SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses September 20, 2007

Final Staff Report with Appendices For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

# APPENDIX A

Comments and Responses for Revised Proposed Amendments to

Rule 4682 ( Polystyrene Foam, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Manufacturing)

September 20, 2007SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses September 20, 2007

Final Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 A - 2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFI CANT WRITTEN COMMENTS

FROM THE FINAL COMMENT PER IOD ENDING AUGUST 23, 2007

AND DISTRICT STAFF’S RESPONSES

EPA COMMENTS:

EPA has no comment at this time.

ARB COMMENTS:

The Air Resources Board Staff reviewed Rule 4682, and, based on the information available at this time, had no comments.

STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS:

Comments were received from the following stakeholders:

APTCO, LLC (APT) Dart Container Corp. (DCC) PACTIV Corporation (PC) Pregis (PRE)

1. COMMENT: The corresponding language change mentio ned in Comment #3 is still

not reflected in Section 4.1 of the August 16, 2007 version of the proposed rule. We

would like to also confirm that Secti on 4.1 applies to any foam manufacturing operation as long as the amount of VOC-bl owing agent falls below the less than 1% standard and regardless of whet her the VOC-blowing agent is contained in the resin bead or injected du ring the process. (PC)

RESPONSE: The staff report has been revised to correct the earlier error. Section 4.1 exempts operations with le ss than 1% VOC in the raw material and not using a blowing agent in the process. Extruders typically start with little or no

VOC in the beads and add the blowing agent so they woul d not be excluded from the rule. Extruders, which exclusively use blowing agents wit h no VOC or CFC, would comply with the rule r equirements under Section 5.3.2.

2. COMMENT: The exemption provided by Section 5.3.3 should expressly apply to extruded, as well as expandable, polystyrene products. Also, th e word “or” should be

added at the end of the section to clarify that Section 5.3.4 is an alternative compliance standard. (PC)

RESPONSE: The rule language of Section 5. 3 has been revised to more clearly list the compliance methods.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses September 20, 2007

Final Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 A - 3 3. COMMENT: Company accounting systems commonl y compile relevant materials consumption and finished good production in formation on a cal endar monthly, as opposed to daily, basis. Changing the 30-day provision to calendar months would be more efficient, harmonize wit h recordkeeping, align with annual air emissions reports, and tie to official corporate a ccounting records. A facility will not know whether is has violated the daily emissions standard until a month has passed, it was within this context that we proposed that the emissions calculati ons be performed on calendarmonth basis and demonstrated on a three month rolling-aver age basis. (PC), (PRE)

RESPONSE: Many PTO required daily records and monthly records can be used to calculate such values for the purpos e of this rule. Staff believe the 30- day period is sufficient to account for ma terial variations without producing long periods of non-compliant operations and excedences.

4. COMMENT: The opening of Section 5.6 should read: no later than six months after

the rule comes into force or no later than 42 m onths after the rule adoption date. (PC)

RESPONSE: The purpose of that section is for operators to obtain APCO approval of their Compliance Plan befor e spending too much resources pursuing an non-approvable compliance approach. The section has been revised to allow a longer period to prepare and submit t hat plan. Please see the Revised Proposed rule.

5. COMMENT: Appendix C states that expandable pol ystyrene manufacturers already comply with the control standar d of Rule 4682 and therefore w ould incur no costs. In fact, compliance with the rule, as amended, w ould result in substantial expense since it would require significant capital expenditures to bring fa cilities into compliance and incur substantial ongoing expenses to keep them there. (PC)

RESPONSE: Based on proposed rule requi rements and current emission controls, two expandable facilities s hould be able to demonstrate compliance with little or no operational changes. Es timated compliance costs for the other operators are listed in Table 1. Becaus e the operators will hav e the freedom to choose the compliance option that best app lies to their operations, it is not possible to determine a case-by-case-cos t. Appendix C repr esents worst-case scenarios. It is not expect ed that operators wil l construct controlled warehousing when more cost-effective options are available.

6. COMMENT: We request that the Dis trict expand the equivalency option in Section 5.3.4 to include those processe s that chose to or can only comply with Section 5.3.1. We feel that it would give cup molders, and possibly othe rs, the same opportunities to come up with the bes t and most efficient way to meet the emission limitations that

the District needs to implement. (DCC)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses September 20, 2007

Final Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 A - 4 RESPONSE: If an operator can dem onstrate emissions of less than the 2.4 lb limit for post-control emissions plus resi dual product VOC, than they comply with that section so equivalency language is not required.

