UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

May 6,2008



### Mr. George Heinen, P.E. Supervising Air Quality Engineer San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 1990

### E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726

Re: 8-hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology - State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) Analysis -Additional Analysis Needed

Dear Mr. Heinen:

We are in the process of reviewing SanJoaquin's 8-hour Ozone RACT SIP analysis that was submitted to EPA onJanuary 31,2007. We greatly appreciate SJVAPCD staff efforts to develop this analysis, which largely followed national guidance at the time. For example, the 8-hour Ozone implementation guidance statesthat, "Where a State has adopted and EPA has approved a control measure asRACT for a specific..



### . source category..



### . and absent data indicatingthat the previous RACT determination is no longer appropriate, the State may submit a certificationthat the source is subject to a SIP-approved RACT requirement." (70

### FR 71652,November 29, 2005). SanJoaquin's RACT SIP analysis contains such certifications for many SJVAPCD rules which fulfilled relevant state and federal guidance (e.g., RACTBARCT determinations and CTGs)when adopted.

The 8-hour Ozone implementation guidance also states that, "RACT can change over time as
new technology becomes available orthe cost of existing technology decreases.. 

### ." (70 FR 71655). The guidance clarifies that, "In all cases where additional information ispresented as part of notice-and-comment rulemaking, including a RACT SIP submittal for sourcespreviously controlled, States (and EPA) must consider the additional information as part of that rulemaking." (Ibid). EPA has received additional information in the last year during three separate notice-and-comment rulemakings (72 FR 29901,72

### FR 65283,73FR 125). In all three,
we proposed to approve San Joaquin rules as fulfilling RACT, and commenters presented information on more stringent requirements in other areas and argued that analysis had not been provided on why these or othermore stringent requirements were not also reasonably available in SanJoaquin.

Similar comments were made during development of San Joaquin's RACT SIPanalysis and we suspect similar comments will be made should we propose to approve it. Particularly where significant requirements and exemptions have not changed for many years, it seemsreasonable to ask whether RACT may have evolved overtime. Such analysis seems additionallyjustified for areas, like San Joaquin, which are reclassifying from severe to extreme nonattainment status.To address these comments, we believe SJVAPCD should adopt and submit additional analysis
on why existing District regulations do or do not implement RACT. Someof the comments suggest that the District and EPA should perform a detailed and explicit cost and feasibility analysis for all possible controls to determine RACT for each source category. We believe this is not compelled by existing guidancein the absenceof specific additional information. Instead,
we suggest dividing the approximately 50 rules relied on in San Joaquin's RACT SIPinto three different groups, with a different level of analysisfor each. These are described below. 

### Group 1: Rules revised very recently (e.g., last 1-3 years) where SJVAPCD's staffreport includes analysis demonstrating that all reasonably available controls are implemented, including those imposed for similar sourcesin other industries and locations, and including analysis of technical and economic feasibility. For these rules, SJVAPCD should provide a citation to the appropriate staff report demonstration. 

### Group

### 2: Simplerules which, while possibly old, are unlikely to have more stringent controls reasonably available. Examples might include: Rule 4404, Heavy Oil Test Station-- Kern County (last amended on December 17, 1992); Rule 4454, Refinery Process Unit Turnaround (last amended on December 17, 1992);and Rule 4672, Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning Operations (last amended on December 17, 1992). For these rules, the District should demonstrate that additional controls are unlikely to be reasonably available. We recommend language such as the following in justifying this claim.

"Emissions from activities addressedby this regulation contribute only minimally to the NAAQS attainment problem in the San Joaquin airbasin. Uncontrolled emissions from the category, for example, represent 

### -lblday or -% of the total stationary source inventory (provide citation). Emission controls required by this regulation rely largely on simple operational controls that do not generally lend themselves to significant technological improvement. For example, (summarize control). Similar controls for these activities are required in other ozone nonattainment areas, such as in SCAQMD Rule -and BAAQMD Rule 

### -. We estimate this regulation controls most of the emissions from these activities, for example -% from -(provide citation). EPA released a CTG forthis category on 

### -, 19- which recommends similar controls and did not identify more effective controls that might be reasonably available in the near future. Similarly, the rule fulfills all recommendations from CARB's RACTBARCT demonstration released on, 19-. In addition, we consulted with our experts in this source category from ourpermit and enforcement offices, and they were not aware of additional technological or operational controls that might be reasonably available, and no comments were received during the District's public hearing process or submitted to EPA identifying more effective technology or operational methods that might be reasonably available. As a result of these factors, we think it is unlikely that new exhaustive analysis would prove a good
use of our limited resources by revealing significant additional reasonably available emission controls."

