7/23/02 DRAFT Comments on SJVAPCD Proposed Revisions to The

August 6, 2002

Sent Via Facismile – Hard Copy to Follow By Mail

Mr. Joven R. Nazareno Senior Air Quality Engineer San Joaquin Valley APCD 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue Fresno, CA 93726

Subject: Comments of California Independent Petroleum Association on Proposed Revisions to Rule 4306 and Draft Rules 4701 and 4702.

Dear Mr. Nazareno:

The California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA) is a non-profit, non- partisan trade association dedicated to representing the interests of independent crude oil and natural gas producers, royalty owners, and service and supply companies operating in California. The association represents over 400 companies, the majority of which are located in the SJVAPCD’s jurisdiction.

Based on a review of the proposed rules and discussions raised during the public workshops, CIPA would respectfully like to submit the following specific comments on proposed Rules 4701/4702 (IC Engines), and some more general comments on how we believe the board should proceed in developing the proposed revisions to Rule 4306 (Heaters, Boilers and Steam Generators), 4701, and 4702.

General Comments

1. CIPA is concerned that the District Rulemaking Staff have not yet considered the socio-economic or cost impacts the above-mentioned rules will have on the regulated community. CIPA recommends staff build on their efforts by satisfying the requirements in the Clean Air Act that require the districts “consider” the economic and cost-effectiveness aspects of the proposed reasonably available control measure (RACM). Furthermore, CIPA is also concerned the District Rulemaking Staff have indicated they

CIPA Comments Proposed Rules 4306 & 4702 7/30/02 1 will not seek to establish a cost-effectiveness threshold to evaluate what is “reasonably available” RACM. Mr. Joven Nazareno CIPA Comments – Rules 4306, 4701, 4702 August 6, 2002 Page 2

2. CIPA recommends staff assemble an Industry Focus Group as soon as possible so that industry representatives can work together with staff in evaluating the cost and feasibility of controls as part of this rulemaking process – specifically in regards to the proposed revisions to Rule 4306. CIPA also recommends that monthly meetings of the group along with staff be scheduled throughout the rulemaking process. In the District’s Draft Staff Report (June 18, 2002), page 3 makes reference to an Industry Focus Group, but suggests that the District should only schedule one meeting with the group. CIPA does not feel this will allow sufficient time to “assist District staff in determining the appropriate method of gathering information on regulatory compliance costs and business impacts resulting from compliance with the rules”.

3. CIPA believes the District needs to ensure retrofit rules in the rules establish control levels within which equipment can be expected to be in continuous compliance during normal operation with an appropriate compliance margin. Many CIPA Members have units that are operated intermittently or cyclically loaded. It is critically important that whatever control levels are ultimately proposed through this process be realistically achievable in practice on a continuous basis throughout all normal operational modes (e.g., load swings, changes in firing rates).

4. CIPA requests all written comments be included within the District’s Staff Report.

5. Due to short notice of the public workshops held during the week of July 15, 2002, there has been inadequate time for CIPA members to conduct a thorough cost impact analysis for the proposed rules. CIPA will encourage its members to provide cost data to the District and will encourage them to be involved in the Industry Focus Group.

Proposed Rules 4701 & 4702

1. In the monitoring requirement sections of proposed rules 4701 and 4702 it states, “all emission readings shall be taken at an engine’s actual peak load and under the engine’s typical duty cycle.” CIPA requests that the “and” in this statement should be changed to “or” in order to avoid forcing the operator to run two tests.

Mr. Joven Nazareno

CIPA Comments Proposed Rules 4306 & 4702 7/30/02 2 CIPA Comments – Rules 4306, 4701, 4702 August 6, 2002 Page 3

2. Section 6.3.2 of proposed rules 4701 and 4702 requires NOx emissions to be reported in both ppmv and as a percent reduction across the control device. Unless otherwise required for a specific type of engine in Table 5.1, CIPA requests that this requirement be modified to allow an operator to test for either ppmv or percent reduction in order to avoid having to conduct two tests.

3. The representative testing provisions of both 4701 and 4702 have been eliminated in the current drafts. CIPA requests that these provisions be reinstated. The elimination of these provisions would increase compliance costs for the operator dramatically. In our opinion, the proposed addition of the quarterly portable analyzer test requirement should be enough to satisfy the District that all ICEs are being kept in compliance.

4. For proposed rule 4702, the rule applicability section has been changed to include ICE rated at 50 BHP. By implementing this change, the District will be subjecting a family of non-permitted ICEs to the new proposed rule. Since 50 BHP rated ICEs do not require a permit, it is doubtful that the District has an accurate inventory of these types of engines. Because of this, it is questionable as to whether the actual emission benefit of this change can be accurately estimated.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of our thoughts on this issue. CIPA appreciates the opportunity to comment during the public review process and looks forward to working together with District Staff to develop rules that are cost effective and achievable in practice. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 449-6848 should you have any questions or need more information concerning our thoughts on this matter.

Sincerely,

John Martini Director of Public Affairs California Independent Petroleum Association cc: Mr. Saul Gamez, SJVAPCD Fresno Mr. Scott Nester – SJVAPCD Fresno Members, SJVAPCD Governing Board

CIPA Comments Proposed Rules 4306 & 4702 7/30/02 3