SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

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, 2011SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

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, 20 11

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, 20 11

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 co mpliance option, Section 5.2.3, will “prevent anti-backsliding.” EPA believe s 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 li mited 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 “propo sed a limited disapproval.” Please refer to the staff report for details.

2. Comment: In the control technology section of the final draf t staff report, it states that three expandable polystyrene (EPS) facilities use regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) as a control technology. Later on in the di scussion of EPS facilities, the

District states that the EPS stakeholder affected b y 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 mo lding 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 facil ities using RTOs are shape molding facilities and the affected facility that d oes not use a RTO is a cup molding facility.

3. Comment: In the discussion of RTO systems, the District stat es that RTOs are not a cost-effective option. However, three of the fou r EPS facilities have already implemented these systems. Can the District elabor ate upon why a RTO is a feasible option for three EPS facilities but not fo r the fourth EPS facility?

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

EPS facilities. For the 2007 rule amendment, the D istrict 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 VOCSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A - 5 Final Staff Report with Appendices for

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. We commend th e EPS shape molders who have implemented these effective control technologi es by making significant monetary investments and significantly reducing the ir 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 r eductions 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 truc k garage so that it could place the RTO in a safe area near the boilers and the bead pr eparation area. To clarify this in the staff report, the District enhanced the cost ef fectiveness analysis for cup molding facilities and included a cost effectiveness analys is 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 EP S molding, rather than just adopting the definition used in the Bay Area r ule. (AC)

Response: The District used due diligence when evaluating the proposed definition of EPS molding. After further consideration, the D istrict still contends that the proposed definition effectively summarizes each pha se of the EPS molding process. The District proposes to leave the definition as is , and would consider and evaluate any specific language recommendations and incorpora te them as appropriate.

5. Comment: The staff report uses the phrases “calculates” and “averages” interchangeably when referencing the daily VOC limi t. The District should evaluate the language in the staff report so that it is cons istent 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 toSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A - 6 Final Staff Report with Appendices for

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 interpretation so the District chose the phrase “ca lculated daily” to convey the intent of the new VOC limit. For the monthly VOC limit, t he District states that either the limit is “calculated over a monthly period” or “ave raged 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 provis ions for each type of molding facility. (AC)

Response: When evaluating Section 5.2.1, the District identif ied one EPS facility that utilizes this compliance option. The District conferred with the affected facility regarding amendments to this section and implicatio ns 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 co mpliance options.

If one of the other three EPS facilities switched f rom their current compliance option of Rule 4682 to the requirements of proposed Rule 4 682, 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 i f 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 calcu lated 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 shap e 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 stri ngent compliance option and cannot choose to comply via 5.2.3 for anti-backslid ing purposes, the District does not agree with separating the requirements of Secti on 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 coul d be useful for compliance purposes. The District should consider defining on e standard method of calculation. (IEC)

Response: Having one method of calculation would disrupt the current recordkeeping and calculation processes of EPS faci lities. The formula would more than likely be different for every facility so it w ould be difficult to include in the rule.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A - 7 Final Staff Report with Appendices for

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 However, when permit services processes permit appl ications, 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 is sue. The variety of EPS applications is vast, encompassing more than fiftee n 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 proc esses. The District should return this section to its original language. (AC, AQC, ST)

Response: The District inadvertently struck out the “annual a verage” language in the previous version of the rule. Therefore, to co rrect 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 amen d the rule for the December 15 th

Governing Board meeting because EPA just proposed t he 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 amendme nt to a later date. (AC, EAQC)

Response: The District appreciates the cooperation that the a ffected sources have given during this rule development project. In con trast to District rule projects driven by attainment plan commitments, this project is pri ncipally focused on ensuring that a previously-adopted rule meets requirements for RA CT. As such, this project is on an expedited schedule as compared to a full rule pr oject for a new attainment plan

commitment.

Comments received by November 29, 2011 are ensured consideration prior to the Governing Board hearing. However, District staff w ill continue working with affected sources to address any remaining concerns and comme nts 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 multipl e samples. Three samples are typically taken from raw material and three samples from molded product but theSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

A - 8 Final Staff Report with Appendices for

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 inaccuracies may require more. The cost for AC to t ake, prepare, ship and analyze the six daily samples is $1977.84. Besides the dail y 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 minimu m $674,340. This requirement

will force businesses to shut down due to exorbitan t 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 s tands, 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 t hen 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 c alculations. 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 com plete process from raw material to finished product almost always takes ov er 24 hours. AC is unable to calculate daily emissions because the entire proces s takes more than 24 hours.

Also, to have batch and continuous delineate betwee n EPS and extruded polystyrene (XPS) is a mistake. (AC)

Response : The District recognizes production times extendi ng 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 Distric t did not intend to imply that batch processes apply to EPS facilities and continuous pr ocesses apply to solely XPS facilities. As stated in the staff report, the Dis trict recognized that “expansion foam production facilities create most of their products in batches.” However, the District agrees with the fact that EPS facilities also emplo y continuous processes for certain products and has included additional discussion in the staff report to clarify.

12. Comment: The District does not acknowledge certain productio n characteristics specific to AC. At AC, the beads are expanded to ± 13 times the original volume. This is dependent on the specifications of the cust omer. 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, t he paragraph after the cup molders’ definition describes cup molding but not shape mold ing 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, 20 11

A - 9 Final Staff Report with Appendices for

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 Response: The District understands that the molding process i s 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 amou nt of overlap. Therefore, the staff report contains a condensed version of molding proc esses, rather than going into great detail on each stage, such as the expansion p eriod or aging cycle, for every molding facility. District staff believes a broade r view of EPS molding is more

beneficial for the discussion of these facilities a s a whole.

To differentiate between cup molding and shape mold ing, the District separated the last sentence of the paragraph after the cup molder s’ definition so that it is specific to cup molding. The District left the first two sente nces as is because that information is applicable to the molding industry as a whole. This change clarifies the distinctions between cup and shape molding processe s, 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 comp etitors 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 stron ger 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 i nto compliance with recent amendments. The current proposed rule includes rel atively 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, th e proposed changes to Section 5.2.1 were not intended to cause any disruption to the pr oduction processes of shape molding facilities. However to further the Distric t’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 Sect ion 5.2.1 and worked with them to create a compliance option while still addressing E PA concerns with RACT. The District has confirmed with the affected facility t hat 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 specif ic 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 i ts Clean Air Act basis for this conclusion. (AC)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses December 15, 20 11

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 furt her changes to the proposed rule and the staff report. The District s hould 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 w ith the affected sources so they may stay informed.