feasible at this time. Among the potenti al controls they considered are maximum monthly flared gas targets and requirin g capture of the gas

before it is flared.

SJVAPCD’s analysis discusses two analogous rules wh ich attempt to cap the amount of flared gas. SBCAPCD Rule 359 and the Sta te of North Dakota’s Century Code 38-08-06.4 establish percentages of ga s that can be flared of the total gas produced. In Rule 359, this percenta ge is averaged to 5% flared gas monthly and in North Dakota, the goal is 74% ca pture (26% flared). According to SJVAPCD, the actual volume of gas flar ed in SJV is already

below 5%. 51 SJVAPCD also states that the addition of transmiss ion pipelines is the major possible measure to further capture ga s and reduce flaring locally. However, most pipelines would not be inst alled by flare operators but by utility companies. SJVAPCD also states that req uiring the oil and gas producers to construct transmission pipelines would be cost prohibitive and more stringent than any other district requirements

. 52

We find the District’s analyses concerning the feas ibility of additional flare control measures to be reasonable, especially in li ght of the District’s observation that the large majority of produced gas in SJV is already captured.

4. Commitment for Further Analysis

Chapter 8 of the Plan includes a commitment by the District to conduct a comprehensive review of submitted FMPs to identify effective flare minimization practices; to evaluate the technical a nd economic feasibility of

49 See Staff Report for Rule 4311, SJVAPCD, June 18, 2009, page 16.

50 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, starting page C-79.

51 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.11, page C-80, Table C -11.

52 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.11, page C-84.18 implementing new and additional flare minimization practices at affected facilities; to have a draft report available for pu blic review and comment by December 1, 2015; to develop a final report by Marc h 31, 2016 after addressing public comments on these evaluations; an d upon completion of these analyses, to work closely with affected opera tors to “evaluate and implement, when feasible, the most effective flare minimization practices through the FMP submittal and approval process unde r Rule 4311.” 53

5. Emissions Inventory

SJVAPCD states that emissions from flares are lower than the District’s selected BACM/MSM significance thresholds. 54 Given the size of the 2015 inventory subject to Rules 4311 (0.55 tpd NO x , 0.33 tpd SO x and 0.16 tpd

PM 2.5 ), the potential emission reductions from this cate gory are relatively

small.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

For the reasons discussed above, we propose to find that Rule 4311 establishes BACM and MSM control requirements for t his source category at

this time.

We support SJVAPCD’s commitment to evaluate the pot ential for further emission reductions through the review of submitted FMPs. SJVAPCD released a draft report of this evaluation dated De cember 3, 2015. The draft report recommended specific areas for further evalu ation in 2016. EPA provided comments on the draft report on December 2 3, 2015, which included the following:

A. Consider including a specific schedule or timeline in the study for completing the

additional evaluations. B. Consider e valuating the smaller source flares and unreported flaring events in the 2016 further study.
C. Consider explicitly identifying example facilities which currently utilize practices that the District intends to explore further.
D. Consider adding further details regarding which pet roleum industry processes are currently utilizing ultra low-NOx flares and wh ich other industrial practices can potentially utilize these types of flares.

53 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, page 8-2.

54 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.11, page C-60.19

d. Solid Fuel Fired Boilers

1. Overview

Section C.13 (beginning page C-87) discusses the SJ VAPCD rule for these sources. Rule 4352, Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and

Process Heaters , establishes NO x emission limits and related operational requirements that all units must meet. SJVAPCD sta tes that this rule implements BACM and MSM.

The District states that there are 17 units subject to this rule located at 15 facilities, 55 consistent with the information provided as supple mental
information to the SIP submittal and included in th e docket for our action on

Rule 4352. 56 Based on information provided by the District in 2 009, there are nine units burning biomass, two burning municipal s olid waste (MSW) and six burning other solid fuels.

The following are key points drawn from SJVAPCD’s a nalysis that support the
District’s BACM/MSM determination.

2. Comparison to Analogous Control Measures in Othe r Areas

Rule 4352 establishes NO x emission limits of 165 ppmv for MSW facilities, 90 ppmv for biomass and 65 ppmv for other solid fuels. SJVAPCD notes that these limits have been lowered significantly over t ime and are at least as stringent as state and federal regulations and guid ance, including federal NESHAP, MACT and NSPS standards, and EPA ACT guidan ce. In addition, Section C.13 compares the emission limitations in R ule 4352 with analogous prohibitory rules from other nonattainment areas th at generally have among the most stringent requirements in the country, inc luding SMAQMD Rule 411, SCAQMD Rule 1146, and BAAQMD Regulation 9 Rule 7. 57 This comparison
is of limited use because SMAQMD has no affected fa cilities, and there are no sources complying with SCAQMD and BAAQMD’s more stringent 40 ppmv

limits. 58

However, we also note that there are three other no n-attainment Districts in California with adopted regulations that apply to a ctive biomass-fueled units: Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD ), El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDAQMD) and Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD). YSAQMD’s limit is 90 ppm corrected to 3% O 2 on

55 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-87.

56 See 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012). The District furt her adds that one biomass facility in Tracy and

another in Mendota closed in October 2014 and Janua ry 2015 respectively. (See page C-90). It is unclea r if this is accounted for in the 17 units.

57 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pages C-88 to C-90.

58 See 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012) and supporting d ocuments in the docket.20 a 24-hour block average. EDAPCD’s limit is 115 ppm corrected to 12% CO 2 on a 3-hour rolling average. PCAPCD’s limit is 115 ppm corrected to 12%
CO 2 on a 3-hour rolling average and 68 ppm corrected t o 12% CO 2 on a 24- hour block average. These are all within the same r ange as SJVAPCD’s limit of 90 ppm corrected to 3% O 2 on a 24-hour block average.

Therefore, we generally agree with SJVAPCD’s determ ination that Rule 4352 establishes among the most stringent limits as comp ared to other regulations for solid fuel fired boilers. EPA approved Rule 435 2 as fulfilling ozone RACT

in 2012. 59

3. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternativ e Control Techniques

SJVAPCD summarizes analysis of control technologies which could further reduce emissions, 60 and explains why they are not demonstrated to be generally cost-effective at this time. This includ es analysis of direct PM 2.5 controls and a conclusion that the best feasible co ntrols, electrostatic precipitators (ESP) or baghouses, are already requi red in these sources’ permits. It also includes analysis of why other con trols (including ESP, baghouses and scrubbers for SO x , and shorter start-up periods) are not technically and economically feasible. But mostly, it includes analysis of the potential for additional NO x controls by requiring selective catalytic reductio n (SCR) for each of the three fuel-types and emission limits, summarized

below.

A. Biomass – SJVAPCD estimates cost-effectiveness o f requiring SCR for biomass units at $54,342/ton NO x and states that the real costs may be higher. SJVAPCD’s analysis also discusses the soci etal benefit of burning biomass in a boiler by “providing a cleaner alterna tive to the open burning of agricultural waste and assisting with meeting la ndfill diversion goals”. 61

SJVAPCD notes that two facilities have shut down in the last year, arguing

that this is additional evidence that further contr ol costs are not economically feasible. We do not have information that contradicts the validity of this technical and economic analysis an d agree that burning agricultural waste in biomass facilities is environ mentally beneficial. 62

59 See 77 FR 66548, November 6, 2012.

60 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, starting page C-90.

61 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-91.

62 Note that the SJVAPCD BACT determination for DTE S tockton, LLC (ATC # N-645-36-0; Project# N1101175) concluded that 0.065 lb NO x /MMBtu (approximately 45 ppm) on a 24-hour block av erage, achieved with SCR, was BACT. Additionally, the faci lity is expected to be able to achieve 0.04 lb
NO x /MMBtu but is currently in its 24-month evaluation period. We do not have information indicating that this technology is technically and economically fea sible for implementation throughout the SJV at this time, but the District should investigate the poten tial for additional NO x emission reductions from more widespread implementation of this technology throug hout SJV.21 B. MSW – SJVAPCD estimates cost-effectiveness of re quiring SCR for MSW units at $30,806/ton NO x and states that the real costs may be higher. As a result, SJVAPCD determined that retrofitting MSW units is not cost effective, and that Rule 4352 implements Best Avail able Control Technology (BACT) for these sources. We note that M SW boilers, like biomass boilers, similarly provide an environmental benefit by helping to meet landfill diversion goals. We do not have info rmation that contradicts the validity of SJVAPCD’s technical and economic an alysis.

C. Other Solid Fuel - SJVAPCD estimates cost-effect iveness of requiring SCR for other solid fuels at $59,769/ton NO x and states that the real costs may be even higher. Although we note that these co st-effectiveness estimates appear to rest on questionable economic a nd technical assumptions ( e.g., a 10% interest rate and a 10-year equipment life), 63 we do not have information at this time that contradic ts the District’s

conclusions. We recommend that the District reasses s the economic and technical assumptions underlying its cost-effective ness evaluation for this source category. We also recommend that SJVAPCD fur ther analyze the potential for additional emission reductions throug h fuel switching at the six “other solid fuel” units to, for example, natur al gas or liquid fuel. This
could result in lower NO x , SO x and direct PM 2.5 emissions. In 1993, EPA issued a memorandum “to provide guidance to States on the use of fuel switching to meet the NO x RACT requirements. 64 This approach has also been suggested for achieving reductions of CO 2 in EPA’s proposed

“ Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing S tationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units .” 65 We do not believe that the analysis performed to support the fuel switching recommendat ion in the 1993 EPA

memorandum considered the additional environmental benefits of burning wastes in biomass and MSW boilers, so we are only r ecommending it regarding the “other solid fuels” at this time.

4. Emission Inventory

According to SJVAPCD, emissions from solid fuel fir ed boilers, steam generators, and process heaters (2.99 tpd of NO x in 2015 and 3.47 tpd of NO x in 2020) are lower than the District’s selected BAC M/MSM significance

thresholds. 66

63 E.g., see comment letter from Andrew Steckel (EPA ) to Jessi Fierro (SJVAPCD) on “Proposed Rule 4352, Solid Fuel Fired Boilers (November 15, 2011), ” dated 11/30/2011.

64 Office Memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Ass istant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to Regional Offices, July 30, 1993, available at http: //www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/fuelsw.pdf.

65 See 79 FR 34830 at 34857 (June 18, 2014) (discussing CO 2 emission reductions achievable through redispatch from steam EGUs to NGCC units).

66 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-88.22

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

For the reasons discussed above, we propose to dete rmine that Rule 4352 implements BACM and MSM for this category at this t ime. We recommend, however, that SJVAPCD continue evaluating the techn ical and economic feasibility of the following measure in the future:

a. Consider the technical and economic feasibility of requiring those sources currently burning “other solid fuels” to switch to cleaner fuels, such as natural gas or liquid fuel.

e. Glass Melting Furnaces

1. Overview

Section C.14 (beginning page C-102) discusses the S JVAPCD rule for these sources. Rule 4354, Glass Melting Furnaces , establishes NO x , VOC, SO x and PM 10 emission limits and related operational requiremen ts that all units must meet. SJVAPCD states that this rule implement s BACM and MSM. Specifically, the District states that the emission limits in Rule 4354 “require
the installation of the best available NO x technology (i.e., oxy-fuel firing or SCR systems).” 67

The following are key points drawn from SJVAPCD’s a nalysis that support the
District’s BACM/MSM determination.

2. Comparison to Analogous Control Measures in Othe r Areas

Rule 4354 establishes mandatory NO x emission limits ranging from 1 .5 – 3.7 lb
NO x /ton glass and SO x emission limits of 0.9 to 1.7 lb SO x /ton glass, depending on glass product and averaging time. 68 According to SJVAPCD, this rule has been improved many times and these li mits are at least as stringent as state and federal regulations and guid ance, including federal NESHAP, MACT and NSPS standards, and EPA ACT guidan ce. 69 In addition, section C.14 compares the emission limits in Rule 4354 with analogous prohibitory rules from other nonattainmen t areas that generally have among the most stringent requirements in the c ountry, including SCAQMD Rule 1117 (4.0 lb/ton) 70 and BAAQMD Rule 9-12 (5.5 lb/ton

67 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-102.

68 1.5 lb/ton on a 30 day rolling average for contain er glass; 3.7 lb/ton on a 24-hour block average and 3.2 lb/ton on a 30-day rolling for flat glass (standard ); 3.4 lb/ton on a 24-hour block average and 2.9 lb /ton on a 30-day rolling for flat glass (enhanced).

69 Ibid, pages C-103 and C-104.

70 Comparison to SCAQMD Rule 1117 here is relevant bu t of limited use because Rule 1117 was last revised in 1984 and SCAQMD sources are subject to R ECLAIM and have RTC allocations based on a 2000/2005 1.2 lb/ton BARCT determination, less than allowed under Rule 1117. In addition, SCAQMD indicates that the two affected glass facilities in 2011 emitted a combined 0.30 tpd NO x , which is23 averaged over a 3 hour period), and states that SJV APCD “found no requirements that were more stringent than those al ready in Rule 4354.”

In 2013, EPA approved Rule 4354 as fulfilling ozone RA CT requirements under CAA §182(b)(2). 71

We are not aware of prohibitory rules for glass mel ting furnaces in other areas that are more stringent than Rule 4354.

3. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternative C ontrol Techniques

SJVAPCD evaluates the possibility of lowering Rule 4354’s SO x limits for container glass melting furnaces consistent with SJ VAPCD’s permit BACT

limit from 0.9 and 1.1 lb SO x per ton of glass to 0.8 lb. SJVAPCD states that “[b]ecause emissions are averaged across furnaces, EPA requires that there be a 10% air quality benefit, meaning that the over all limit for multiple furnaces be 10% less than the limit for a single fu rnace.” 72 The District also states that lowering the SO x limit in Rule 4354 to 0.8 lbs would “extend beyond BACT” and would not be feasible because of t his requirement for a 10% air quality benefit. 73

We note that the 10% “air quality benefit” factor t he District refers to is not an EPA requirement but a recommended measure of enviro nmental benefit for purposes of evaluating an economic incentive progra m. 74 Although EPA continues to recommend that rules allowing for aver aging of emissions across multiple units achieve added air quality benefits c ompared to rules that establish source-specific limits, this recommendati on does not provide a basis for excluding a potentially feasible control measur e from consideration as BACM or MSM. We encourage SJVAPCD to more specifica lly consider the technical and economic feasibility of lowering the SO x limit in the rule to 0.8 lb per ton of glass, with or without averaging across emission units.

SJVAPCD also asserts that the NO x emission limits in Rule 4354 effectively require implementation of the best available NO x control in oxy-fuel firing or SCR systems. The District did not provide additiona l analysis regarding these and other potential control technologies to support this assertion, but at this time we do not have information contradicting it. I n the most recent District staff report addressing emission limits in this rul e, SJVAPCD identified three

consistent with the 2000/2005 1.2 lb/ton assumption for BARCT. See NO x RECLAIM Working Group Meeting, April 29, 2015. Available on slide 8 at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/Proposed-Rules/regxx/nox-reclaim_wgm_042915b.p df?sfvrsn=2

71 See 78 FR 6740, January 31, 2013.

72 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-105.

73 Id.

74 See 2001 EIP Guidance, Section 4.3 (“All EIPs must demo nstrate environmental benefit. This demonstration can show ... more emission reductions ( of HAPs or criteria pollutants) than would have happened without the EIP”).24 types of controls that might further reduce NO x emissions from this category,

which should be further considered in the future: 75

A. Using a different refining agent (raw materials)

.

