SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 1 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

APPENDIX A 

Summary of Significant Comments and Responses 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

December 15, 2011 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 2 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

This page intentionally blank. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 3 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR 

RULE 4682 (POLYSTYRENE, POLYETHYLENE, AND 

POLYPROPYLENE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING) 

FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING 

EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS: 

No comments were received from EPA. 

ARB STAFF COMMENTS: 

No comments were received from ARB. 

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS: 

No comments were received from stakeholders. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 4 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR 

RULE 4682 (POLYSTYRENE, POLYETHYLENE, AND 

POLYPROPYLENE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING) 

EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS: 

1. Comment: The final draft staff report states that the new compliance option, Section 

5.2.3, will “prevent anti-backsliding.” EPA believes this is a typo and should be 

corrected to state “prevent backsliding.” Also, in the summary section of the staff 

report, the District states that EPA finalized a limited approval. However, thus far, 

EPA has only proposed a limited disapproval. 

Response: Both of these items are typos in the staff report. The language is now 

correct and states “prevent backsliding” and “proposed a limited disapproval.” 

Please refer to the staff report for details. 

2. Comment: In the control technology section of the final draft staff report, it states 

that three expandable polystyrene (EPS) facilities use regenerative thermal oxidizers 

(RTOs) as a control technology. Later on in the discussion of EPS facilities, the 

District states that the EPS stakeholder affected by the addition of Section 5.2.3 

does not use a RTO due to cost-effectiveness issues. Is this stated correctly and if 

so, can this be further clarified?

Response: This information regarding EPS facilities that use RTOs is correct. 

There are four EPS facilities in the Valley and of those, the three EPS shape 

molders utilize RTO systems. However, due to cost-effectiveness issues, which are 

elaborated upon in the staff report, the EPS cup molding facility in the Valley cannot 

implement the same control system. To clarify this point, the District specifies in the 

control technology section that the three EPS facilities using RTOs are shape 

molding facilities and the affected facility that does not use a RTO is a cup molding 

facility. 

3. Comment: In the discussion of RTO systems, the District states that RTOs are not 

a cost-effective option. However, three of the four EPS facilities have already 

implemented these systems. Can the District elaborate upon why a RTO is a 

feasible option for three EPS facilities but not for the fourth EPS facility? 

Response: The installation of RTO systems was not a cost-effective option for any 

EPS facilities. For the 2007 rule amendment, the District estimated that the 

installation of a RTO would cost each of the three EPS shape molding facilities 

$27,235/ton of VOC emissions reductions. However, the facilities still went through 

with the addition of this control technology to do their part in reducing VOC 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 5 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. We commend the EPS shape molders who 

have implemented these effective control technologies by making significant 

monetary investments and significantly reducing their VOC emissions. However, 

installing a RTO is not a cost-effective option for the cup molding facility subject to 

Section 5.2.3. As stated in the staff report, the installation and maintenance of a 

RTO system would cost the facility $58,997/ton of reductions and would be beyond 

reasonable to require the installation of an RTO. Installing a RTO would also be 

difficult because the company would need to employ permanent total enclosure 

(PTE) of the facility and relocate its current truck garage so that it could place the 

RTO in a safe area near the boilers and the bead preparation area. To clarify this in 

the staff report, the District enhanced the cost effectiveness analysis for cup molding 

facilities and included a cost effectiveness analysis for shape molding facilities. 

ARB STAFF COMMENTS: 

No comments were received from ARB. 

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS: 

APTCO LLC (AC) 

EPS Air Quality Coalition (EAQC) 

Insight Environmental Consultants (IEC) 

Styrotek Inc. (ST) 

4. Comment: The District should reevaluate the definition of EPS molding, rather than 

just adopting the definition used in the Bay Area rule. (AC)

Response: The District used due diligence when evaluating the proposed definition 

of EPS molding. After further consideration, the District still contends that the 

proposed definition effectively summarizes each phase of the EPS molding process. 

The District proposes to leave the definition as is, and would consider and evaluate 

any specific language recommendations and incorporate them as appropriate. 

5. Comment: The staff report uses the phrases “calculates” and “averages” 

interchangeably when referencing the daily VOC limit. The District should evaluate 

the language in the staff report so that it is consistent with language in the rule 

requirements section. (AC)

Response: The District made appropriate changes in the staff report to ensure that 

language is now consistent with rule requirements. The District changed language 

in the staff report to state that the new VOC limit of Section 5.2.3 is “calculated daily” 

rather than “averaged daily.” The phrase “averaged daily” could be open to 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 6 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

interpretation so the District chose the phrase “calculated daily” to convey the intent 

of the new VOC limit. For the monthly VOC limit, the District states that either the 

limit is “calculated over a monthly period” or “averaged monthly.” Both phrases carry 

the same meaning for the monthly VOC limit. 