### Group3: Other rules should be analyzed in more detail to ensurethat more stringent controls are not reasonably available. This is particularly important where more stringent controls have been implemented in other areas and have been in effect for a number of years. Examplerules where potentially more stringent controls have been identified include the following:

1. Rule 4307, Boilers etc. 2-5 MMBtuIhr,limits NOx to 30 pprn for gaseous fuel and 40 pprn for liquid. SCAQMD 1146.1 (adopted 1994) limits NOx to 30 pprn regard.lessof fuel.

2. Rule 43 11,Flares, requires good operating practices. SCAQMD and BAAQMD require the same plus approved flare reduction plans justifying all flaring activity.

3. Rule 4352, Solid Fuel Boilers etc,has limitedNOx from MSW combustion at 200 pprn since 1994. The staffreport claims local facilities installed SNCR,the most stringent control available. However,EPA's 1994 ACT estimated generally available control of -126 ppm, SCAQMD's Montenay Pacific Power units, recently tested at 80-1 10 ppm, and Massachusetts' Eco Pittsfield units tested at 70-1 10ppm. Rule 4352 may be able to reduce NOx limits and address spikes, if necessary, through appropriate averaging.
4. Rule 4402, Oil Production Sumps, exempts small producers while San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, South Coast and Ventura do not. Therule also exempts sumps <35 mg/l VOC, while Ventura's 1993 Rule 71.4and San Luis Obispo's 1994 Rule 4 19 exempt sumps <5mg/l.

5. Draft Rule 4566, Organic Waste, is a new rule just under development, so RACT is not yet imposed for composting operations. Early draft documents do not analyze whether specific controls or emission limits are reasonably available.

6. Rule 4570, CAFO, and the associated staff report similarly donot explain whether specific controls or limits arereasonably available.
7. Rule 4607, Graphic Arts, allows 8% VOC for all fountain solutions, which is less stringent than the 1994 draft CTG and the 2006 CTG forheatset web (1.6% alcohol
or 

### 3%<60"F), sheet fed (5% alcohol, 8.5% cooled) or non heatset web (3%). Rule revisions currently in development may address these discrepancies while requiring add-on control in fewer cases than the CTG.

8. Rule 468 1,Rubber Tire Manufacturing, requirements forbead cementing (75% VOC reduction) and tread end cementing (62% reduction) are less stringent than BAAQMD 8-21 from 1993 (95% efficiency).

9. Brandv Aging, is not subject to any specific RACT or other requirements although there are relatively recently identified major sources.We ask that the District preliminarily analyze all the rules relied on in the RACT SIPto sort them into these three groups. Those that do not fit into the first two groups shouldbe investigated forfurthercontrols by comparing to similar requirements for other sources (e.g., controls for small boilers might be compared to controls for dryers and larger boilers) and other areas (e.g., other districts such as South Coast and other states such as Texas) to identify potential improvements such as those listed 1-9above. More detailed analysis generally seems appropriate for specific requirements that have not been updated for many years, even if other provisions in arule have been recently revised. More detailed analysis also seems appropriate where the District/EPA has or expects to receive specific and substantive public comments, such as those contained in the ISSRC's November 2007 "Clearing the Air" report. All potential improvements (such as 1-9 above) should then be analyzed for whether they are reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.

We also suggest the District further strengthen its analysisby including a demonstration that RACT is implemented for all major sources. TheDistrict might describe, for example, how it
ensures all major sources are covered by a permit, verifies that all units at major sources are subject to a RACT rule, and provide an example of the demonstration.

Please feel free to contact me (415-947-4115)or Stanley Tong (415-947-4.122),if you would like to discuss .thisfurther.
Sincerely,

Andrew Steckel, Rules Office Chief, Air Division