B. Changing the combustion process.

C. Adding post combustion controls.

We note that source-specific NO x BACT determinations for container glass

facilities in the SJV have led to NO x limits of 1.3 lb/ton 76 , which are currently being implemented. Additionally, we recommend that SJVAPCD further analyze the potential for additional NO x control by lowering the emission level for container glass melting furnaces consistent wit h SCAQMD’s RECLAIM

BARCT determinations

. 77 RECLAIM regulates container glass furnaces in the SCAQMD, but allows sources to comply with their emi ssion allowances by purchasing RTCs. 78 SCAQMD’s BARCT determinations are the basis for establishing RTC allowances for each source. The 20 00/2005 NO x BARCT

determination 79 of 1.2 lb/ton for container glass melting furnaces is more stringent than the analogous Rule 4354 limit and is already accounted for in current RTC allowances, while RECLAIM’s 2015 BARCT determination (80%

reduction 80 ) will further reduce available RTC allowances. We recommend that SJVAPCD analyze the feasibility of controls eq uivalent to those considered by SCAQMD in establishing BARCT. But at this time, absent information about how affected sources comply with the available RECLAIM compliance options, it is not clear that the lower NO x emission levels identified
in SCAQMD’s 2015 BARCT determination are technicall y and economically feasible for glass melting furnaces in SJV. 81

In addition, we recommend that SJVAPCD further ana lyze the potential for
additional NO x emission reductions by requiring flat glass source s to comply

75 See Staff Report for Rule 4354, SJVAPCD, September 16, 2010, page 13.

76 See e.g. Application # N-1662-2-17; Project # N-114110 7, dated October 20, 2014.

77 See Presentation for NO x RECLAIM Working Group Meeting, April 29, 2015. Ava ilable on slide 8 at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/P roposed-Rules/regxx/noxreclaim_wgm_042915b.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

78 See footnote 16 above.

79 See Presentation for NO x RECLAIM Working Group Meeting, April 29, 2015. Ava ilable on slide 8 at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/P roposed-Rules/regxx/noxreclaim_wgm_042915b.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

80 See Presentation for NO x RECLAIM Working Group Meeting, April 29, 2015. Ava ilable on slide 8 at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/P roposed-Rules/regxx/noxreclaim_wgm_042915b.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

81 Although it appears that, on average, 2011 emissio ns from the two SCAQMD facilities was consistent with 2000/2005 BARCT, we do not have compliance inf ormation for each of the facilities at this time. See

NO x RECLAIM Working Group Meeting, April 29, 2015. Ava ilable on slide 8 at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/P roposed-Rules/regxx/noxreclaim_wgm_042915b.pdf?sfvrsn=2.25 with the Tier 4 “Enhanced Option” lower emission li mits (3.4 lb/ton block 24- hour average and 2.9 rolling 30-day average) that a re provided in Rule 4354 as an option in exchange for a delayed compliance d eadline.

4. Emission Inventory

SJVAPCD states that NO x and PM 2.5 emissions from glass melting furnaces are lower than the District’s selected BACM/MSM sig nificance thresholds but
the SO x emissions from this category are above the Distric t’s selected BACM/MSM significance thresholds. 82 SJVAPCD identifies only eight 83 sources subject to this rule, but estimates their c ombined total emissions at 4.08 tpd NO x in 2015 and 4.38 tpd in 2020; 0.36 tpd PM 2.5 in 2015 and 0.40 tpd in 2020, and 1.87 tpd SO x in 2015 and 1.98 tpd in 2020.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

For the reasons discussed above, we propose to find that Rule 4354 establishes BACM and MSM control requirements for t his source category at this time. We recommend, however, that SJVAPCD con tinue evaluating the technical and economic feasibility of the following measures in the future:

A. Requiring a NO x emission level of 1.2 lb/ton for container glass m elting furnaces, consistent with SCAQMD’s 2000/2005 RECLAI M BARCT

determination.

B. Requiring a NO x emission level of 1.3 lb/ton for container glass m elting furnaces, consistent with permitted limits in SJV.

C. Requiring a NO x reduction of 80% reduction for container glass mel ting furnaces, consistent with SCAQMD’s 2015 RECLAIM BAR CT

determination.

D. Requiring all flat glass units to comply with th e Tier 4 “Enhanced Option”

in Rule 4354.

E. Further reducing NO x emissions by: (a) using a different refining agent (raw materials); (b) changing the combustion proces s; and/or (c) adding post combustion controls.

F. Requiring a SO x emission level of 0.8 lb/ton glass with reasonable averaging, consistent with permit BACT.

82 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-103.

83 According to the April 17, 2006 Rule 4354 Staff Re port (at page C-4), there are three flat glass manufacturers, three container glass manufacturers, and two fiberglass manufacturers in SJV.26

f. Conservation Management Practices

1. Overview

Section C.15 (beginning page C-106) discusses SJVAP CD Rule 4550, which applies to on-field crop and animal operations. 84 Rule 4550, Conservation Management Practices, establishes requirements for owner/operators to implement conservation management practices (CMPs) to control PM 10 . For each agricultural site, owner/operators must select and implement one CMP per category and submit a CMP application for Distr ict review and approval. For example, the cropland categories are land prepa ration/cultivation, harvest and other; and the dairy categories are corral/manu re handling and overall management/feeding. 85 In addition, all operations must implement at leas t one CMP for unpaved roads and one for unpaved vehic le/equipment traffic areas. In February 2006, EPA approved Rule 4550 as satisfying BACM requirements for the control of PM 10

. 86

The following summarizes key points drawn from SJVA PCD’s analysis that support the District’s BACM/MSM determination.

2. Comparison to Analogous Control Measures in Othe r Areas

According to SJVAPCD, Rule 4550 is the most stringe nt rule of its kind. The District compares Rule 4550 to rules from other air districts and states, including Imperial County Air Pollution Control Dis trict (ICAPCD) Rule 806, 87 and Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R18-2-610 and 611 (AgBMP Rules). 88 SJVAPCD also states that Rule 4550 is more string ent than SCAQMD’s “agricultural best management practices pr ogram,” 89 and SMAQMD Rule 215, although the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan does not provide a comparative analysis for them.

84 Adopted May 20, 2004, re-adopted August 19, 2004.

85 Poultry Operations have three CMP categories and b eef feedlots have two CMP categories. See Rule 4550 “List of Conservation Management Practices,” A ugust 19, 2004.

86 See 71 FR 7683, February 14, 2006.

87 EPA approved April 22, 2013, 78 FR 23677.

88 EPA approved October 11, 2001 (66 FR 51869). The State of Arizona has since revised these rules to include additional requirements. The Governor’s AgBMP Committee is in the process of further revising these rules for submittal to EPA. See 2014 AgBMP Co mmittee Meeting Agendas and Minutes, https://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/plan/abmp.html.

89 SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust, section (g) allows a n exemption for agricultural crop operations provided that the owner implements the conservation practices specified in the Rule 403 Agricultural Handbook (for operations within the South Coast Air Basin) or the Rule 403 Coachella Valley Agricultur al Handbook (for areas outside the South Coast Air Bas in). The Agricultural Handbooks contain conservation practice requirements, with categories for active sites, inactive sites, farm yard areas, track out, unpaved roads and storage piles. Operations th at do not implement the Agricultural Handbook requirements become subject to Rule 403 requirement s.27 Rule 4550 includes several significant requirements that other rules cited do not contain. For example, in addition to requiring that owner/operators keep records of the selected CMPs, Rule 4550 requires th at owner/operators submit a CMP application for SJVAPCD review and app roval. The CMP application must include details regarding the CMPs selected, such as the extent and duration of CMP implementation and other information needed by

the District to calculate emission reductions. 90 In contrast, ICAPCD Rule 806 does not have an application and approval process, although more specific requirements for CMP implementation are written int o the rule definitions. 91 Rule 4550 also requires owner/operators to maintain records for five years, including CMP applications and plans, confirmation of CMP implementation, and demonstrations for claimed exemptions. 92 Rules in other areas have less stringent or no apparent recordkeeping requirements

.

SJVAPCD also states that Rule 4550 is more stringen t in other ways. For example, the District states that Rule 4550 applies to crop and animal operations, while ICAPCD Rule 806 and Arizona Secti on 49-457 only apply to crops. We note, however, that ICAPCD has a separate Rule 420, Livestock

Feed Yards , that regulates PM emissions from animal facilitie s, 93 and the Arizona State Legislature revised A.R.S §49-457 to add requirements for dairy, beef cattle feedlot, poultry and swine facil ities. 94

SJVAPCD also states that Rule 4550 is equivalent or more stringent than ICAPCD Rule 806 regarding conservation tillage CMPs . Rule 806 encourages the use of conservation tillage by making the conse rvation tillage CMP equivalent to three CMPs, whereas, under Rule 4550, growers that choose the conservation tillage CMP must implement two add itional CMPs (i.e., one in each of the harvest and other CMP categories). W hile Rule 4550 requires more CMPs in this instance, we recognize the value of incentivizing conservation tillage as a highly effective PM contr ol and encourage the District to consider creating similar incentives to implement conservation tillage. Recent research shows the PM 2.5 control efficiency (CE) for conservation tillage at 85-90%, with slightly highe r CE for PM 10

. 95 In contrast,

90 See Rule 4550 section 3.9.

91 For example, ICAPCD Rule 806 and SCAQMD Rule 403 A gricultural Handbook set a minimum standard of 60% coverage for the “Cover Crop” CMP. In contrast, Rule 4550 describes “Cover Crop” as “Use seeding or natural vegetation/regrowth of plan ts to cover soil surface,” but does not specify whe ther implementation requires 100% coverage or something far less. Similarly, several Rule 806 CMPs specifically require the reduction of at least one ground or tilling operation (see, e.g., sections C. 7, C.12, C.28). This minimum requirement is not specified in analogous Rule 4550 CMPs.

92 See Rule 4550, section 6.5. ICAPCD Rule 806 has a two-y ear recordkeeping requirement and South Coast 403 Agricultural Handbook does not specify a timeframe for keeping records.

93 Approved by EPA on February 26, 2003 (68 FR 8839).

94 See Arizona State Legislature, A.R.S.49-457, section P .1.e and P.5.a, available at http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/ 49/00457.htm&Title=49&DocType=ARS.

95 See California Spring 2008 Tillage Campaign: Data Analy sis, Space Dynamics Laboratory, Utah State University Research Foundation, Document Number SDL /08-556, June 21, 2013.28 a grower could comply with Rule 4550 by implementin g three CMPs each with a 10% CE. In this case, the number of CMPs req uired by Rule 4550 would be higher, but the overall PM control could b e lower. 96

In other respects, other programs include measures that Rule 4550 does not contain. For example, the ICAPCD and SCAQMD rules include mandatory

windblown dust controls for inactive or fallowed la nd. ICAPCD Rule 860 requires growers to minimize time that newly tilled soil is smooth and dry prior to planting, and to implement windblown dust contro ls for fallowed land. 97 SCAQMD Rule 403’s Agricultural Handbook requires th at owners cease activities and implement an additional windblown du st CMP when winds exceed 25 mph. It also requires windblown dust cont rols for inactive cropland. 98 In contrast, windblown dust controls are an option in Rule 4550, but not a requirement.

While the SJVAPCD, ICAPCD, SCAQMD and Arizona progr ams include many similar CMPs and requirements, a direct compar ison between them is complicated by the different rule structures and gr eat variability in the operations of the affected growers. 99 For example, other rules differ in the number of required CMPs, treatment of windblown dus t, treatment of conservation tillage and specificity of CMP definit ions, among other things. We encourage SJVAPCD to consider all of these facto rs during its next rulemaking process on Rule 4550. On balance, howev er, we find that Rule 4550 is at least as stringent as the analogous rule s implemented elsewhere, in particular given its requirements concerning sub mittal and approval of applications and related compliance requirements. 100

96 We also note that other rules require more CMPs tha n Rule 4550, which requires five CMPs for each agricultural crop operation. In 2007, the Arizona Legislature revised Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S .) §49-457 in Section 14 of Senate Bill 1552 to requir e two Best Management Practices (BMP) for each category in a serious nonattainment area (a total o f six BMPs). ICAPCD Rule 806 requires six CMPs for crop operations, and SCAQMD Rule 403’s agricultural handbook requires nine CMPs. In many cases, however, implementation of Rule 4550’s CMPs may be more effective because, for example, of the application review and approval process.

97 See ICAPCD Rule 806, section E.6.

98 Rule 403 Agricultural Handbook, Measures to Reduce Dust from Agricultural Operations in the South Coast Air Basin, South Coast Air Quality Management District, December 1998, See Sections II.1 Active

Conservation Practices and II.2 Inactive Conservati on Practices.

99 The San Joaquin Valley has 992,479 acres of harves ted cropland, as compared to 466,877 acres in Imperial County and 197,101 acres in Maricopa Count y (Arizona. 2012, Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service). Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley grow more than 250 crops. See Vegetable Research and Information Center

, San Joaquin Valley Agriculture, University of California Cooperative Extension, available at http://vric.ucd avis.edu/virtual_tour/sanjoq.htm.

100 See Rule 4550, Section 6.1.29

3. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternativ e Control Techniques

SJVAPCD has evaluated two additional CMPs since 200 4: misting and new almond harvesting equipment. The District explains that the study presented on misting to control PM 10 generated by disking did not provide sufficient

information to demonstrate the minimum 10% reductio n in PM 10 , so it was not added to the CMP list. A 2010/2011 study showed tha t the use of newer almond harvesting equipment achieved significant PM 10 reductions. However,
the District did not revise the CMP lists in Rule 4 550 as use of newer almond harvesting equipment is already listed under an exi sting CMP category.

SJVAPCD also considered requiring windblown dust co ntrols, but determined that they would not substantially impact the area’s PM 2.5 design values for the following reasons: windblown dust events typically occur during the spring and fall seasons, and are less likely during summer and winter; PM 2.5 concentrations rarely become elevated during wind e vents; PM 2.5 values recorded during winter stagnation periods are usual ly much higher than those recorded during wind events; PM 2.5 values are driven by winter-time concentrations due to organic carbon and formation of ammonium nitrate; and the geologic component of peak PM 2.5 concentration is a fraction of the mass formed by secondary processes and other sources. 101

Recently, the SJV has experienced recurring high wi nd dust events with numerous high wind dust flagged data for PM 10 and PM 2.5 , some of which

have also resulted in exceedances for PM 2.5 . Crustal/geologic material, while not the majority of PM 2.5 , represents a significant component of the total P M 2.5 mass, especially in spring through fall. 102 Based on the number of days that the District flagged for PM 2.5 as being influenced by high wind, we recommend that SJVAPCD revisit the feasibility and effectiveness of requiring windblown dust controls on significant sources, inc luding agricultural

sources. 103

4. Commitment for Further Analysis

SJVAPCD has submitted a commitment to evaluate all feasible opportunities for additional emissions reductions, if any, throug h implementation of Rule 4550 and other regulations. 104 The District has committed to conduct this evaluation and to have a draft report available for public review and

101 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-110.

102 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-109. “Further review of V alley research on PM 2.5 /PM 10 ratios shows a consistent mid-point estimate of 0.1 0.”

103 From 2010-2014 (5 years), there were 36 days when one or more PM2.5 monitors were flagged as being influenced by high winds in SJVACPD. See Sept ember 4, 2015 USEPA Raw Data Qualifier Reports, Report Request ID: 1366988, Report Code: A MP360 and Report Request ID: 1366985, Report
Code: AMP360.

104 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 8, section 8.3.30 commenting by May 31, 2016. After addressing public comments, the District commits to finalize this report by October 15, 2016 . This evaluation will be conducted in close coordination with stakeholders, including agricultural industry representatives, ARB, EPA, NRCS, farm bure aus and others.