6. Comment: Section 5.2.3 requirements were formed based off of information from a 

cup molding facility. However, the section applies to the entire EPS industry and 

does not acknowledge the shape molding facilities. The District should evaluate 

shape molders separately and create separate provisions for each type of molding 

facility. (AC)

Response: When evaluating Section 5.2.1, the District identified one EPS facility 

that utilizes this compliance option. The District conferred with the affected facility 

regarding amendments to this section and implications for their company. The 

District did not discuss the bifurcation of Section 5.2.1 with the EPS shape molding 

facilities because they utilize one of the other compliance options. 

If one of the other three EPS facilities switched from their current compliance option 

of Rule 4682 to the requirements of proposed Rule 4682, Section 5.2.3, this would 

modify the facility’s potential to emit (PTE.) As a result, best available control 

technology (BACT) requirements would be triggered if the adjusted increase in 

permitted emissions (AIPE) exceeded 2.0 lb/day for VOC emissions. The District 

evaluated the applicability of BACT to AC and calculated their AIPE to be 615 lbVOC/day. Since the AIPE is greater than 2.0 lb-VOC/day, BACT would be 

mandated for this facility. BACT requires the use of a capture and control system 

consisting of a thermal oxidizer. Since every shape molding facility currently uses a 

thermal oxidizer system, AC would have to continue the use of this control system. 

The same would be true for the other shape molders if they requested switching 

compliance options. 

Since shape molders already comply with a more stringent compliance option and 

cannot choose to comply via 5.2.3 for anti-backsliding purposes, the District does 

not agree with separating the requirements of Section 5.2.3 for shape and cup 

molding facilities. The District proposes leaving Section 5.2.3 as it is written. 

7. Comment: Section 5.2.3 does not define the method facilities should use when 

calculating daily emissions. This information could be useful for compliance 

purposes. The District should consider defining one standard method of calculation. 

(IEC)

Response: Having one method of calculation would disrupt the current 

recordkeeping and calculation processes of EPS facilities. The formula would more 

than likely be different for every facility so it would be difficult to include in the rule. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 7 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

However, when permit services processes permit applications, they review the 

facilities’ methods of calculation and approve them accordingly. To satisfy the 

requirements of Rule 4682, the approved formula is generally included as a permit 

condition. 

8. Comment: The deletion of “annual average” in Section 5.2.7.1 is too restrictive for 

EPS facilities and could pose a major compliance issue. The variety of EPS 

applications is vast, encompassing more than fifteen major product applications. The 

current rule requirement for an annual average VOC content of less than 4.2% per 

weight allows for a range of EPS manufacturing processes. The District should 

return this section to its original language. (AC, AQC, ST)

Response: The District inadvertently struck out the “annual average” language in 

the previous version of the rule. Therefore, to correct this error, the District has 

changed the language back to its original form for the revised proposed version of 

the rule. 

9. Comment: The District is moving forward too quickly with the amendment of Rule 

4682. The District is not legally required to amend the rule for the December 15th

Governing Board meeting because EPA just proposed the limited approval in July. 

Due to the short comment period, stakeholders have not had sufficient time to 

review and comment on the proposed amendments. The District should allow 

additional time for commenting and postpone amendment to a later date. (AC, 

EAQC)

Response: The District appreciates the cooperation that the affected sources have 

given during this rule development project. In contrast to District rule projects driven 

by attainment plan commitments, this project is principally focused on ensuring that 

a previously-adopted rule meets requirements for RACT. As such, this project is on 

an expedited schedule as compared to a full rule project for a new attainment plan 

commitment. 

Comments received by November 29, 2011 are ensured consideration prior to the 

Governing Board hearing. However, District staff will continue working with affected 

sources to address any remaining concerns and comments can be submitted up to 

and during the public hearing. 

10. Comment: Requiring a manufacturing facility to report daily VOC emissions would 

have a severe economic impact due to testing costs. The test to determine pentane 

content in the raw material (SCAQMD Method 306) is expensive and inaccurate. 

The only way to improve accuracy is to have multiple samples. Three samples are 

typically taken from raw material and three samples from molded product but the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 8 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

inaccuracies may require more. The cost for AC to take, prepare, ship and analyze 

the six daily samples is $1977.84. Besides the daily costs, AC has to keep personnel 

trained in DOT packaging requirements ($1200.00 per year) and also keep a 24 

hour hazmat communication phone number ($675.00 per year). The total yearly cost 

of daily emissions testing at AC would be at minimum $674,340. This requirement 

will force businesses to shut down due to exorbitant lab testing fees. We do not 

support the addition of Sections 5.2.3 and 6.1.4. (AC, EAQC)

Response: The addition of a daily VOC limit will not change source testing 

requirements for EPS facilities. As is currently stands, the percent weight of pentane 

in raw EPS beads and the percent weight of pentane in the molded product shall be 

determined annually for each EPS material. This is done in order to verify 

compliance with the VOC limits. These values are then re-established at least once 

every five years or when the pentane content in the raw beads exceeds the preestablished limit. The established values are what EPS facilities complying with 

Section 5.2.3 should be using for their daily VOC calculations. The District 

understands the amount of time and money that goes into source testing and not 

requiring that facilities sendoff samples daily to demonstrate compliance. 

