SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLU TION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Resp onses December 15, 2011

A - 1 Final Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625 

## APPENDIX A

Summary of Comm ents on Responses For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625

December 15, 2011SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLU TION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Resp onses December 15, 2011

A - 2 Final Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625 This page intentionally blank.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLU TION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Resp onses December 15, 2011

A - 3 Final Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFI CANT COMMENTS FOR

RULE 4625 (WASTEWATER SEPARATORS)

FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING

EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS

No comments were received from EPA.

ARB STAFF COMMENTS

No comments were received from ARB.

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

No comments were received from stakeholders.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLU TION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Resp onses December 15, 2011

A - 4 Final Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR

RULE 4625 (WASTEWATER SEPARATORS)

EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS

No comments were received from EPA.

ARB STAFF COMMENTS

No comments were received from EPA.

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

Association of Irrita ted Residents (AIR) Insight Environmental Consultants (IEC) Kern Oil and Refining Company (KORC)

1. COMMENT: The current standard of 90% capt ure and control and the proposed

standard of 95% are far too low. The required capt ure and control percentage

should be 98% because emissions in t he San Joaquin Valley are of greater proportion here than in the South Coast r egion. Oil companies should also be mandated to achieve 98% recovery. (AIR)

RESPONSE: The purpose of this rule-amending project is to address RACT deficiencies as identified by EPA in the Fede ral Register. RACT is the lowest level of control requires for non-atta inment areas. Currently ther e are no other regulations that require 98% capture and control. The rule requires the best possible controls and now includes requirements for inspection and maintenance.

2. COMMENT: In order for the rule to retain c onsistent APCD formatting, the District should keep section 4.0, and label it “[ Reserved]”. This would bump regulatory requirements back to Section 5.0 of the Rule and Administ rative requirements et. al. back to 6.0. (IEC)

RESPONSE: District staff agrees with this comm ent and will retain Section 4.0.

3. COMMENT: The District should include a clear def inition of “custody transfer” to avoid confusion and ambiguity of which parti es to whom the rule applies. If the

definition is not added in this rule, then t he District should improve the clarity ofSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLU TION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Resp onses December 15, 2011

A - 5 Final Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625 Section 2.0, add the definition to the De finition Rule 1020, or reference the appropriate District rule where the phrase is defined. KORC’s understanding of the

rule is that the District m eant to apply it to the oil/ water separators at non-oil production sites (i.e. refineries or other manufacturing locations). (IEC, KORC)

RESPONSE: District staff reviewed this co mment and recommends adding a definition of custody transfer to Rule 4625. Please see page 3 of the staff report for

more details.

4. COMMENT: Section 4.4 requires that recovered oil or tar must be routed to a process unit or a 90% contro lled storage unit. However, Rule 4623 already covers the requirements for the stori ng of organic liquids, including specific allowances for the storage of organic liquids with TVP < 0. 5 without vapor contro l. Section 4.4 should be amended to include provisions for storage or recovered oils in otherwise Rule 4623-compliant tanks.

KORC recommends the new section read similar to:

Skimmed oil or tar removed from wastew ater separating devices shall be either charged to process units with feed or transfe rred to a container with a control system with at least 90% control efficiency by weight or otherwise in conformance with Rule 4623 “Storage of Organic Liquids.” A control device must be under District permit. (KORC)

RESPONSE: Incorporating the proposed changes into the rule would make the rule less stringent. The District is prohibited fr om backsliding and therefore this issue will

not be addressed at this time.

5. COMMENT: Section 5.5 is unclear and leaves the regulated party confused as to how the inspection criteria apply. Clear in spection criteria should be developed for separators that use control opt ion 5.1.1, 5.1.2, or 5.1.3. The manner in which the current draft is written specifies inspecti ons are required for all operators subject to the rule requirements, but goes on to descr ibe inspection procedures that apply to floating roof devices. It is unclear how this inspection would be performed by operators meeting control requirements in Sections 5.1.1 or 5.1.3 in lieu of 5.1.2. If no inspections are required for operators us ing methods described in Section 5.1.1 and 5.1.3, such should be exp licitly stated in Section 5. 5. Inspection requirements for the storage of organic liq uids are covered by Rule 4623; therefore, the requirements for this type of inspecti on should only be included as reference. (KORC)

RESPONSE: District staff reviewed this co mment and will add inspection requirements specific for each di fferent compliance option.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLU TION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Resp onses December 15, 2011

A - 6 Final Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625 6. COMMENT: Draft Rule 4625 will place an enormous economic burden on facilities

that do not meet the 95% cont rol efficiency. The Distric t should perform an in depth analysis of the economic impac t to capture these emissions . The actual reductions available seem insignificant when compared to other ava ilable sources of emission reductions in the San Joaquin Valley. (KORC)

RESPONSE: District staff reviewed permit conditi ons and directly contacted all affected operators directly to discuss this change. All facilities that currently comply with the rule by venting emission to a v apor control system are already achieving 95% control efficiency. Therefore, the Distr ict does not anticipate facilities incurring significant costs.

7. COMMENT: The District timeline request for feedback was not sufficient for proper engineering or operational costs analysis. KORC respectfully requests that at minimum, a 30 day notice be given for Dis trict requests, rather than the 14 day notice given for this rule. (KORC)

RESPONSE: It is the District’s mission to prov ide excellent customer service and allow for ample opportunity for stakeholder input. The 14-day notice was necessary to meet the expedited schedule for this rule project. However, the District will ensure stakeholders have adequate time to submit comments. In fact, stakeholders will have additional opportunities to comment on this rule after posting (11/15/11), and at the public hearing (12/15/11).