5. Emissions Inventory

The emissions inventory shows that farming operatio ns are the largest source

of direct PM 2.5 emissions in the Valley. The District’s 2020 winte r inventory of

direct PM 2.5 from farming operations (9.0 tpd) is 15.5% of the total direct PM 2.5 emissions (58.1 tpd). The District’s 2020 annual av erage inventory of direct

PM 2.5 from farming operations (13.7 tpd) is 21.8% of the total direct PM 2.5 emissions (62.8 tpd). However, the District states that these particulate emissions, which are geologic in nature, make up a relatively small portion of

the overall PM 2.5 concentrations. 105

SJVAPCD estimates that Rule 4550 reduced PM 10 emissions from agricultural operations by 24%, or 35.3 tpd in 2005 , its first full year of implementation. 106 & 107 The District assumes 10% of PM 10 from agricultural

sources is PM 2.5

. 108 Given this assumption, Rule 4550 would have reduce d

PM 2.5 in the Valley by approximately 3.5 tpd in 2005. To estimate emission reductions from the Rule, SJVAPCD analyzed and assi gned control efficiencies for each CMP menu option. 109 For example, the menu for the unpaved roads category includes “Restricted Access, ” and “Washed Gravel” CMPs, among others. SJVAPCD estimates 10% control e fficiency for restricted access, and 46% for washed gravel. 110 This is based on the District’s finding that application of gravel to un paved roads is four times more effective in reducing particulate emissions as rest ricting access to unpaved

roads.

SJVAPCD states that even the highest cost CMPs in R ule 4550 are costeffective at $2,500/ton of PM 10

. 111 Therefore, there may be opportunities to

further reduce PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions from Rule 4550, particularly if less effective measures are eliminated or combined, so t hat the menu options are

limited to the most effective control measures. We recognize that it took many

105 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-109.

106 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-106 (citing SJVAPCD, “Conservation Management Practices Program, Report for 2005,” January 19, 20 06 (2005 CMP Report) at page 2, available at http://www.valleyair.org/farmpermits/updates/cmp_pr ogram_report_for_2005.pdf).

107 See Rule 4550, Section 7.0, Compliance Schedule: “Unles s otherwise noted, all provisions of this rule shall be effective on and after May 20, 2004.”

108 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-109.

109 See 2005 CMP Report at page 6 and Appendix C, available at http://www.valleyair.org/farmpermits/updates/cmp_pr ogram_report_for_2005.pdf

. 110 See 2005 CMP Report, Appendix B, CMP Emissions Reductio n Methodologies, Table 3. Unpaved Area and Road Control Efficiency, page 8.

111 See SJV Rule 4550 Revised Final Staff Report, Appendix B, page B-10.31 months to develop the existing CMP lists to ensure feasible options for the wide variety of affected crops and conditions in th e Valley. Nonetheless, we encourage the District to reevaluate the available control measures given the extensive experience SJVAPCD and industry have had implementing Rule 4550 since adoption and given the remaining emissio ns from this activity.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations For the reasons discussed above, we propose to find that Rule 4550 establishes BACM and MSM control requirements for t his source category at this time. We appreciate SJVAPCD’s commitments to conduct further analysis 112 and recommend that it include the following:

A. Evaluate the use and effectiveness of each compl iance option in the CMP lists, based on submitted CMP plans, compliance and enforcement records and reports, and other available documentat ion.

B. Identify, for potential removal from the CMP lis ts, any CMPs that have minimal environmental benefits, based on the evalua tions described

above in 6.A.

C. Identify, for potential addition to the CMP list s, new CMPs that may effectively reduce PM emissions from agricultural o perations.

D. Identify potential rule revisions to strengthen Rule 4550’s control requirements, including incorporating mandatory win d-blown dust control measures, provisions to require or incentivize the use of conservation tillage, and provisions that would make certain mit igation measures mandatory for certain types of sources.

E. Identify, for potential revision to the CMP list s, minimum standards to strengthen the enforceability and/or efficacy of ce rtain CMPs (e.g., “cover crop” must establish at least 60% coverage).

F. For each potential revision identified in 6.B-F above, evaluate the technical feasibility of implementation in the SJV, and evaluate the costs of implementation in the SJV.

G. For each potential revision identified in 6.B-F, calculate potential PM emission reductions from a specified baseline emiss ions inventory.

112 See Chapter 8, section 8.3, Rule 4550 Conservation Mana gement Practices.32

g. Commercial Charbroiling

1. Overview

Section C.16 (beginning page C-115) discusses SJVAP CD Rule 4692 as it relates to two types of commercial charbroiling dev ices: chain-driven and
under-fired. SJVAPCD estimates chain-driven charbro ilers account for 42% of its charbroiling inventory, and under-fired for 58%

. 113 Air emissions from these operations include water vapor, VOCs and PM. SJVAPCD explains that larger PM particles and grease are typically captur ed by grease filters in ventilation hoods, and the remaining VOCs and PM 2.5 are exhausted outside the restaurant unless a secondary control device is used.

SJVAPCD explains that chain-driven charbroilers are semi-enclosed with mechanical chains that automatically move food thro ugh the cooking device. Rule 4692 requires that chain-driven charbroilers b e equipped and operated with a catalytic oxidizer to oxidize VOCs and PM 10 in the exhaust stream to
CO 2 and water vapor. SJVAPCD estimated that the origin ally adopted Rule

4692 reduced PM 2.5 emissions from chain-driven charbroilers by 84% an d the September 2009 amendment expanded the rule’s applic ability and reduced 25% of the remaining PM 2.5 chain-driven charbroiler emissions. 114

Under-fired charbroilers operate differently than c hain-driven charbroilers, and have a stationary cooking surface similar to a home barbecue with a heavyduty grill over gas burners, electric heating eleme nts, or wood to cook the food. SJVAPCD states that controlling emissions fro m under-fired charbroilers has proven far more challenging and to date, no cos t effective technologies

have been demonstrated. 115

SJVAPCD concludes that Rule 4692 implements the mos t stringent control

measures feasible at this time for both chain-drive n and under-fired operations, and therefore satisfies both BACM and M SM for this source category. EPA approved Rule 4692 into the SIP in 20 11. 116 The following summarizes key points from SJVAPCD’s analysis that support the District’s
BACM/MSM determination.

113 See SJVAPCD 2012 PM 2.5 Plan, December 20, 2012, Appendix D page D-112, av ailable at http://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2012/12 -20- 12PM25/FinalVersion/14AppendixDStationaryandArea.pd f.

114 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-115. The 2009 amendment i ncreased the number of regulated charbroilers by lowering the exemption th reshold from 875 to 400 lb of meat cooked/week.

115 Ibid.

116 See 76 FR 68103, November 3, 2011. Rule 4692 is not sub ject to specific ozone RACT control requirements of CAA 182(b)(2) and (f) since it is n ot subject to a CTG and the SJVAPCD has no major

VOC/NOx charbroiler sources.33

2. Comparison to Analogous Control Measures in Othe r Areas

Rule 4692 requires that chain-driven charbroilers b e equipped and operated with a catalytic oxidizer with a control efficiency of at least 83% for PM 10 and
86% for VOC emissions.

According to SJVAPCD, there are no federal CTG, ACT , NSPS, NESHAP, or MACT standards and no State regulations for this ca tegory. We agree there are no federal or California State regulations that specifically address PM emissions from this category.

SJVAPCD also compared Rule 4692 to SCAQMD Rule 1138

, Control of Emissions from Restaurant Operations ; VCAPCD 74.25, Restaurant Cooking Operations ; and BAAQMD Regulation 6 Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment ; and concluded that it found no requirements in SC AQMD Rule 1138 or VCAPCD Rule 74.25 more stringent than those already in Rule 4692. We agree with this evaluation.

Section C.16 states that BAAQMD, Regulation 6 Rule 2 regulates both chaindriven and under-fired charbroilers. For new and ex isting under-fired

charbroilers with more than 10 ft 2 of cooking area, the BAAQMD rule limits

emissions to 1 lb PM 10 per 1,000 lb beef cooked. Restaurants are required to
install an emission control device that is certifie d to comply with Regulation 6 Rule 2. SJVAPCD points out, however, that a signifi cant portion of under-fired charbroilers in the BAAQMD are below the applicabil ity threshold for the size of grill and amount of food cooked and that “BAAQMD has been unable to enforce this rule because no control technologies h ave been certified.” 117 Based on these evaluations, SJVAPCD concludes that Rule 4692 is effectively more stringent than the BAAQMD rule.

Except as discussed above for BAAQMD, we are not aw are of prohibitory

rules for charbroilers in other areas that are more stringent than Rule 4692.

3. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternativ e Control Techniques

According to SJVAPCD, catalytic oxidizers that are effective for chain-driven

charbroilers are not effective for under-fired char broilers because the exhaust stream cools too much prior to reaching the catalyt ic oxidizer. The catalyst

117 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-116. Also see BAAQMD Comp liance Advisory, Under-fired Charbroilers: Upcoming Requirements, January 18, 20 13, which states “At the present time, there are no certified control devices available in the Bay Area . However, testing of several control devices is in process.” Available at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/compliance-andenforcement/advisories/restaurants/under-fired-char broiler-advisory-final-1-18-13.pdf?la=en.34 needs the exhaust stream to be maintained at a high temperature in order to operate effectively. 118

SJVAPCD discusses the following control strategies as being potentially more effective for under-fired charbroilers: high effici ency particulate-arresting filtration systems, electrostatic precipitators, an d wet scrubbers. However,
SJVAPCD adds that in its December 2009 amendment of Rule 4692, these controls were determined to be unproven and extreme ly costly. 119 SJVAPCD notes that technology has continued to develop sinc e 2009 and it expects to begin demonstration of some of the above control te chnologies by mid-2015.

It states that manufacturers of these emission cont rols estimate the initial capital costs of feasible control technologies will range from $40,000 to over $100,000, and monthly operation and maintenance cos ts will range from a

few thousand to tens of thousands of dollars. 120 The District states that it will examine all potential opportunities for further emi ssions reductions.

We are not aware of cost effective emission reducti on technologies for underfired charbroilers that have been demonstrated or a chieved in practice.

4. Commitment for Further Analysis

Since 2009, SJVAPCD has attempted to test and demon strate PM controls for under-fired charbroilers. In October 2009, SJVA PCD established its Charbroiler Incentive Program (ChIP), which allocat ed $500,000 to retrofit

commercial under-fired charbroilers with VOC/PM 10 controls. 121 The District reported that even though the incentive program was extended to March 2011 and outreach efforts were increased, no application s for funding were

submitted. 122 The District also partnered with SCAQMD, BAAQMD an d EPA Region 9 to further research and evaluate control t echnologies and costs of various off-the-shelf and prototype PM control tech nologies for under-fired charbroilers. The University of California at River side’s Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT) rec eived funding of over $500,000 provided by SCAQMD, BAAQMD and EPA fo r screening tests and full protocol emissions testing.

To date, CE-CERT has tested and provided preliminar y emission test results for several technologies including: multiple stage rooftop filtration, in-hood two

118 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-117.

119 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-118, and Final Staff Repo rt for Amendments to Rule 4692, Page 2 and Appendix C, October 8, 2009. SJVAPCD pro vides costs ranging from $37,500 to $104,000, with a cost effectiveness of $22,300 to $58,200 per ton of PM 2.5 reduced.

120 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-118.

121 http://www.valleyair.org/recent_news/Media_releases /2010/News%20release%20-

%20Air%20District%20offers%20charbroiler%20incentiv es.pdf and http://www.valleyair.org/grant_programs/ChIP/ChIP%2 0Guidelines%20100308.pdf

. 122 See SJVAPCD 2012 PM 2.5 Plan, December 20, 2012, Appendix D, page D-109.35 stage baffle filters, rooftop exhaust conditioning and inertial separation, electrostatic precipitator/activated carbon cells, and ceramic filtration with microwave regeneration. 123

SJVAPCD’s 2012 PM 2.5 Plan states that extending the applicability of Ru le

4692 to include under-fired charbroilers could furt her reduce PM 2.5 by 20% (0.4 tpd), and as part of that plan, the District h as committed to amend Rule 4692 in 2016 to add requirements for under-fired ch arbroilers, with an anticipated compliance date of 2017. 124

In June 2015, the SJVAPCD Governing Board approved $750,000 for its Restaurant Charbroiler Technology Partnership progr am to fund PM control technology demonstration projects for under-fired c harbroilers at Valley

restaurants. 125 The District’s funding would include the full purc hase cost, installation, operation, maintenance, and other cos ts such as modifications to existing system configurations and structural reinf orcements.

The Plan states that as part of its 2016 rule amend ment process, the District will examine all potential opportunities for furthe r emissions reductions from this source category. 126

5. Emission Inventory

SJVAPCD provides a PM 2.5 emissions inventory for commercial charbroiling sources subject to Rules 4692 (2.97 tpd PM 2.5 in 2015 and 3.31 tpd PM 2.5 in 2020). No NO x or SO x emissions are listed for this category.

6. Conclusion

Rule 4692 implements the most stringent measures ad opted or demonstrated to be technically and economically feasible for com mercial chain-driven charbroilers. We are not aware of more stringent co ntrol measures for underfired charbroilers that have been achieved in pract ice. 127

123 See Commercial Cooking Emissions Control, University of California, Riverside, June 11, 2015,

available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/aqm p/control-strategy-symposium/pm2-5- welch.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

124 See SJVAPCD 2012 PM 2.5 Plan, December 20, 2012, Chapter 5 page 5-22. This section also states that modeling shows reducing emissions from under-f ired charbroiling by 20% in Kern County is necessary for attainment; also discussed in SJVAPCD ’s 2015 PM 2.5 Plan page C-119.

125 See Action Summary Minutes, SJVAPCD Governing Board, Th ursday, June 18, 2015, pages 5-7. http://www.valleyair.org/Board_meetings/GB/agenda_m inutes/Minutes/2015/GB-Minutes_June.pdf

. 126 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-119.

127 While BAAQMD has adopted a rule that is more strin gent on paper, it does not define MSM as no sources have been shown to comply with it.36 For the reasons discussed above, we propose to find that Rule 4692 establishes BACM/MSM control requirements for this source category at this

time.

h. Internal Combustion Engines

1. Overview

Section C.17 (beginning page C-120) discusses the S JVAPCD rule for these sources. Rule 4702, Internal Combustion Engines establishes NO x , CO, VOC, and SO x emission limits and related operational requiremen ts that all units must meet. The rule contains separate emissi on limits for spark-ignited internal combustion (IC) engines used in agricultur al operations (SI AO engines), spark-ignited IC engines used in non-agri cultural operations (SI non-AO engines), and compression-ignited IC engines . For some engines, the rule also establishes more stringent limits, bu t allows sources to comply by paying a fee in lieu of meeting the lower limits

.

SJVAPCD concludes that Rule 4702, as amended Novemb er 2013, implements BACM and MSM for this source category. The following summarizes key points drawn largely from SJVAPCD’s analysis that support
a BACM/MSM determination based on the 2013 amended version of Rule 4702, which EPA proposed to approve into the Califo rnia SIP on December 2,

2015. 128 EPA approved a prior version of Rule 4702 into the California SIP on January 10, 2008. 129

2. Comparison to Analogous Control Measures in Othe r Areas

A. Spark-Ignited Engines Used Exclusively in Non-Ag ricultural Operations (non-AO engines)

Rule 4702, as amended January 2007, required all SI non-AO engines rated at >50 bhp to meet NO x emission limits ranging from 25 to 75 ppmv, as provided in Table 1 of the rule. 130 In January 2008, EPA determined that Rule 4702 (as amended January 2007) implemente d BACM/BACT for IC engines and approved the rule into the SIP. 131 In August 2011, the District added to the rule a new Table 2 containing the same NO x emission limits as in Table 1 but also including a lower NO x emission limit of 11 ppmv for all SI non-AO “rich-burn” and “lean-burn” engine types not specifically listed in Table 2. 132 Table 2 of the rule, as amended August

128 80 FR 75442 (December 2, 2015).