11. Comment: AC employs both “batch” and “continuous” processes to mold 

Expandable Polystyrene (EPS). In both cases the complete process from raw 

material to finished product almost always takes over 24 hours. AC is unable to 

calculate daily emissions because the entire process takes more than 24 hours. 

Also, to have batch and continuous delineate between EPS and extruded 

polystyrene (XPS) is a mistake. (AC)

Response: The District recognizes production times extending beyond 24 hours 

complicate the calculations of daily VOC emissions. However, because AC utilizes 

compliance option 5.2.7, they would not be required to take daily calculations of their 

facility’s VOC emissions. In addition, the District did not intend to imply that batch 

processes apply to EPS facilities and continuous processes apply to solely XPS 

facilities. As stated in the staff report, the District recognized that “expansion foam 

production facilities create most of their products in batches.” However, the District 

agrees with the fact that EPS facilities also employ continuous processes for certain 

products and has included additional discussion in the staff report to clarify. 

12. Comment: The District does not acknowledge certain production characteristics 

specific to AC. At AC, the beads are expanded to ±13 times the original volume. 

This is dependent on the specifications of the customer. The purpose of aging the 

expanded beads is different at APTCO and the cycle is more complicated than what 

is written in the final draft staff report. Also, the paragraph after the cup molders’ 

definition describes cup molding but not shape molding which has some similarities 

but is not exactly the same process as cup molding. (AC)
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 9 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

Response: The District understands that the molding process is very complex and 

varies depending on the type of molding occurring. However, since there are four 

EPS facilities, discussing the production processes of each facility would be very 

extensive and potentially create a significant amount of overlap. Therefore, the staff 

report contains a condensed version of molding processes, rather than going into 

great detail on each stage, such as the expansion period or aging cycle, for every 

molding facility. District staff believes a broader view of EPS molding is more 

beneficial for the discussion of these facilities as a whole. 

To differentiate between cup molding and shape molding, the District separated the 

last sentence of the paragraph after the cup molders’ definition so that it is specific to 

cup molding. The District left the first two sentences as is because that information 

is applicable to the molding industry as a whole. This change clarifies the 

distinctions between cup and shape molding processes, as pointed out by AC. 

13. Comment: EPA has failed to acknowledge the adverse economic impact to small 

business from further revision of Air District Rule 4682 that could result from EPA’s 

partial disapproval of that rule. Two of AC’s competitors closed down due to the cost 

of complying with Rule 4682. Both of the remaining table grape box producers now 

have production limits imposed on them by their air permits, which have the effect of 

being table grape export limitations. AC has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars 

to comply with the 2007 revised Rule 4682, so stronger regulations would create a 

greater burden to our facility and the industry as a whole. (AC)

Response: The District recognizes that facilities subject to Rule 4682 have spent a 

significant amount of money and resources to come into compliance with recent 

amendments. The current proposed rule includes relatively minor and administrative 

changes. The District identified all shape molding facilities, including AC, to comply 

with Section 5.2.5, 5.2.6, or 5.2.7. Therefore, the proposed changes to Section 5.2.1 

were not intended to cause any disruption to the production processes of shape 

molding facilities. However to further the District’s discussion, the staff report has 

been enhanced to include a description of the grape box manufacturing industry and 

the role it plays in the San Joaquin Valley’s table grape industry. The District 

identified the one EPS facility complying with Section 5.2.1 and worked with them to 

create a compliance option while still addressing EPA concerns with RACT. The 

District has confirmed with the affected facility that this rule amendment project will 

not result in any adverse economic impact. 

14. Comment: EPA’s partial disapproval states that it “generally cannot approve 

compliance periods exceeding 24 hours unless specific criteria are met, including a 

clear explanation of why the application of RACT is not economically or technically 

feasible on a daily basis.” EPA does not explain its Clean Air Act basis for this 

conclusion. (AC)
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A - 10 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

Response: EPA describes the relevant criteria in the O’Connor memo, which is 

discussed in this staff report. 

15. Comment: AC understands that the District plans to make further changes to the 

proposed rule and the staff report. The District should keep stakeholders informed 

and share the latest revisions (AC).

Response: The District has given careful consideration to the issues raised since 

the November 15 posting and will continue working with the affected sources so they 

may stay informed.