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, 2007 
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 - 2

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT WRITTEN COMMENTS 

FROM THE FINAL COMMENT PERIOD 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 mentioned 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 Section 4.1 applies to any foam manufacturing 

operation as long as the amount of VOC-blowing agent falls below the less than 1% 

standard and regardless of whether the VOC-blowing agent is contained in the resin 

bead or injected during the process. (PC) 

 RESPONSE: The staff report has been revised to correct the earlier error. 

Section 4.1 exempts operations with less 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 would not be excluded from 

the rule. Extruders, which exclusively use blowing agents with no VOC or CFC, 

would comply with the rule requirements 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, the 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 commonly compile relevant materials 

consumption and finished good production information on a calendar monthly, as 

opposed to daily, basis. Changing the 30-day provision to calendar months would be 

more efficient, harmonize with recordkeeping, align with annual air emissions reports, 

and tie to official corporate accounting 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 calculations be performed on calendarmonth basis and demonstrated on a three month rolling-average basis. (PC), (PRE) 

 RESPONSE: Many PTO required daily records and monthly records can be 

used to calculate such values for the purpose of this rule. Staff believe the 30-

day period is sufficient to account for material 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 months after the rule adoption date. 

(PC) 

 RESPONSE: The purpose of that section is for operators to obtain APCO 

approval of their Compliance Plan before spending too much resources pursuing 

an non-approvable compliance approach. The section has been revised to allow 

a longer period to prepare and submit that plan. Please see the Revised 

Proposed rule. 

5. COMMENT: Appendix C states that expandable polystyrene manufacturers already 

comply with the control standard of Rule 4682 and therefore would incur no costs. In 

fact, compliance with the rule, as amended, would result in substantial expense since 

it would require significant capital expenditures to bring facilities into compliance and 

incur substantial ongoing expenses to keep them there. (PC) 

 RESPONSE: Based on proposed rule requirements and current emission 

controls, two expandable facilities should be able to demonstrate compliance 

with little or no operational changes. Estimated compliance costs for the other 

operators are listed in Table 1. Because the operators will have the freedom to 

choose the compliance option that best applies to their operations, it is not 

possible to determine a case-by-case-cost. Appendix C represents worst-case 

scenarios. It is not expected that operators will construct controlled warehousing 

when more cost-effective options are available. 

6. COMMENT: We request that the District expand the equivalency option in Section 

5.3.4 to include those processes that chose to or can only comply with Section 5.3.1. 

We feel that it would give cup molders, and possibly others, the same opportunities 

to come up with the best 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 demonstrate emissions of less than the 2.4 lb 

limit for post-control emissions plus residual product VOC, than they comply with 

that section so equivalency language is not required. 

7. COMMENT: We believe that there is either insignificant or no advantage to adopting 

the 2.4#/100# requirement over the Maricopa 3.2#/100# requirement 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 since a portion of the 

increased artificially-achieved emissions are uncontrolled. (DCC) 

 RESPONSE: The difference in allowing the higher 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 processes covered in this rule. The District 

should have the authority to approve VOC measurement methods in Rule 4682. 

(PRE) 

 RESPONSE: Section 6.2 provides that alternative test methods can be used 

providing flexibility in the rule. The operator is provided an option from using the 

test methods mentioned. 

9. COMMENT: Section 3.14 specifies linear thermoplastic polymers of ethylene with 

densities from 0.94 gram per cubic centimeter or higher. What 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 centimeter are not covered by Rule 4682. 

10. COMMENT: Section 5.3.3.1.2 specifies that materials must be vented for 24 hours. 

Why is this necessary for operations designed 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 vented to a control system, then the storage 

emissions will not be reduced, regardless of the system used. 

11. COMMENT: Section 5.3.1 has a VOC limit and states 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 shipping. 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 section of the rule. Section 5.3.1 is a 

proposed section that the District anticipates will generate more VOC emission 

reductions than the original rule as adopted in 1992. (PRE) 

12. COMMENT: The District departed from its longstanding 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 District as of August 16, 2007 has suddenly increased 

by four times the VOC emissions 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 the District can justify and substantiate 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 practice to use the best information 

available. The revised calculation is based on a actual permit conditions stating 

allowable material usage, VOC content and control requirements. 

13. COMMENT: To apply a rule based upon South Coast 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 size fits all” rule of 2.4 

pounds of VOC emissions per 100 pounds of raw material. That rule will effectively 

put the grape box molders’ businesses in serious jeopardy. If the rule drives the 

current grape box producers out of business, the result will be that 13 times the truck 

traffic will be created to bring empty containers to be filled with grapes to the Valley. 

(APT)

 RESPONSE: According to the SCAQMD staff report, the production in that area 

actually increased by 15% from 2000 – 2004. It is unreasonable to believe that 

all of the box manufacturers would close, 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 unreasonable to assume that will be a likely 

market response. 

14. COMMENT: Residual VOC content is variable with the ambient temperature. In the 

summer, residuals would be lowest. In the cold days of winter, the residual is higher. 

In the proposed rule the residual is counted as an emission. This would prevent 

winter operation for grape box molders. We must have the ability to operate all year, 

not just in the hot days of summer when the ozone levels are t he highest. (APT)

 RESPONSE: Not all options require counting residual emissions. By complying 

with the 93% option, seasonal 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 references that require EPA approval. (APT)

 RESPONSE: Please see the Revised Proposed rule. Certain sections require 

EPA approval and removal may cause rule approvability issues.