129 73 FR 1819 (January 10, 2008).

130 SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended January 18, 2007, a t section 5.1 and Table 1.

131 73 FR 1819, January 10, 2008.

132 SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended August 18, 2011, at Table 2.37 2011, specifically lists three types of rich-burn e ngines and three types of lean-burn engines, which remain subject to the NO x emission limits in Table 1 (ranging from 25 to 75 ppmv). 133 All other SI non-AO engines rated at >50 bhp are subject to the 11 ppmv limit i n accordance with the compliance schedule specified in Section 7.5 of the rule, unless the source operator either: (1) pays an annual fee to t he District in accordance with sections 5.6 and 7.6 of the rule, or (2) elect s to implement an alternative emission control plan pursuant to secti on 8.0 of the rule. 134 In
November 2013, the District revised Table 2 to add “waste gas fueled” engines to the list of lean-burn engines subject to a 65 ppmv NO x emission limit but retained all other emission limi ts in Table 1 and Table 2 as adopted August 2011. 135 Thus, under the November 2013 version of Rule 4702, all SI non-AO engines rated at >50 bhp m ust, at minimum, comply with the NO x emission limits in Table 1 (which are identical to the applicable limits in the SIP-approved rule), and on ly those engine types not specifically listed in Table 2 are subject to t he more stringent 11 ppmv

NO x emission limit or an alternative compliance requir ement. 136 We are not aware of any emission limitation lower than 11 ppmv for spark-ignited IC engines that has been adopted and/or achieved in practice. The following Table H-1 compares the emission limits in Table 1 and Table 2 of Rule 4702 to analogous limits implemented by oth er California agencies and contained in federal or state requirements or g uidance.

Table H-1: NO x emission limits for Non-AO Spark Ignited Engines

Rich Burn Lean Burn Notes

District and

Rule Amendment

Year waste

gas

(ppmv) cyclic

loaded
/field

gas (ppmv) all

other
(ppmv) two

stroke,

gaseous

fueled
(ppmv) all

others
(ppmv) Additional

notes

SJV Rule

4702 Table 1 2011

50 50 25 75 65

SJV Rule

4702 Table 2 2011

50 50 11 75 11 can pay fee in

lieu of control

Bay Area 2007 70 25 65 or 70 70 for waste gas

133 Id.

134 Id. at section 5.2.2.

135 SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, at Table 2.

136 Id. at section 5.2.1; see also SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended January 18, 2007, at section 5.1.38

Rule 9

- 8

South Coast

Rule 1110.2 2008

11 11

Sacramento

Rule 412 1995
50 (RACT) or 25 (BARCT) 125 (RACT) or 65

(BARCT)

Feather

River Rule

3.22 2014

90/25 150/65 attainment/non

attainment

Placer Rule

242 2003
90 150/300 > 100 hp/ < 100

hp

Mojave Rule

1160 1994

50 140

Ventura

Rule 74.9 2005

50 25 45 or 125 125 for waste

gas

San Diego

Rule 69.4.1 2000 125
(RACT)

or 50
(BARCT) 50

(RACT)

or 25
(BARCT) 125 (RACT) or 65

(BARCT)

El D orado

Rule 233 2006

25 65

Antelope

Valley Rule

1110.2 2003

36 ppm or alternative using equation

RACT/BARCT

Guidance 2001

50
(BARCT) 300

(RACT

and

BARCT) 50

(RACT)

or 25
(BARCT) 200

(RACT

and

BARCT) 125

(RACT)

or 65
(BARCT)

NSPS JJJJ 146 82 lowest limits

listed in this

table, as there

are different

limits for

different sized

engines

The emission limits in Table 1 and Table 2 of SJVUA PCD Rule 4702 are generally equivalent to or lower than analogous lim its in other California39 district rules, with the exception of SCAQMD Rule 1 110.2, El Dorado Rule 233, and Antelope Valley Rule 1110.2. Based on the comparison of Table 1 limits (and associated analysis) to the other loc al, State and federal guidance and regulations, we propose to find that R ule 4702 implements

BACT for NO x control.

B. Spark-Ignited Engines used Exclusively in Agricu ltural Operations (AO)

Rule 4702 contains separate limits for AO engines i n Table 3 of the rule which are compared to several relevant analogous ru les in Table H-2

below:

Table H-2: NO x Emission Limits for Agricultural Operation IC Engi nes

District Amendment

Year Rich Burn SparkIgnited IC Engine Lean Burn SparkIgnited IC Engine San Joaquin Rule 4702 2013 90 ppmv 150 ppmv South Coast Rule 1110.2 2008* 11 ppmv 11 ppmv Bay Area Rule 9-8

Fossil/waste fuel 2007 Exempts AO engines Exempts AO engines

Sacramento Rule 412 1995* Exempts AO engines Exempt s AO engines

Feather River Rule 3.22

Attainment/Nonattainment (exempts Ag sources emitting < 50% major source thresholds) 2014 90/25 ppmv 150/65 ppmv

Placer Rule 242 2003* Exempts AO engines Exempts AO engines Mojave Desert Rule

1160.1 2012 90 ppmv 150 ppmv

* Indicates rule is in the SIP

As shown in Table H-2, regarding spark-ignited AO e ngines, Rule 4702 is more stringent than other analogous California air district requirements except for SCAQMD and Feather River. With respect to the South Coast’s AO engine NO x limits, we note that the SCAQMD, like SJVAPCD, has provided economic incentive grants for agricult ural engine retrofits and replacements in recognition of unique economic and technical circumstances in the agricultural industry. 137

C. Compression-Ignited Engines

Rule 4702 requires all compression-ignited engines to meet EPA’s Tier 3 or Tier 4 emission standards for nonroad engines as stated in the rule’s Table 4. Certified engines must meet tier 3 or 4 st andards, and non-

137 See SCAQMD Final Staff Report for Rule 1110.2, May 2005 , Appendix B: Incentive Funding Available for Agricultural Engine Emission Reductions.40 certified engines must meet tier 3, tier 4, or a nu merical limit based on engine size.

SCAQMD, BAAQMD and VCAPCD also set emission limits for these engines, but they are not directly comparable. Tier 3 and 4 generally require engine manufacturers to perform certificati on testing to demonstrate that engines meet gram/pollutant/kilowa tt-hour standards based on engine power. These California rules, in contrast, require engines to meet part/million pollutant standards no t dependent on power.

To compare the requirements, we calculated ppmv emi ssions equivalent to tier 4 standards using a conversion factor for u ncontrolled emissions from lean burn engines. 138 This equates the tier 4 standards to 22 - 190 ppmv NO x corrected to 15% oxygen. These limits are lower t han BAAQMD and VCAPCD’s limits except for engines above 740 bhp, and higher than SCAQMD’s limits. The Tier 3 standards address combined non-methane hydrocarbon and NO x emissions, and are not directly comparable to the BAAQMD, VCAPCD and SCAQMD rules. However, SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 does establish comparable NO x limits for noncertified engines greater than 500 bhp. Rule 4702’ s NO x limit (80 ppmv) is equal to VCAPCD’s Rule 74.9 (80 ppmv), lower than B AAQMD’s Rule 9-8 (110 ppmv), and higher than SCAQMD’s Rule 1110.2 (1 1 ppmv).

Tier 4 engines are certified to meet EPA’s most rec ent emission standards for compression ignited nonroad engines. 139 For the non-certified compression ignited engines smaller than 750 bhp th at are required to meet Tier 3 certification standards, we note that t he Tier 4 NO x emission
standards are identical to the Tier 3 NO x standards for all engines except for model years 2014 or later, which are subject to more stringent Tier 4
NO x limits. 140 We are unaware of control measures for compressio n ignited engines more stringent than EPA’s tier 4 ce rtification standards.

3. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternativ e Control Techniques

SJVAPCD summarizes its analysis of control technolo gies which could

reduce emissions to below the levels identified in Table 1 and Table 3 of the

rule. 141 The analysis considered implementing NO x limits of 11, 25, and 65

138 EPA Alternative Techniques Document – NO x emissions from Stationary Reciprocating IC engines

, EPA, July 1993, page 4-11.

139 40 CFR part 1039.

140 For further information on EPA’s emission standard s for nonroad compression-ignition engines, see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/nonroad/nonroadci .htm.

141 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, starting page C-125.41 ppmv for various types of engines. SVJAPCD also an alyzed the costs of retrofitting SI non-AO engines to meet the lower li mits. 142

A. Non-AO Spark-Ignited Engines

SJVAPCD concluded that controls down to 11 ppmv are not technically feasible at this time for SI non-AO waste gas-fuele d (rich-burn) engines as the variability in the fuel can potentially damage add-on controls. This is supported by SCAQMD’s Rule 1110.2 compliance delay 143 for meeting the 11 ppmv emission limit for landfill and digester ga s fueled engines. According to SJVAPCD, for similar reasons, it is no t generally technically feasible for SI non-AO cyclic-loaded, field-gas-fue led (rich-burn) engines to install add-on controls. Specifically, accordin g to SJVAPCD, the cyclic conditions varies the exhaust temperatures which is not ideal for add-on

controls.

According to SJVAPCD, some SI non-AO lean-burn engi nes can be retrofitted or replaced with selective catalytic re duction (SCR) based systems, and some SI non-AO rich-burn engines can b e retrofitted with NSCR, but while these engines can technically be re trofitted to meet 11 ppmv, such retrofits may not always be economically feasible. 144

SJVAPCD estimated costs for retrofitting and replac ing limited use leanburn SI non-AO engines. While SCR is technically f easible for these engines, the district concluded that they are not e conomically feasible because the cost effectiveness is $66,086/ton NO x for retrofitting limited use lean-burn SI non-AO engines and $77,564/ton NO x for replacing such engines. SJVAPCD also evaluated retrofitting limit ed use rich-burn SI non-AO engines and stated that this may be technica lly infeasible or would require substantial additional costs, and cal culated a cost effectiveness of $66,015/ton NO x

.

SJVAPCD also estimates the retrofit costs for SI no n-AO rich and lean burn engines ranging in power from 80 - 5,500 bhp. 145 Annualized retrofit costs range from $8,790 - $1,104,181 and estimates of cost effectiveness range from $11,873 - $4,284,064/ton NO x . Based on this information, SJVAPCD concluded that retrofit and replacement of engines to meet the lower emission limits is technically and economical ly feasible for some engines, but not all. As a result, the District add ed an option in Rule 4702

142 See Staff Report for Rule 4702, Appendix C, SJVAPCD, Au gust 18, 2011.

143 See SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 as amended on September 7, 2012 Table III-B.

144 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-132.

145 See Staff Report for Rule 4702, Appendix C SJVAPCD.42 to pay a fee in lieu of compliance with the 11 ppmv NO x limits in Table

2. 146

Although the new emission limits in Table 2 are not enforceable because of the option to pay fees in lieu of compliance wit h the limits (section 5.2.2.2), section 5.2.2.2.1 clearly requires that a ll engines in the fee program “shall have actual emissions not greater th an the applicable limits in Table 1 during the entire time the engine is par t of the fee payment program.” The NO x limits in Table 1 are identical to the control requirements in the SIP-approved version of Rule 47 02 (see Rule 4702 as amended January 18, 2007, section 5.1.1). We find SJVAPCD’s analyses concerning the feasibility of additional control me asures for SI non-AO engines reasonable.

B. AO Spark-Ignited Engines

SJVAPCD evaluated various scenarios and associated cost-effectiveness for controlling below Rule 4702’s emission limits o f 90 ppmv for rich-burn SI AO engines and 150 ppmv for lean-burn SI AO engi nes, including those

summarized in Table H-3.

Table H-3: Cost Effectiveness ($/ton NO x reduced) for Spark Ignited AO Engines 147

Emission

limits Rich-Burn Lean-Burn

Retrofit Replacement Retrofit Replacement 11 ppmv No analysis 59,754 55,118 76,209 25 ppmv No analysis 69,521 No analysis No analysis 65 ppmv No analysis No analysis No analysis 42,146

SJVAPCD evaluated the costs for replacing spark ign ited rich-burn AO engines to meet 11 and 25 ppmv limits. SJVAPCD did not analyze costs of retrofitting existing rich-burn SI AO engines to meet these limits (although it did evaluate retrofitting costs for th e limited use rich-burn SI non-AO engines in the same Appendix C). The Distric t calculated the costs for replacing lean-burn SI AO engines to meet the 11 and 65 ppm limits and the costs for retrofitting these engines to meet the 11 ppmv limit.

The District did not evaluate the costs of retrofit ting lean-burn SI AO engines to meet a 65 ppmv limit.

According to SJVAPCD, retrofitting SI AO engines is economically challenging for the following reasons. 148

146 SJVAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, at section 5.2 and Table 2.

147 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.17, pages C-132 - C-13 9.

148 “AO engine Retrofit analysis” attachment to email from Sheraz Gill (SJVAPCD) to Andy Steckel (USEPA), dated June 25, 2015.43 1. Adding controls requires greater engine power ou tput and associated cost. This additional cost augments higher energy needs and costs for many of these engines associated with the Californi a drought.

2. Because existing engines used in agricultural op erations have been in service for many years, adding control devices woul d require expensive engine overhaul or rebuild.

3. Lower emission limits create a narrower margin o f compliance. The AO engines would need to ensure engines are properl y maintained to ensure compliance with the lower emission limits. This can be particularly challenging for the older engines.

4. Add-on control systems must be custom designed t o each engine, and installing controls on an engine that does not run smoothly can damage existing equipment.

5. Larger catalysts used for the lower emission lim its are expensive to replace.

6. Agricultural operators cannot pass increased pro duction costs to consumers because they compete on an international basis. Therefore, costs of retrofitting puts them at an ec onomic disadvantage.

We find SJVAPCD’s analyses concerning the feasibili ty of additional control measures for SI AO engines reasonable.

C. Compression-Ignited Engines

While the district did not discuss compression igni ted engines in section C.17, Rule 4702 requires all compression-ignited en gines to meet EPA’s Tier 3 or Tier 4 emission standards for nonroad eng ines. Certified engines must meet tier 3 or 4 standards, and non-certified engines must meet tier 3, tier 4, or a numerical limit based on engine siz e. Tier 4 engines are

certified to meet EPA’s most recent emission standa rds for compression ignited nonroad engines. 149 For the non-certified compression ignited engines smaller than 750 bhp that are required to m eet Tier 3 certification standards, we note that the Tier 4 NO x emission standards are identical to
the Tier 3 NO x standards for all engines except for model years 2 014 or later, which are subject to more stringent Tier 4 N O x limits. 150 We are

149 See 40 CFR part 1039.

150 For further information on EPA’s emission standard s for nonroad compression-ignition engines, see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/nonroad/nonroadci .htm.44 unaware of control measures for compression ignited engines more stringent than EPA’s tier 4 certification standards

.

4. Emission Inventory

Section C.17 discusses the emissions impact of this rule. SJVAPCD estimates 2015 annual average emissions for the cat egory of 0.40 tpd PM 2.5 , 9.21 tpd NO x , and 0.09 tpd SO x . According to SJVAPCD, total emissions from IC engines are lower than the District’s selec ted BACM/MSM significance thresholds. 151

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

For the reasons discussed above, we propose to find that the emission limits in Table 1, Table 3, and Table 4 of Rule 4702 as am ended on November 14, 2013 and related compliance requirements implement BACM and MSM for this source category at this time. We recommend, h owever, that SJVAPCD consider the technical and economic feasibility of the following measures:

A. Removing Tables 1 and 3 and requiring all spark- ignited IC engines to comply with the emission limits in Table 2 of the r ule.

