UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

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 San Joaquin's 8-hour Ozone RACT SIP analysis that was 

submitted to EPA on January 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 states that, "Where a State has adopted and EPA has approved a 

control measure as RACT for a specific.. . source category.. . and absent data indicating that the 

previous RACT determination is no longer appropriate, the State may submit a certification that 

the source is subject to a SIP-approved RACT requirement." (70 FR 71652, November 29, 

2005). San Joaquin'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 or the cost of existing technology decreases.. ." (70 FR 

71655). The guidance clarifies that, "In all cases where additional information is presented as 

part of notice-and-comment rulemaking, including a RACT SIP submittal for sources previously 

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 65283,73 FR 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 other more stringent requirements were not also reasonably available 

in San Joaquin. 

Similar comments were made during development of San Joaquin's RACT SIP analysis 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 seems reasonable 

to ask whether RACT may have evolved over time. Such analysis seems additionally justified 

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. Some of 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 guidance in the absence of specific additional information. Instead, 

we suggest dividing the approximately 50 rules relied on in San Joaquin's RACT SIP into three 

different groups, with a different level of analysis for each. These are described below. 

Group 1: Rules revised very recently (e.g., last 1-3 years) where SJVAPCD's staff report 

includes analysis demonstrating that all reasonably available controls are implemented, 

including those imposed for similar sources in 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: Simple rules 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 addressed by this regulation contribute only minimally to 

the NAAQS attainment problem in the San Joaquin air basin. 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 for this 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 our permit 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." 
Group 3: Other rules should be analyzed in more detail to ensure that 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. 

Example rules 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.less of 

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 limited NOx from MSW combustion at 200 

pprn since 1994. The staff report 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 10 ppm. 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. The rule also exempts sumps <35 

mg/l VOC, while Ventura's 1993 Rule 7 1.4 and 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 do not explain whether 

specific controls or limits are reasonably 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 for heatset 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 for bead 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 SIP to sort 

them into these three groups. Those that do not fit into the first two groups should be 

investigated for further controls 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 1-9 above. More detailed analysis 

generally seems appropriate for specific requirements that have not been updated for many 

years, even if other provisions in a rule 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 analysis by including a demonstration that 

RACT is implemented for all major sources. The District 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 (415-947-41 15) or Stanley Tong (415-947-4.122), if you would like 

to discuss .this further. 

Sincerely, 

Andrew Steckel, 

Rules Office Chief, Air Division