7. COMMENT: We believe that there is either in significant or no advantage to adopting the 2.4#/100# requirement ov er the Maricopa 3.2#/100# requi rement that is being requested by both the grape box molders and ourselves and has been approved by EPA Region 9 since there will be no reduction in on-site emissions. There is actually

an increase in the site’s controlled emissions which would occur si nce a portion of the increased artificially-achieved emis sions are uncontrolled. (DCC)

RESPONSE: The difference in allowing the hi gher limit could be close to an extra ton of VOC/day. The District is required to adopt the most effective standard which is represented by the 2.4 lb limit. That limit represents a cradleto-grave account for emissions and is not an on-site standard. The option under Section 5.3.3 represents the best control practices for on-site emissions.

8. COMMENT: EPA method 24 or 24A, or SCAQMD Method 304 are not very
accurate for some of the polymers and proces ses covered in this rule. The District should have the authority to approve VOC meas urement methods in Rule 4682. (PRE)

RESPONSE: Section 6.2 provides that alte rnative test methods can be used providing flexibility in the rule. The oper ator is provided an option from using the

test methods mentioned.

9. COMMENT: Section 3.14 specifies li near thermoplastic poly mers of ethylene with densities from 0.94 gram per c ubic centimeter or higher. W hat if a polymer is used with a density lower than 0.94? (PRE)

RESPONSE: Linear thermoplastic polymers of ethylene with densities less than 0.94 gram per cubic cent imeter are not covered by Rule 4682.

10. COMMENT: Section 5.3.3.1.2 specifie s that materials must be vented for 24 hours. Why is this necessary for operations des igned to meet the 90% capture and 95%

abatement in less than 24 hours? (PRE)

RESPONSE: The 24-hours is to capture the emissions that are vented during this period. If the material is not v ented to a control system, then the storage emissions will not be reduced, r egardless of the system used.

11. COMMENT: Section 5.3.1 has a VOC limit and st ates that blowing agent retention

must be included this does not appear to be true for Section 5.1.2 which appears to only regulate emissions that occur prior to product ship ping. Why are these two sections apparently different? (PRE)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses September 20, 2007

Final Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 A - 5 RESPONSE: Section 5.2.1 is an existing secti on of the rule. Section 5.3.1 is a proposed section that the Dis trict anticipates will gener ate more VOC emission reductions than the original rule as adopted in 1992. (PRE)

12. COMMENT: The District departed from its long standing position on the amount of

VOC emission reductions that an amendment to Rule 4682 would achieve. Having consistently stated that amendments to Rule 4682 would produce reductions of about 0.10 tons per day, the Dis trict as of August 16, 2007 has suddenly increased by four times the VOC emissi ons that it asserts will result from amendment of Rule

4682. What is the basis or factual support, if any, for VOC emission quantities as stated in Appendix B. Unless t he District can justify and subs tantiate this increase in emission reductions the last minute change that it has made is arbitrary and skews the Cost Effectiveness analysis. (APT)

RESPONSE: It is the District’s longstanding pr actice to use the best information

available. The revised calculation is based on a actual permit conditions stating allowable material usage, VOC cont ent and control requirements.

13. COMMENT: To apply a rule based upon South Coas t Rule 1175 for the LA Basin, where there are no grape box molders does not ensure technological or economic feasibility. In Rule 4682, the District has attempted a “one si ze fits all” rule of 2.4 pounds of VOC emissions per 100 pounds of raw material. That ru le will effectively put the grape box molders’ bus inesses in serious jeopardy. If the rule drives the current grape box producers ou t of business, the result will be that 13 times the truck

traffic will be created to bring empty containers to be f illed with grapes to the Valley.
(APT)

RESPONSE: According to the SCAQMD staff r eport, the production in that area actually increased by 15% from 2000 – 2004. It is unreasonable to believe that

all of the box manufacturers would clos e, leaving better controlled operators to grow and continue to supply the Valley’s needs. Given the high cost for trucking in the finished boxes, it is also unr easonable to assume that will be a likely market response.

14. COMMENT: Residual VOC content is variable with the ambient temper ature. In the summer, residuals would be lowest. In the cold days of winter, the residual is higher. In the proposed rule the residual is count ed as an emission. This would prevent winter operation for grape box molders. We must have t he ability to operate all year, not just in the hot days of summer when the ozone leve ls are t he highest. (APT)

RESPONSE: Not all options require counting residual emissions. By complying with the 93% option, s easonal operations should not be a factor.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses September 20, 2007

Final Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 A - 6 15. COMMENT: Please remove refe rences that requi re EPA approval. (APT)

RESPONSE: Please see the Revised Proposed ru le. Certain sections require EPA approval and removal may cause rule approvability issues.