B. Structuring the emission fee in section 5.6 to i ncrease annually. The

District’s discussion of “Additional Emission Reduc tion Opportunities” (Section C.7) does not consider the possibility of increasing the emission fee to encourage more units to comply directly with the emission limits

over time. The emission fee has not been increased since rule adoption and does not increase with inflation. We suggest SJ VAPCD consider increasing fees over time to ensure that it is effe ctive as a pollution deterrent. For example, Rule 3170’s fee rate in sec tion 5.1 is adjusted to the U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index for all- urban consumers, in accordance with CAA §502(b)(3)(B)(v).

C. Revising the fee structure in section 5.6 of the rule by evaluating source compliance within each engine subcategory. We reco mmend that SJVAPCD evaluate how sources are complying with Rul e 4702 within each subcategory to determine whether changes are a ppropriate to the fee structure. If, for example, all rich burn SI e ngines with a rated brake horsepower smaller than 600hp comply with Rule 4702 by paying the fee, it might be because compliance with the emission li mits is too costly, or it might be that the fee is too low to be a useful det errent. We also note that this would be an appropriate evaluation to perform as part of a program evaluation as discussed in the EIP guidance. 152

151 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.17, page C-121.45

i. Stationary Gas Turbines

1. Overview

Section C.18 (beginning page C-142) discusses the S JVAPCD rule for these sources. Rule 4703, Stationary Gas Turbines , establishes NO x limits and related operational requirements for all units larg er than 0.3 MW. These units are mainly operated in oil and gas production and u tilities, with some also found in manufacturing and government. SJVAPCD sta tes that this rule implements BACM and MSM. The following summarizes k ey points drawn from SJVAPCD’s analysis that support the District’s BACM/MSM

determination.

2. Comparison to Analogous Control Measures in Othe r Areas

Section C.18 compares the emission limitations in R ule 4703 with other regulations, concluding that SJVAPCD “found no requ irements that were more stringent than those already in Rule 4703.” 153 Rule 4703 establishes mandatory NO x emission limits ranging from 5 - 25 ppm. 154 According to SJVAPCD, these limits are at least as stringent as state and federal regulations and guidance, including federal NESHAP, MACT and NSPS standards, and EPA ACT guidance. In addition, acco rding to SJVAPCD, they are more stringent than analogous prohibitory rules from other nonattainment areas that generally have among the most stringent requirements in the country, including SMAQMD Rule 413 (9 – 42 ppm), SC AQMD Rule 1134 (9 – 25 ppm), and VCAPCD (9 – 42 ppm). In 2009, EPA ap proved Rule 4703 as fulfilling ozone RACT requirements under CAA sectio n §182(b)(2). 155

We generally agree with the District’s demonstratio n that Rule 4703 contains emission limits that are at least as stringent as o ther regulations for stationary gas turbines.

3. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternativ e Control Measures

SJVAPCD states that “comparisons of this rule with the District, BAAQMD, and SCAQMD BACT requirements showed that some BACT emissions limits [in permits] are more stringent than Rule 4703 limi ts,” but concludes that more stringent limits are not cost effective for all sou rces. 156 According to the District, lower limits can only be achieved by cont rols that are installed in new

153 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pages C-143 to 144.

154 Depending on turbine type, see Rule 4703, Table 5-3.

155 See 74 FR 53888, October 21, 2009.

156 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-145.46 units and that “requiring the installation of entir ely new turbine systems is extremely expensive and not cost effective.”

SJVAPCD evaluated the possibility of employing SCR for units larger than 3 MW and concluded that it is not economically feasib le. SJVAPCD also evaluated the potential of EM x , and concluded that more demonstration projects using the technology are needed before it can be expected to be deployed generally throughout the SJV. 157 We do not have information at this

time that contradicts the District’s technical and economic analysis.

We note the SCAQMD has recently determined BARCT to be 2 ppm for stationary turbines. 158 SCAQMD’s RECLAIM program regulates turbines from

various industries within the South Coast air basin , but allows sources to comply with allocations by purchasing RTCs. 159 The BARCT determinations are the basis for the RTC allowances, and the 2015 BARCT determination will impact future RTC allowances. This latest BARCT det ermination was completed within the last year and it is not yet cl ear whether SCAQMD sources will comply with it by reducing emissions o r by buying RTCs.

We do not have information indicating that the 2 pp m BARCT limit is technically and economically feasible for implement ation in the SJV at this time. We recommend that SJVAPCD evaluate the potent ial for additional NO x emission reductions from this source category throu gh implementation of
controls consistent with SCAQMD’s BARCT determinati on.

4. Emission Inventory

According to SJVAPCD, total emissions from stationa ry gas turbines are lower than the District’s selected BACM/MSM signifi cance thresholds. 160 Given the size of the inventory subject to Rule 470 3 (e.g., 2.77 tpd NO x in 2015 and 2.81 tpd NO x in 2020), the potential emission reductions from t his category are relatively small.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

For the reasons discussed above, we propose to dete rmine that Rule 4703 implements BACM and MSM for this category at this t ime. We recommend, however, that SJVAPCD continue evaluating the techn ical and economic feasibility of the following measures in the future :

157 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Starting page C-145 regarding SC R and page C-150 regarding

EM x

. 158 See Presentation for SCAQMD NO x RECLAIM Working Group Meeting, April 29, 2015. Av ailable at

on slide 7 and 8 at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/P roposed-Rules/regxx/noxreclaim_wgm_042915b.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

159 See footnote 16 above.

160 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, page C-143.47 A. Requiring the RECLAIM 2015 BARCT emission limits of 2 ppm NO x

.

j. Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters –

1. Overview

Section C.20 (beginning page C-156) discusses SJVAP CD Rule 4901, Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters . Rule 4901 is designed to limit emissions of PM, including PM 2.5 and PM 10 , and other pollutants generated by the use of wood burning fireplaces, wood burning he aters and outdoor wood burning devices. The rule establishes requirements for the sale/transfer, operation and installation of wood burning devices and on the advertising of wood for sale within the San Joaquin Valley.

On September 30, 2015, we proposed to approve the 2 014 version of Rule 4901 as meeting the BACM/BACT requirements for PM 2.5 (80 FR 58637). Our proposal relied, in part, on the District’s analyse s 161 and our comparison of Rule 4901 with measures presented in the EPA docume nt Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke 162 and with other state and local wood burning rules. 163 More information on this rule and our evaluation can be found in the Technical Support Document for that ac tion (“Rule 4901 TSD”). 164

Rule 4901 and the Check Before You Burn program 165 implemented by the District provides for a comprehensive residential w ood smoke program that incorporates all the elements outlined in EPA’s Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke, including a wood burning curtailment program (Paragraph 5.6-5.10), opacity and visible emission limits (Paragraphs 5.6.1.2.4 and SIP-approved Rule 4101 166 ), requirements regarding wood moisture content (Paragraphs 5.1.3 and 5.4), removal of unce rtified wood burning stoves upon home resale (Paragraph 5.2.2), restrict ions on wood burning devices in new construction (Paragraph 5.3), restri ctions on the installation of wood burning fireplaces (Paragraphs 5.3.2.1 and 5.3 .2.3), requirement that all wood burning stoves sold or transferred within the District meet current NSPS certification standards (Paragraphs 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 ), a wood burning changeout program 167 and education and outreach. 168

161 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Section C.20, beginning page C-156; Final St aff Report for Amendments to the District’s Residential Wood Burning Program, dated September 18, 2014 (“Rule 4901 Staff Report”) and the email from Sheraz Gill (SJVAPCD) to Andrew Stec kel (USEPA), dated June 25, 2015.

162 See Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke, EPA -456/B-13-001, March 2013.

163 See Rule 4901, Technical Support Document, EPA, August 2015, Attachment 1. Major Components of Various Residential Wood Burning Rules.

164 See Rule 4901, Technical Support Document, EPA, August 2015.

165 Including, e.g., links titled “What are Episodic C urtailments” and “Register your Residential Wood Burning Device” found on SJVAPCD’s Check Before You Burn web page: http://valleyair.org/rule4901/.

166 Rule 4101, adopted February 17, 2005, approved Aug ust 11, 2005 (70 FR 46770).

167 See ARB 2015 PM 2.5 Plan Staff Report, page15 and http://valleyair.org/grants/burncleaner.htm48 SJVAPCD states that Rule 4901 and associated progra ms implement BACM/BACT and MSM. Below are key points drawn from SJVAPCD’s analysis and our September 30, 2015 proposed rulema king that support the
District’s BACM/MSM determination.

2. Comparison to Analogous Control Measures in Othe r Areas

According to SJVAPCD, Rule 4901 is at least as stri ngent as analogous rules in other areas. In our proposed rulemaking on Rule 4901, we compare Rule 4901 with analogous rules in other districts and st ates 169 and propose that Rule 4901 requires BACM/BACT for wood burning devic es in the San Joaquin Valley considering technological and economic feasi bility. Below, we examine several provisions in detail.

A. Tiered Mandatory Wood burning Curtailment

One of the most effective ways to reduce wintertime smoke is a curtailment program which restricts use of woodstov es and fireplaces on days that are conducive to buildup of PM concentrat ions. 170 Some communities implement a voluntary curtailment progr am (e.g., Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD), FR AQMD, and PCAPCD), 171 while others implement a mandatory curtailment program (e.g., SCAQMD Rule 445, BAAQMD Regulation 6.3, SMAQ MD Rule 417, Washoe County Rule 040.051, and Washington Administ rative Code, Section 173-433).

Rule 4901 paragraph 5.6 includes a mandatory two-ti ered curtailment program. During a Level One Episodic Wood Burning C urtailment, which

is declared when the PM 2.5 concentration is forecasted to be between 20- 65 μg/m 3 , operation of wood burning fireplaces and unregist ered wood burning heaters is prohibited, but properly operate d, wood burning heaters that meet certification requirements and have a cur rent registration with the District may be used. During a Level Two Episod ic Wood Burning Curtailment, which is declared when the PM 2.5 concentration is forecasted to be above 65 μg/m 3 or the PM 10 concentration is forecasted to be above 135 μg/m3, operation of any wood burning device is prohibited.

The District estimates that uncertified wood burnin g devices account for
over 95% of wood smoke emission in SJV. 172 SJVAPCD states that Rule 4901 is the most stringent rule in the nation becau se it is the only one to

195 See http://valleyair.org/rule4901/ and Rule 4901 Parag raph 5.1.3.

169 See Rule 4901, Technical Support Document, dated August 2015, Attachment 1. Major Components of Various Residential Wood Burning Rules.

170 See Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke, EPA -456/B-13-001, March 2013.

171 Due to their voluntary nature, voluntary curtailme nt provisions are generally not included within Dis trict

Rules.

172 See Rule 4901 Staff Report, Appendix B page B-7.49 ban uncertified, high-polluting devices when the PM 2.5 concentration is forecasted to be above 20 μg/m 3

. 173 SJVAPCD projects that reducing the forecast threshold from 30 to 20 μg/m 3 increases the total number of curtailment days over an average wood burning seaso n to 53-85 out of 120 wood burning season days per year, depending on the county. 174

By comparison, SCAQMD Rule 445 includes a mandatory curtailment of all devices when the 24-hour average PM 2.5 concentration is forecasted above 30 μg/m 3 . SMAQMD Rule 421 declares a voluntary curtailment when the 24-hour average PM 2.5 concentration is forecasted to be between 25-31 μg/m 3 , a Stage 1 Mandatory curtailment when between 31- 35 μg/m 3 , and a Stage 2 Mandatory Curtailment when above 35 μg/m 3

. During a Sacramento Stage 1 curtailment, certified wood burning heaters and pellet fuel wood burning heaters are allowed to operate. During a Stage 2 Mandatory Curtailment, operation of all woo d burning devices is

banned.

While SCAQMD Rule 445 bans all burning above 30 μg/ m 3 and SMAQMD bans all burning above 35 μg/m 3 , SJVAPCD states that adding a small amount of additional emissions from registered clea n burning devices when concentrations are between 30-65 μg/m 3 will be overwhelmingly compensated for by decreased emissions from dirty d evices when concentrations are between 20-30 μg/m 3 . The District states that reducing

emissions when concentrations are forecasted to be 20-30 ug/m 3 will reduce the build-up of emissions which occurs durin g long periods of stagnation experienced in the wintertime in the Val ley. 175

Additionally, only certified devices registered wit h the District are allowed to burn during a Level One curtailment. Registration w ith SJVAPCD requires a registration fee and an inspection every 3-years by a certified wood burning professional to assure the device meets cer tification requirements and is installed and operated correctly. Given thes e requirements, the District states that only a limited number of resid ents will take advantage of this registration process. 176 As a worst case scenario, the District assumed that 24% of all existing uncertified devices would transition to cleaner burning devices and register with the District, lea ding to a total increase of average wood burning season emissions between 20-65 μg/m 3 by 0.22 tpd

PM 2.5. The District notes that to date, through the Burn C leaner incentive program, over 80% of replacements have resulted in installation of a natural gas-fired unit rather than a cleaner wood b urning device. Natural gas-fired units have negligible PM 2.5 emissions and are not subject to Rule

4901. The District states therefore that a more rea sonable estimate would

173 See email from Sheraz Gill (SJVAPCD) to Andrew Steckel (USEPA), dated June 25, 2015.

174 See Rule 4901 Staff Report, page 20.

175 See Rule 4901 Staff Report page 19.

176 See email from Sheraz Gill (SJVAPCD) to Andrew Steckel (USEPA), dated June 25, 2015.50 be to assume 20% of the 0.22 tpd would occur, leadi ng to a 0.044 tpd

increase in emissions when concentrations are betwe en 20-65 μg/m 3

. Further, the District states that when compared to the 3.33 tpd of direct

PM 2.5 emission reductions from lowering the curtailment threshold, and the additional 2.04 tpd estimated reduction from the tr ansition to cleaner units, this 0.044 tpd increase in emissions is insignifica nt. 177 We agree that reducing the curtailment threshold from 30 to 20 μg /m 3 for uncertified devices along with registration requirements for ce rtified devices makes the Rule 4901 curtailment program at least as stringent as or more stringent than these and other analogous programs.

B. Ban of wood devices and fireplaces in new develo pment

Some areas may choose to control emissions by banni ng installation of any wood burning devices in new construction (e.g., SCAQMD Rule 444), only allowing wood burning appliances that meet EPA certification requirements (e.g., PCAPCD Rule 225 and BAAQMD Regu lation 6-3), or restricting the number and density of new wood burn ing appliances in a given area (e.g., SJVAPCD Rule 4901 and Washoe Coun ty 040.051).

Rule 4901, Paragraph 5.3 limits the number of wood burning devices that can be installed in new residential developments. I n areas denser than two dwellings/acre, no wood burning fireplaces are allowed and a

maximum of two certified units are allowed. In less dense areas, one wood burning fireplace or certified wood burning heater is allowed per dwelling.

SCAQMD Rule 445 amended May 3, 2013, paragraph (d)( 1), bans permanent installation of any wood burning devices in new development. SJVAPCD states, however, that this requirement is n ot applicable to areas where there is no existing infrastructure for natur al gas within 150 feet of the property line or those 3,000 feet above sea lev el. Therefore, SJVAPCD states that Rule 4901 is more stringent tha n Rule 445 as it does not exempt any homes at any elevation. 178 Given this lack of any exemptions in Rule 4901, it is reasonable to conclu de that Rule 4901 is at least as stringent as SCAQMD Rule 445.

C. Provisions regarding the use and sale of unseaso ned wood

Burning wet wood reduces the temperature so combust ion is less complete and emits more PM. Several studies suggest burning

unseasoned wood can increase PM emissions from 13%- factor of 2 or

more. 179 Several District and State rules explicitly list u nseasoned wood as

177 See email from Sheraz Gill (SJVAPCD) to Andrew Steckel (USEPA), dated June 25, 2015.

178 See Rule 4901 Staff Report, page 30.

179 See e.g.,“Residential Wood Combustion Technology Revie w Volume 1. Technical Report” (EPA600/R-98-174a), December 1998 and J. S. Kinsey, P. H. Kariher, and Y. Dong, “Evaluation of Methods51 a prohibited fuel type (e.g., BAAQMD 6.3, PCAPCD 22 5, Washoe 040.051, Maricopa County P-26, WA 173-433), ban the sale of unseasoned wood seasonally (e.g., SCAQMD Rule 445), or require a label identifying if wood is seasoned or unseasoned (e.g., BAAQMD 6.3, Washoe 040.051).

Rule 4901 does not expressly prohibit the sale or u se of unseasoned wood. However, by prohibiting emissions as dark or darker in shade than No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart (i.e. 20% opacity), S JVAPCD Rule 4101 serves the same purpose as prohibiting the use of u nseasoned wood because even well-designed wood burning devices wil l produce high opacity when burning unseasoned wood. Additionally, paragraph 5.4 of Rule 4901 includes a seasoned wood labeling restric tion and paragraph 5.1.3 requires retailers to provide information on proper fuel selection and use. Furthermore, SJVAPCD encourages the use of sea soned wood through its Check Before You Burn Program. 180 We agree with the District that these requirements collectively prevent the us e of unseasoned wood. However, we recommend including additional requirem ents regarding seasoned wood for clarity the next time the rule is revised as described

below.

3. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternativ e Control Techniques

As described above, Rule 4901 incorporates all elem ents outlined in EPA’s Strategies for Reducing Wood Smoke and includes comparable provisions available in other analogous rules. We are not awar e of other economically and technically feasible measures for reducing resi dential wood smoke that have been implemented in other areas.

4. Emissions Inventory

SJVAPCD estimates wood burning devices will contrib ute 0.94 tpd NO x , 8.35 tpd PM 2.5 , and 0.15 tpd SO x on an average winter day in 2020. This is above the District’s selected BACM/MSM significance thres hold for PM 2.5 and below the District’s significance threshold for NO x and SO x

. 181

SJVAPCD estimates that the 2014 revisions to Rule 4 901 will directly reduce 1.1 tpd PM 2.5 for the 2020 annual average and 2.2 tpd for the 20 18 winter 24- hour average. 182 CARB assigns an additional 0.5 tpd reductions by 2020 for

for the Physical Characterization of the Fine Parti cle Emissions from Two Residential Wood Combustion Appliances”, Atmospheric Environment, 43 (2009) 495 9–4967.

180 See letter from Sheraz Gill, SJVAPCD to Andrew Steckel , EPA Region IX, dated July 20, 2015.

181 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.20, page C-157

182 The Rule 4901 Staff Report projects 3.33 tpd direc t PM 2.5 reductions from reducing the burn threshold from 30 to 20 μg/m 3 . It also projects increased emissions from additio nal registered devices between 20 and 65 μg/m 3 at 0.065 tpd, so the net reduction is 3.27 tpd (Ru le 4901 Staff Report, Appendix B pages B11 - B-12). SJVAPCD staff confirmed that these est imates are based on a 120-day wood burning season52 the annual standard and 0.7 by 2018 for the winter 24-hour standard, as a result of additional homeowners replacing high-emit ting fireplaces and stoves with low-emitting certified devices. 183 The 2014 Rule 4901 revisions encourage these device replacements by allowing reg istered certified devices to operate on days with air quality projected betwe en 20 – 65 μg/m 3 , while all other fireplaces and stoves can operate only on day s projected below 20 μg/m 3

. 184 If approved into the SIP, these provisions become federally enforceable, and it is reasonable to assign them fu ture emission reductions for CAA planning purposes. In this case, individua l homeowners are not required to reduce emissions by upgrading their woo d-burning devices, but the federally enforceable rule encourages change-ou ts by allowing registered and certified devices to burn on many more days tha n non-registered/certified

devices. 185 This is somewhat analogous, for example, to assig ning future emission reductions for CAA purposes for SJVAPCD Ru le 9410 (employee trip reduction). This rule similarly does not requ ire individuals to reduce emissions by, for example, carpooling and using mas s transit, but similarly

establishes structures that make such lower emittin g activity more likely.

California’s estimate of future emission reductions from wood-burning device change-outs encouraged by the rule relies on a surv ey of homeowners which found that 29% of Valley residents would be willing to replace their wood burning fireplace or heater if they could use it mo re often than currently

allowed. 186 As a result, the 0.5 and 0.7 tpy emission reducti on estimates assume that 20% and 14% devices will be upgraded by 2020 and 2018 respectively. 187 ARB estimates that in 2005, there were about 200 ,000 wood burning fireplaces and about 18,000 uncertified woo d burning stoves in use in the Valley. 188

(8/13/15 phone conversation between Sheraz Gill, SJ VAPCD, and Andy Steckel, EPA). With ratios of 120/365 days for the annual average and 120/180 day s for the six-month winter average, 3.27 tpd converts to 1.1 tpd PM 2.5 for the 2020 annual average and 2.2 tpd for the 20 18 winter 24-hour average.

183 ARB’s staff report (Release Date: April 20, 2015, page 9, Tables 1 & 2) assigns 1.6 tpd direct PM 2.5 reductions by 2020 for the annual standard and 2.9 tpd for the 2018 winter 24-hour standard. SJVAPCD

staff confirmed that the difference between these e stimates and SJVAPCD’s previous estimates of 1.1 and 2.2 tpd is due to increase device change-outs e ncouraged by the 2014 rule revisions. 1.6 – 1.1 = 0.5 tpy. 2.9 – 2.2 = 0.7 tpy.

184 See Rule 4901, Paragraph 5.6.

185 SJVAPCD projects unregistered devices can burn on average 35-67 days/winter season and registered devices can burn 114-120 days/winter sea son depending on the county (Rule 4901 Staff Report, Appendix B, pages B-9 – B-10).

186 See Rule 4901 Staff Report, Appendix-B, page B-13.

187 Rule 4901 Staff Report, Appendix-B, page B-15 esti mates that a net wood burning day average emission reduction of 1.82 tpd PM 2.5 if 24% of residents change-out their devices. This corresponds to an annual and winter day average emission reduction of 0.6 tpd and 1.21 respectively.

188 See ARB Miscellaneous Processes Methodologies — Residen tial Fuel Combustion, Section 7.1, Residential Wood Combustion, February 2013 Methodol ogy and Appendices, Appendix A, Table A-1, page 7.1A-2; Table A-4, page 7-1A-10; and Table A-4 , page 7-1A-13.53

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

For the reasons cited above, we propose to find tha t Rule 4901 requires all BACM for wood burning devices in the SJV considerin g technological and economic feasibility. Additionally, we propose to find that Rule 4901 implements MSM because it is as or more stringent t han analogous local, state and federal rules and guidance.

We recommend the following additional recommendatio ns for next time the rule is revised. For more information, see the Rule 4901 TSD 189 :

A. While the provisions in paragraph 5.6.1.2.4 and SIP-approved Rule 4101 replicate wood moisture requirements, for clarity w e recommend revising Rule 4901 to add unseasoned wood to the list of pro hibited fuel types in paragraph 5.5, ban the sale of unseasoned wood with in the District, and revise the advertising requirement in paragraph 5.4 to require clearly labelling all wood sold in the District as seasoned or unseasoned.

B. Many agencies include a continuous limit on opac ity within their wood burning rule. While a continuous opacity limit is i ncluded in SJVAPCD Rule 4101, we recommend also adding an opacity limi t into the body of SJVAPCD Rule 4901 to improve compliance and enforce ability. See, for example, BAAQMD Regulation 6-3 paragraph 6-3-302, a nd PCAPCD Rule 225 paragraph 304.2.

C. Consider requiring that homes that qualify for t he “sole source of heat” exemption described in Paragraph 5.6.3.2 (outside o f power outage conditions) maintain a properly operated device tha t meets at minimum

EPA Phase II emission limits.

D. Consider revising section 5.1 to prohibit instal lation of wood burning fireplaces in all existing and new development unle ss they meet equivalent EPA emission limits in 40 CFR part 60, s ubpart AAA for certified wood burning devices.

E. The town of Laguna Beach, for example, requires that any “major remodel” to a single-family residence, retrofit any existing wood burning fireplace to comply with U.S. EPA Phase II emission limits by using a qualified retrofit insert, converting the existing wood burning fireplace to gas-only use or other approved device. Consider whe ther this requirement would be feasible in the San Joaquin Valley.

189 See Rule 4901, Technical Support Document, EPA, August 2015.54 Recommendations to program implementation:

F. Fireplaces are generally decorative and used spa ringly (once per week), while wood burning heaters are used more regularly for heating. Changing out a fireplace to an EPA-certified stove that may be used more frequently could result in greater emissions. Consider providi ng incentive funding for wood burning fireplaces change-out to gas fireplace s only.

G. Consider adding a second “Report a Violation” bu tton under the heading “No Burning Unless Registered,” at http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/cbyb.htm, and inclu ding a map of registered devices. As it stands, it is unclear how citizens can report a violation during this critical period.

k. Paved and Unpaved Roads

1. Overview

Section C.28 (beginning page C-194) discusses SJVAP CD Rule 8061, Paved and Unpaved Roads . Rule 8061, as amended August 19, 2004, is design ed to limit PM, PM 2.5 and PM 10 emissions by requiring control measures and establishing design criteria for new and existing p ublic and private paved and unpaved roads. Specific requirements include:

A. Paved roads

1. Requirements for paved shoulders constructed on new or modified paved roads with projected annual average daily veh icle trips (AADT)

of 500 or more.

2. Requirements for medians constructed on paved ro ads with a projected AADT of 500 or more.

3. Requirements to prioritize the use of PM 10 -efficient street sweepers.

4. Requirements to remove mud/dirt from travel lane s and paved shoulders; to restrict vehicles from traveling over mud/dirt until the material can be removed from travel lanes following a wind/storm/water erosion and runoff; and to impleme nt dust minimizing practices during removal of mud/dirt.

B. Unpaved roads

1. Requirements to limit visible dust emissions (VD E) on unpaved road segments with 26 or more AADT to 20% opacity and to comply with55 the requirements for stabilized unpaved roads by ap plication and/or reapplication/maintenance of watering, uniform laye r of washed gravel, chemical/organic dust stabilizer/suppressants, road mix, paving or any

other method that is demonstrated to limit VDE to 2 0% opacity and that meets the conditions of a stabilized unpaved road.

2. Prohibition on the construction of new unpaved r oads within an urban

area.

3. Requirements for identifying and paving unpaved roads within urban

and rural areas.

For existing unpaved public roads in urban and rura l areas, Rule 8061 requires city, county or state agencies to submit, by 2005, a list of all unpaved roads including data on the length of, and AADT on each unpaved road segment. The rule further requires age ncies to pave an average of 20% annually of all unpaved roads up to a maximum of five cumulative miles by January 1, 2010. Also, by April of each year, 2006 through 2010, city, county or state agencies are re quired to submit to the District the total number of unpaved road miles which were paved and the percentage of cumulative miles paved. 190 Section 5.2.4 contains similar requirements to pave or stabilize the unpaved shoulders of existing paved public roads.

4. Requirements for identifying and paving unpaved shoulders in urban

and rural areas.

5. Requirements for establishing and posting maximu m speed limits on unpaved roads.

EPA approved Rule 8061 as satisfying BACM for PM 10 in 2006. 191

SJVAPCD’s 2015 evaluation concludes that Rule 8061 implements the most stringent measures feasible in the Valley and that the rule continues to meet
or exceed BACM. 192 The following are key points drawn from SJVAPCD’s analysis that support the District’s BACM/MSM deter mination.

2. Comparison to Analogous Control Measures in Othe r Areas

In Section C.28, the District compares Rule 8061 to the following analogous fugitive dust requirements from other Cal ifornia and Nevada regulatory agencies that generally have among the m ost stringent air

190 Rule 8061, section 5.2.3

191 See 70 FR 51303 (NPR, August 30, 2005), 71 FR 8461 (NFR, February 17, 2006), and EPA’s associated technical support document for this acti on.

192 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.28, page C-196.56 pollution requirements in the country, and SJVAPCD concludes that it “found no requirements that were more stringent tha n those already in

Rule 8061.” 193

• SCAQMD Rule 1156, Further Reductions of Particulate Emissions from Cement Manufacturing Facilities , March 6, 2009.

• SCAQMD Rule 1157, PM-10 Emission Reductions form Aggregate and Relation Operations , September 8, 2006.

• SMAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust , August 3, 1977.

• VCAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust , June 10, 2008.

• Clark County Department of Air Quality Section 91, Fugitive Dust from Unpaved Roads, Unpaved Alleys, and Unpaved Easement Roads

, April 15, 2014; and Section 93, Fugitive Dust from Paved Roads and Street Sweeping Equipment , April 15, 2014. 194

According to SJVAPCD, Rule 8061 is also at least as stringent as State and federal regulations and guidance including the General Preamble for Title 1 of the CAA, the Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information for BACM, 195 and NSPS, NESHAP and MACT standards. We note, however, that Section C.28 provides little su pport for the District’s conclusions regarding BACM/MSM for this category.

Table K-1 provides our comparison of the rules iden tified above with Rule

8061.

Table K-1 Paved and Unpaved Roads Rule Comparison

193 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.28, pages C-195 – 196.

194 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.28, page C-194.

195 57 FR 13498, EPA-450/2-92-004, 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.28, pages C-194 – 195.

196 Rule 8061 exempts agricultural operations, but Rul e 8081 Agricultural Sources establishes requirements to limit fugitive dust from agricultur al sources. Rule Paved Roads Opacity Unpaved Roads Exempts

AADT AADT Require

ments

SJ 8061 (paved/ unpaved roads) 500-3000

>3000 ● 4’ shoulder

paved/stabilized

● 8’ shoulder paved/stabilized 20% >26 25mph Agricultural operations –

but see Rule

8081 196

SC 1156 n/a 20% n/a ● 35mph Suppressant57 3. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternativ e Control Techniques

The District considered requiring control measures on paved and unpaved roads with less than 26 AADT. SJVAPCD’s analysis i ndicates that most PM emissions are from unpaved roads above 26 AADT, which are already subject to the Rule 8061 requirements. Additionall y, emissions from unpaved roads are lowest in the winter months, when the District’s PM 2.5 24-hour exceedances occur. For these reasons, SJVA PCD states that

197 SC 1157 applies to paved roads at aggregate handli ng facilities. The 60 AADT applies to trucks exitin g a facility on any day. SJ Rule 8041 contains requir ements for track-out and applies analogous requirements to sites > 150 vehicle trips/day or > 20 vehicle trips/day by vehicles with 3 or more axl es.

198 SC 1186 PM 10

Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livesto ck Operations establishes requirements to reduce PM from vehicular travel. Th is rule is not discussed in SJ’s 2015 Appendix C, b ut appears relevant to the evaluation. (cement plants) haul road

● 15mph

other road not required if

AADT< twice a day & 15 mph

SC

1157 197 (aggregat

e/related ops) >60

<60 ● sweep internal

roads after shift

● sweep/water

internal roads at end of day 20% Stabilize

internal haul

roads Unpaved

roads if AADT < twice a day & < 15 mph

SC

1186 198 (paved/ unpaved roads) 500-3000

>3000 ● 4’ paved shoulder

● 8’ paved shoulder n/a >avg annual

AADT of all unpaved

roads 15mph Unpaved

roads above

3000 feet with

< 500 AADT

SM 403 (fugitive dust) n/a n/a n/a n/a Ag

VC 55 (fugitive dust) n/a 20% >20 15mph ● Ag

● < 20 AADT unpaved

service road

● >20 AADT if

4” of low silt matl/gravel applied

CC 91 (unpaved roads) n/a n/a 20% >150 Implement

measures for 1 / 3 unpaved

road miles Private

driveways

CC 93 (paved roads) <3000

> 3000 ● 4’ shoulder

paved/stabilized

● 8’ shoulder paved/stabilized 20% n/a n/a Private driveways58 lowering the AADT threshold will not achieve additi onal emission

reductions.

During adoption of Rule 8061, the District was also asked to strengthen (and clarify) the requirement for cities and counti es to pave an average of 20% annually of all unpaved roads up to a maximum o f 5 cumulative miles between 2005 and 2010. In response, SJVAPCD stated that this is not feasible given the financial hardship it would caus e in some jurisdictions. 199

SJVAPCD’s 2015 PM 2.5 Plan stated that the District received only one significant comment related to Rule 8061 – to consi der providing incentives to discourage new unpaved roads. 200 The District’s response stated, “Rule 8061 already limits fugitive dust emi ssions from paved and unpaved roads by implementing control measures and design criteria.” 201 We note that Rule 8061 prohibits the construction o f any new unpaved

road in an urban area unless the road meets the def inition of a temporary unpaved road. We are not aware of this or other ad ditional measures that are technically and economically feasible for sourc es in the District.

4. Emissions Inventory

SJVAPCD estimates 7.98 tpd PM 2.5 in 2015 and 8.69 tpd in 2020 from paved and unpaved roads subject to Rule 8061. No NO x or SO x emissions are expected for this category.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

For the reasons discussed above, we propose to dete rmine that Rule 8061 implements BACM and MSM for this category at t his time. We recommend, however, that SJVAPCD continue evaluatin g the technical and economic feasibility of the following measures in the future:

a. SJVAPCD should provide the number of unpaved roa ds and shoulders paved in meeting the Rule 8061 paving requirements in Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 through 2010 similar to Maricopa County. 202 SJVAPCD’s

199 “Responses to Comments on the Proposed Amendments to Regulation VIII,” SJVAPCD, August 19,

2004.

200 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix H, page H-3

. 201 Ibid.

202 Maricopa County reported that from November 2009 – December 2013, public unpaved roads decreased 232 miles and private unpaved roads decre ased 273 miles. https://www.azmag.gov/Documents/AQTAC_2014-12-04_20 13-Unpaved-Roads-Inventory-for-theMaricopa-County-PM10-Nonattainment-Area-Presentatio n.pdf

.59 website provides forms to report incremental progre ss regarding these requirements, 203 but we were unable to find the results of the prog ress.

b. Consider revising sections 5.2.3.1.2, 5.2.3.1.3, 5.1.4.1.2 and 5.2.4.1.3 to require paving/stabilizing additional roads and shoulders beyond the existing requirements for 2005-2010 currently in th e rule.

c. Consider requirements to reduce the speed limit from 25 mph to 15 mph on unpaved roads similar to SCAQMD Rule 1186, V CAPCD Rule 55 and CAPCOA BACM recommended practices. 204

l. Asphalt/Concrete Operations

1. Overview

Section C.35 (beginning page C-218) discusses SJVAP CD rules related to these sources. This includes Rule 2201, New and Modified Stationary Source

Review ; Rule 4101, Visible Emissions ; Rule 4301, Fuel Burning Equipment ; Rule 4309, Dryers, Dehydrators, and Ovens ; and Rule 4641, Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenanc e Operations. Rule 2201 discusses permit requirements for new and modi fied sources, Rule 4101 establishes opacity limits for a wide range of activities, and Rule 4301 establishes emission limits for any fuel burning eq uipment except air pollution control equipment. Rule 4309 establishes specific a nd more stringent NO x emission limits for asphalt/concrete plants than Ru le 4301 205 , and Rule 4641
establishes VOC limits for cutback and emulsified a sphalt. SJVAPCD concludes that these rules together implement BACM and MSM for this
source category.

Section C.35 discusses various asphalt technologie s including cold mix (rapid cure, medium cure, slow cure and emulsified), hot m ix and warm mix; and achieved-in-practice controls. It also presents an inventory of PM 2.5 , NO x , SO x and VOC emissions associated with asphalt manufactu ring mineral

processes.

The following summarizes key points from SJVAPCD’s analysis that support
the District’s BACM/MSM determination.

203 https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/compli ance_PM10.htm

. 204 http://www.capcoa.org/ag-clearinghouse/beef/unpaved -roads/

205 Rule 4301, (amended December 17, 1992), limits SO 2 , NO x and PM from units whose primary purpose is to produce heat or power by indirect heat transf er. Rule 4301 is similar to rules in other district s and acts as a backstop if a source specific rule does n ot apply.60

2. Comparison of Rules 2201, 4101, and 4309 to Ana logous Control Measures

in Other Areas

Rule 4309 establishes mandatory NO x and CO limits for dryers, dehydrators and ovens firing on gaseous or liquid fuel with a t otal heat input of 5.0 MMBtu/hr or greater. Asphalt/concrete plants that exceed this threshold, for example, are subject to NO x limits of 4.3 ppm (gaseous fuel) and 12.0 ppm (liquid fuel). SJVAPCD found no NSPS or NESHAP requ irements more stringent than these and other requirements in Rule s 2201, 4101 and 4309.

According to SJVAPCD, there are no state regulation s applicable to this source category and no analogous rules from BAAQMD, SMAQMD or VCAPCD. SJVAPCD also evaluated SCAQMD Rule 1157, PM 10 Emission Reductions from Aggregate and Related Operations, and SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust

, and found no SCAQMD requirements more stringent t han those in SJVAPCD Rules 4101, 2201 and 4309. 206

The District states that EPA has not issued federal guidance documents covering NO x or CO emissions for existing asphalt plants such a s a CTG or an ACT document. In May 2007, EPA approved Rule 430 9 as fulfilling ozone RACT requirements under CAA section 182(b)(2). 207 EPA has also approved Rules 2201, 4101 and 4301 into the SIP. 208

We are not aware of more stringent PM or NO x requirements implemented in other California districts for asphalt plants. We n ote that Rule 4101 only regulates opacity, and the NSPS and NESHAP contain both opacity and PM limits. Although opacity is often used as an indica tor of PM emissions, we are not aware of a means to generally correlate opacity and PM limits for asphalt/concrete operations.

3. Rule 4641 Controls Cutback Asphalt VOC Emission s 209

Cutback and emulsified asphalts are “cold mix” asph alts typically used for small projects. Generally, cutback asphalt emits mo re VOC than other asphalt technologies and is no longer used by Caltrans. Rul e 4641 prohibits the manufacture or use of rapid and medium cure asphalt and establishes VOC emission limits of 0.5% for slow cure cutback aspha lt and 3% VOC for emulsified asphalt. It exempts the use of medium cu re asphalt when the high temperature for the 24-hours following application is forecast below 50 o F.

206 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Pages C-219 and C-220.

207 See 72 FR 29886, May 30, 2007.

208 See Rule 2201: 79 FR 55637, September 17, 2014. Rule 4 101: 70 FR 46770, August 11, 2005. Rule 4301: 64 FR 26876, May 18, 1999.

209 Rule 4641 regulates VOCs but not NO x or PM. While it is not directly relevant to BACM/M SM, we are providing a brief discussion of the rule here for b ackground purposes.61 SJVAPCD notes that the use of cutback asphalt emits VOCs, which do not contribute significantly to local PM 2.5 formation.

In March 2010, EPA approved Rule 4641 as fulfilling ozone RACT requirements under CAA §182(b)(2). 210

We believe Rule 4641 is similar to rules in other a ir districts and is generally
consistent with EPA’s CTG and model rule for cutbac k asphalt.

4. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternati ve Control Techniques

SJVAPCD’s analysis states that most traditional hot mix asphalt (HMA) mixtures are manufactured and compacted at above 30 0 o F, and that these high temperatures produce greenhouse gases and othe r criteria and hazardous air pollutants. The District notes that e missions are minimized by achieved-in-practice controls meeting Rule 4101 opa city limits.

SJVAPCD discusses warm mix asphalt (WMA), a newer t echnology which is produced at temperatures 25 - 90 o F lower than HMA. WMA’s benefits include improved performance, energy savings, and fewer com bustion emissions by reducing the fuel needed to heat the asphalt. SJVAP CD’s analysis cites a U.S. study indicating typical fuel savings of 15 - 25%, which would similarly
reduce NO x . European studies report NO x emission reductions in using WMA

instead of HMA from 58 - 70%. 211

The District notes that U.S. use of WMA has grown s teadily but, despite the technological feasibility of WMA substituting for H MA, the cost of converting equipment remains a barrier and certain application s may not be suitable for WMA. SJVAPCD further states that some WMA processe s use organic or chemical additives that may be accommodated using e xisting plant and production technology, but also adds that WMA techn ologies may require more finesse in controlling the process. 212 As a result, “more research into the capital costs associated with converting production equipment to handle WMA and other feasibility issues is still needed to fully determine whether WMA would be feasible and cost effective to require for all Valley asphalt production facilities.” 213

At this time, we are not aware of any other state o r local agency that requires 214 the use of WMA. As noted by SJVAPCD, reduced fuel usage is

210 See 75 FR 10690, March 9, 2010.

211 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Table C-36, page C-223.

212 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Page C-221.

213 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Page C-225.

214 Discussions with the Federal Highway Administratio n (FHWA) indicates that rather than requiring the use of WMA, many states allow WMA as an option to H MA. FHWA stated that in evaluating this option, an asphalt contractor needs to consider factors suc h as ambient temperature, placement temperature,62 one benefit of WMA. WMA studies also report the pot ential for reduced NO x , VOC and PM 2.5 emissions. 215

5. Commitment for Further Analysis

The District states that emissions from asphalt usa ge is extremely small but has submitted a commitment to evaluate and promote the use of WMA and have a draft report available for public review and comment by December 1, 2015. This includes evaluating opportunities to fur ther encourage transportation and county agencies to continue tran sitioning from HMA to WMA as feasible, and evaluating potential outreach and education opportunities for encouraging project developers an d construction managers

to increase WMA use. 216 We note that Texas and Nevada have previously

summarized some WMA cost information. 217

6. Emission Inventory

SJVAPCD states that PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO x emissions from asphalt/concrete operations occur during the mineral processes, and that asphalt mixing and application processes only emit VOCs. 218 It further states that these

emissions are lower than the District’s selected BA CM/MSM significance

thresholds. 219 Given the size of the asphalt/concrete inventory s ubject to Rules 4309 and 4641 (0.22 tpd NO x and 0.89 tpd PM 2.5 in 2015 and 0.25 tpd
NO x and 1.01 tpd PM 2.5 in 2020), the potential emission reductions from t his category are relatively small.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations

For the reasons discussed above, we propose to find that Rules 4101 and 4309 together establish BACM and MSM control requir ements for this source category at this time.

wind speed and haul distance between the asphalt pl ant and the job site. Personal communications Stanley Tong (EPA Region 9) and Mathew Corrigan (FH WA), February 9, 2015.

215 See Frank, Bob, et. al., Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Emission Reductions and Ener gy Savings , National Center for Asphalt Technology, September 6, 2011; a nd Miller, Timothy D., et.al., Sustainable Asphalt Pavements: Technologies, Knowledge Gaps and Opportu nities , Modified Asphalt Research Center, February 20, 2009.

216 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 8, Section 8.2, page 8-3.

217 See Button, J.W., Estakhri, C., Wimsatt, A., A Synthesi s of Warm-Mix Asphalt, Texas Department of Transportation, FHWA/TX-07/0-5591-1, Table 7 (page 47), http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5597-1.pdf and Hand, A.J.T., Green Pavement Construction, Apri l 23, 2009, Nevada T2 Center, slides 58 and 95 estimate WMA equipment capital costs to be $25 to $ 100K per plant. The capital costs could be partial ly offset by reduced fuel usage to produce WMA. http://www.t2.unr.edu/T2%20WMA%20&%20RAP%20042309.p df

. 218 The blue haze generally observed with HMA is conde nsable organics (which we believe is

condensable PM 2.5 ) and is generally not observed with WMA. FHWA WMA Technologies Brochure.

219 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Page C-218.63 We support and encourage the District’s commitment to work with stakeholders to evaluate and promote the use of WMA . SJVAPCD released a draft report of this evaluation dated December 1, 2 015. The draft report summarizes stakeholder input on the advantages and challenges of promoting lower emissions asphalt processes and pav ing in the District. On December 23, 2015, EPA provided comments on the dra ft report, including the suggestion that some of the challenges could be opportunities to develop WMA best practices. In addition to our comment lett er, we recommend the District evaluate the following additional suggesti ons in its discussions with stakeholders on how to best promote WMA:

A. Include in a WMA best practices document, guida nce, similar to that being considered by the Texas DOT, 220 on projects where WMA should be encouraged, such as those with limited financial st artup impacts, large paving projects (e.g., greater than 10,000 tons), a nd overlay projects with significant crack seal in the existing pavement.

B. If Rule 4641 is revised to incorporate PM contr ols, SJVAPCD should also evaluate VOC reduction opportunities such as regula ting asphalt release agents. 221

C. Evaluate the potential to adopt requirements fo r permitted PM control devices at HMA plants similar to SCAQMD Rule 1155. 222

D. Evaluate whether it is feasible and productive to incorporate additional
emission limits in SJVAPCD rules for new and/or exi sting sources in SJVAPCD that are similar but not covered by:

1. NSPS, 40 CFR 60: Subpart OOO, Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants; Subpart I, Standards of Performance for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities ; and Subpart UU, Standards of Performance for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt R oofing Manufacturing

.

2. NESHAP, 40 CFR 63: Subpart LLLLL, Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing for Major Sources ; and Subpart AAAAAAA,

220 Personal communications Stanley Tong (EPA Region 9 ) and Robert E. Lee (Texas DOT – Construction Division), February 18, 2015.

221 SCAQMD is considering regulating mold release prod ucts (including asphalt release agents) for early 2016. See Control Measure Forecast, June 5, 2015, P roposed Rule 1161, page A-3, and personal communications Stanley Tong (EPA Region 9) and Mike Morris (SCAQMD), June 23, 2015; http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Gov erning-Board/2015/2015-jun5-015.pdf?sfvrsn=2 ; study: http://www.irta.us/reports/Finalscaqmdmoldrelrept.p df

. 222 See Particulate Matter (PM) Control Devices , May 2, 2014. Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/r eg-xi/rule-1155.pdf?sfvrsn=464 Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturin g for Area
Sources

.

m. Confined Animal Facilities

1. Overview

Section C.41 (beginning page C-240) discusses SJVAP CD Rule 4570,
Confined Animal Facilities (CAFs), which applies to large dairy, poultry, bee f cattle feeding and swine CAFs. The rule requires op erators to implement measures to control VOC emissions for each major st age of operation, including feeding, silage, milking (dairy), housing , waste management and waste storage/application. According to the Distric t, Rule 4570 was developed to limit VOC emissions, but also reduces ammonia em issions through mitigation measures for nutritional management, inc reased cleaning and removal of manure and litter from housing areas, an d land incorporation of

manure and litter. 223

EPA approved Rule 4570 as meeting RACT for VOC cont rol in 2012. 224 SJVAPCD states that Rule 4570 also implements BACM and MSM. The following are key points drawn from SJVAPCD’s analy sis that support the
District’s BACM/MSM determination.

2. Comparison to Analogous Control Measures in Othe r Areas

SJVAPCD states that there is no CTG, ACT, NSPS, NES HAP or other relevant federal regulations or guidance for CAFs. SJVAPCD compares the requirements in Rule 4570 with analogous prohibitor y rules from other areas, including SCAQMD Rules 223 and 1127, BAAQMD Rule 9- 10, SMAQMD Rule 496, VCAPCD Rule 23, ICAPCD Rule 217, Butte Co unty Rule 450 and
the State of Idaho Administrative Procedures Act Ru le 58.01.01 (Idaho rule). It concludes that SJVAPCD Rule 4570 is more stringe nt than these other rules. For example, the District states that Rule 4 570’s applicability thresholds are more stringent than those in SCAQMD Rule 233 an d the Idaho rule. 225 In addition, SJVAPCD strengthened Rule 4570 in 2010 by adding and changing certain measures, and making certain mitigation mea sures mandatory, whereas other rules have not been similarly updated

. 226

223 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Pages C-240 to C-243. See also C-241, footnote 121 - Appendix F, Ammonia Reductions Analysis for Proposed Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities), SJVAPCD, June 15,

2006.

224 77 FR 2228, January 17, 2012.

225 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Page C-244, C-263. See http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/58/0101.p df

226 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Page C-247.65 The District provides a detailed comparison of Rule 4570 and the Idaho

rule. 227 The Idaho rule is based on a “points” system while Rule 4570 requires a minimum number of management practices for each C AF operation. These different structures make it difficult to compare t hese two rules directly. Rule 4570 may be more prescriptive in requiring implemen tation of a certain number of management measures. In contrast, the Ida ho rule assigns points to each measure listed in the rule and requires ope rators to implement measures that, combined, have at least 27 points. 228 It appears that in some respects, Rule 4570 contains more stringent provisi ons than the Idaho rule (e.g., rule applicability threshold, and provisions for temporary suspension/substitution, testing and records retent ion). On the other hand, the Idaho rule contains options (e.g., chemical ame ndments, lagoon nitrification/de-nitrification systems, lagoon cove rs, tunnel ventilation with biofilter, and incorporation of manure within 24 ho urs of land application) that

are not included in Rule 4570. It is not clear whet her these control options are commonly implemented in Idaho or available or appro priate for use in the
SJV.

We generally agree with the District’s demonstratio n that Rule 4570 establishes the most stringent control measures for ammonia emissions compared to other CAF regulations.

3. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternativ e Control Techniques

SJVAPCD analyzed additional potential control measu res and did not identify any shown to be economically and technically feasib le for SJVAPCD sources at this time. SJVAPCD discusses episodic applicati on of sodium bisulfate (SBS) on manure at dairies, which converts a greate r fraction of ammonia to

non-volatile ammonium. 229 The ammonium combines with sulfate to form ammonium sulfate, which remains in the manure or co rral. However, SJVAPCD explains that there are potential adverse i mpacts of SBS application on worker safety and health, cattle hea th, water quality, and on

overall cost and cost-effectiveness. It references SCAQMD’s 2012 AQMP to argue that SBS effectiveness may be limited to spec ific SCAQMD dairies and may not be feasible for implementation in the Valle y at this time. SJVAPCD

also evaluated the use of covers to reduce ammonia from lagoons and solid manure storage piles. 230 The District found no definitive evidence that la goon covers would control ammonia emissions, and cited s everal studies indicating that anaerobic lagoons might increase ammonia emiss ions. 231 It also cites

227 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Page C-262.

228 For a detailed explanation of the point system, se e IDEQ, “Scientific Basis for the control of Ammoni a from Dairy Farms Best Management Practices,” July 1 8, 2006, available at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/635665-58_0101_0502_ scientific_basis_final.pdf

229 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, section C.41.IV, page C-267.

230 See Email from Sheraz Gill (SJVACPD) to Andy Steckel (U SEPA), dated June 25, 2015.

231 Ibid, Evaluation of Covers Lagoons Manure Piles fo r NH3.docs.66 cost and safety concerns related to covering manure piles that are not completely dry.

We generally agree with the District’s conclusion t hat Rule 4570 establishes the most stringent control measures for ammonia emi ssions from CAFs that can feasibly be implemented in the SJV at this time

.

4. Emissions Inventory

CAFs are the largest source of ammonia emissions in SJV, at 197.9.0 tpd (2015 winter average), or 61.8% of the total ammoni a emissions in the SJV (320.4 tpd, 2015 winter average). 232 The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan (Appendix C) states that Rule 4570 reduced ammonia emissions by over 100 tpd but does not specifically explain the basis for this emissio n reduction estimate. 233 More recently, CARB estimated that Rule 4570 reduce d 2012 baseline emissions by 73 tpd, from 323.8 to 250.9 tpd. 234

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on these evaluations, we propose to find that Rule 4570 implements BACM and MSM for CAF operations at this time. We re commend, however,

that:

H. The District periodically evaluate all available air pollution control measures for ammonia emissions from CAFs that may b e technically and economically feasible for implementation in the SJV . This evaluation should include specific consideration of the contro l efficiencies and cost effectiveness of potential measures to reduce ammon ia emissions from
CAFs.

I. CARB and the District clarify the assumptions an d calculations used to
estimate emissions and emission reductions from CAF s.

n. Compost Operations

1. Overview

Section C.41 (beginning page C--272) discusses SJVA CPD rules related to compost operations. This includes Rule 4565 , Biosolids, Animal Manure, and

232 See Appendix B: Emissions Inventory, Table B-5.

233 For example, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan references Append ix F of SJVAPCD’s 2006 Rule 4570 staff report, but Appendix F does not specify the relevant emissi ons inventory and does not reflect the current vers ion

of Rule 4570.

234 Email from Gabe Ruiz (CARB) to Nancy Levin (USEPA) , dated September, 3, 2015.67 Poultry Litter Operations , and Rule 4566, Organic Material Composting . Rule 4565 establishes requirements for facilities that l andfill, land apply, compost or co-compost biosolids, animal manure or poultry l itter. Rule 4566 establishes requirements for facilities that stockp ile and compost greenwaste and foodwaste materials. EPA approved Rules 4565 an d 4566 as meeting
RACT for VOC control in 2012. 235

Rule 4565 was designed to control VOC emissions fro m biosolids, animal manure, and poultry litter composting and co-compos ting operations, but
SJVAPCD states that the controls have the co-benefi t of reducing ammonia emissions and assumes in its analysis that ammonia control efficiencies achieved by these control measures are the same as the estimated VOC

control efficiencies. 236 Facilities with throughputs less than 100,000 wet tons/year must implement class one measures such as scraping or sweeping where compostable material is mixed, screened or st ored, covering active or curing compost piles within three hours of turning, and maintaining minimum oxygen concentrations in active and curing compost piles. Larger facilities must implement class two measures requiring add-on controls or alternative measures demonstrating at least 80% control efficie ncy, such as conducting active or curing composting in aerated static piles or in-vessel composting systems that are vented to a control device, most c ommonly a biofilter. 237

Rule 4566 establishes requirements to limit VOC emi ssions from facilities that stockpile or compost greenwaste and/or foodwaste. T he District states that Rule 4566 has the co-benefit of also limiting ammon ia emissions and assumes in its analysis that ammonia control effici encies achieved by these
control measures are the same as the estimated VOC control efficiencies. 238 The required control measures for windrow or compos t piles include turning (windrows only) and watering (for throughput less t han 200,000 tpy); turning (windrows only), watering and covering with finishe d compost (for throughput between 200,000 but less than 750,000 tpy); and an APCO and EPAapproved mitigation measure demonstrating 80% reduc tion in VOC emissions, such as venting emissions to a biofilter , for larger operations.

SJVAPCD states that Rules 4565 and 4566 implement B ACM and MSM for ammonia from compost operations. The following are key points drawn from SJVAPCD’s analysis that support the District’s BACM /MSM determination.

235 77 FR 7112, November 29, 2012.

236 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Pages C-276 - C-277.

237 See SJVAPCD Rule 4565, Section 5.3.

238 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Pages C-272-C-273.68

2. Comparison to Analogous Control Measures in Othe r Areas

A. Biosolids, Animal Manure and Poultry Litter Comp osting/Co-composting Operations

According to SJVAPCD, there is no national CTG, ACT , NSPS, NESHAP or MACT regulations or guidance for biosolids, anim al manure or poultry litter composting/co-composting operations. SJVAPCD states that Rule 4565 is as stringent as SCAQMD Rule 1133.2, the onl y other rule it found that regulates similar types of operations, and sum marizes the following significant differences between these rules. Rule 4 565’s more stringent threshold for applicability is 100 tpy of biosolids , animal manure or poultry litter, while Rule 1133.2’s threshold is 1,000 tpy. SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 requires in-vessel composting with 70% control effi ciency for existing facilities and 80% for new facilities, while SJVAPC D Rule 4565 requires 10% - 80% control efficiency based on annual throug hput. SJVAPCD states that the lower efficiencies are sometimes ap propriate because invessel composting (class two) is not cost-effective for smaller or medium
facilities. SJVAPCD estimates that the cost effect iveness of implementing class two measures for small size facilities (100 t o 20,000 tpy throughput) ranges from $392,597 to $870,266 per ton VOC reduce d. For medium sized facilities, (20,000 – 100,000 tpy throughput) the range is $48,262 to $150,312 per ton VOC reduced. 239 In addition, SJVAPCD states that SCAQMD does not have any “unsubsidized facilities” within the size range where SCAQMD Rule 1133.2’s 70-80% requirement appea rs more stringent than SJVAPCD 4565’s 10-80% requirement. 240

B. Greenwaste and Foodwaste Composting Operations

SJVAPCD states that there is no national CTG, ACT, NSPS, NESHAP or MACT requirements or guidance for greenwaste and/or foodwaste composting operations. SJVAPCD compares Rule 4566 w ith SCAQMD Rule 1133.3, the only other rule it found that regu lates similar types of compost operations. Both rules require similar type s of control, but SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 has lower thresholds. For exampl e, SJVAPCD Rule 4566’s threshold for 80% control is greenwaste and/or foodwaste throughput of 750,000 tpy, while Rule 1133.3’s anal ogous threshold is 5,000 tpy foodwaste. However, SJVAPCD states that S CAQMD does not have any compost facilities subject to the 80% cont rol requirement, so the difference in thresholds is not meaningful. In add ition, SJVAPCD states

239 See Appendix C, Costs and Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Revised Proposed New Rule 4565 (Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Opera tions), SJVUAPCD, March 30, 2007, Table 2, page C6.

240 See Final Staff Report, Revised Proposed New Rule 4565 (Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations), SJVUAPCD March 30, 2007, Table 2: Significant Differences, page 11.69 that the thresholds in Rule 4566 are based on cost effectiveness and
socioeconomic studies conducted for conditions in S JV. 241

We generally agree with the District’s demonstratio n that Rules 4565 and 4566 establish among the most stringent control mea sures for ammonia emissions from compost facilities compared to other regulations.

3. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Alternativ e Control Techniques

SJVAPCD evaluated other potential controls for redu cing ammonia emissions from greenwaste/foodwaste and biosolids/animal manu re/poultry litter compost sources, but did not find any that have bee n demonstrated to be

feasible in SJV at this time. SJVAPCD estimates tha t the cost effectiveness of implementing a finished compost cover and watering system ranges from $2,393 to $2,525, but that this cost would not be f easible for operations that process less than 200,000 tpy, based on a 10% of pr ofits threshold. 242,243 It estimates that the cost effectiveness for implement ing engineered controls ranges from $4,724 to $7,802 per ton VOC reduced, b ut that the cost to implement the system would not be economically feas ible for operators who process less than 750,000 tpy of throughput, based on a 10% of profits threshold. Although EPA does not endorse the Distr ict’s use of a “10% of the industry’s profit” test for economic feasibility, w e agree with the District’s conclusion that additional controls for composting operations are not economically feasible for implementation in the SJV area at this time, particularly in light of financial risks to the com posting industry caused by the relatively low cost of landfilling and the lack of financial incentives for nonlandfilling alternatives such as composting and ana erobic digestion. 244 We find it appropriate to consider the environmental b enefits of composting operations, 245 including diversion of material from landfills, 246 in evaluating the feasibility of additional controls for this source category.

241 See Appendix C at pg. C-274; Final Staff Report, Revis ed Proposed New Rule 4566 (Organic Material Composting Operations), SJVAPCD August 18, 2011, pa ges 15 and 31; and Appendix C, Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Revised Proposed New Rul e 4566, SJVAPCD, August 18, 2011.

242 See Appendix C, Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Revised Proposed New Rule 4566, SJVAPCD, August 18, 2011, C-12.

243 See Appendix D. Socioeconomic Analysis, Revised Propose d New Rule 4566 (Organic Material Composting Operations), August 18, 2011, section 5. 2, page 15.

244 See California Department of Resources Recycling and Re covery (CalRecycle), “Composting and Anaerobic Digestion” (June 18, 2013 Draft) at pg. 9

, available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Actions/Documents%5C77 %5C20132013%5C900%5CComposting%20and %20Anaerobic%20Digestion.pdf

. 245 See, e.g., http://www.epa.gov/composting/benefits.htm.

246 Section 41780 of the California Public Resources C ode requires each city and county to divert 50 percent of all solid waste through source reduction , recycling, and composting activities, and section 41780.01 states that “it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020, and annually thereafter.”70 Additionally, SJVAPCD has funded a demonstration pr oject, through its Technology Advancement Program, that could potentia lly significantly reduce VOC, ammonia and other emissions at large greenwast e and/or foodwaste composting facilities. This prototype “extended aer ated stack pile (eASP) method” substitutes diesel-powered loaders with ele ctronic conveyor systems to build piles, uses solar-powered blowers to repla ce diesel-powered windrow turners, and uses finished compost biofilter covers

. 247 The pilot study analyzes the advantages and drawbacks of the system , and concludes that the solar-powered eASP with a biofilter compost cap may be a viable method for commercial-scale composting. 248 The study authors note that this demonstration project is the first test of this tec hnology and recommend further testing and evaluation to assure results on an industry-wide basis. 249

As with the solid fuel-fired boilers discussed abov e, we note that there are other environmental benefits of composting operatio ns, including diversion of material from landfills, which should be considered in evaluating the feasibility of additional controls on composting operations in these rules.

We generally agree with the District’s conclusion t hat Rule 4565 and Rule 4566 establish the most stringent control measures for ammonia emissions from compost facilities that can feasibly be implem ented in the SJV at this

time.

4. Emissions Inventory

SJVAPCD estimates ammonia emissions from compost so urces regulated by Rule 4565 and 4566 at 9.0 tpd (2015 annual average)

.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on these evaluations, we propose to find that Rule 4565 and Rule 4566 implement BACM and MSM for composing operation s at this time. We recommend, however, that the District periodically evaluate all available air pollution control measures for ammonia emissions fr om compost facilities that may be technically and economically feasible for im plementation in the SJV. This evaluation should include specific considerati on of the control efficiencies and cost effectiveness of potential me asures to reduce ammonia

emissions from these facilities. We also recommend that SJVAPCD continue its analysis of eASP to determine whether this cont rol method is feasible for the compost industry in the Valley.

247 See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix E, page E-15.

248 See Greenwaste Compose Site Emissions Reductions from S olar-Powered Aeration and Biofilter Layer. Report from the contract team, May 14, 2013, available at http://www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/TAP/documen ts/C-15636-ACP/C15636_ACP_FinalReport.pdf

249 Ibid., Appendix A, page 14 of 21.