UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document 

for 

 

EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

for the 

California State Implementation Plan 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Rule 4682, Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing 

May 24, 2012 

Prepared by Rynda Kay 
RULE IDENTIFICATION

Agency: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) 

SIP Approved Rule: Rule 4682- Polystyrene Foam, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene 

Products Manufacturing 

Adopted - May 21, 1992 

Amended- June 16, 1994 

Submitted - July 13, 1994 

EPA Approved - June 13, 1995 (60 FR 31086). 

Superseded Submittals: Amended - September 20, 2007 

Submitted - March 7, 2008 

EPA Action - Proposed limited approval, limited disapproval on 

July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745)

Subject of this TSD: Rule 4682- Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products 

Manufacturing 

Amended - December 15, 2011 

Submitted - February 23, 2012 

Determined Complete - March 13, 2012 

BACKGROUND 

SJVUAPCD previously revised Rule 4682 - Polystyrene Foam, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene 

Products Manufacturing on September 20, 2007, and submitted it to us on March 7, 2008. We 

found the revision largely fulfilled relevant Clean Air Act section 110 and Part D requirements, 

except for one enforceability issue. The revision established a new emission limit control option 

of 2.4 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per 100 pounds of total material processed, 

as averaged on a monthly basis. We generally cannot approve compliance periods exceeding 24 

hours unless specific criteria are met. These criteria are outlined in a memorandum from John R. 

O’Connor, OAQPS, dated January 20, 1984, “Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC 

Emission Limits – SIP Revision Policy.” We concluded that SJVUAPCD had not adequately 

demonstrated that these criteria were satisfied. As such, on July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745), we 

proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 4682. In response, SJVUAPCD 

revised the rule on December 15, 2011 and added supporting documentation to address the 

deficiency. The rule was submitted to us on February 23, 2012, and determined complete on 

March 13, 2012. We can only act on the most recently submitted version and do not intend to 

take final action on the proposed limited approval and limited disapproval. 

RULE SUMMARY 

Rule 4682 limits emissions of VOC, trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) and 

dichlorofluoromethane (CFC-12) from the manufacturing, processing, and storage of products 
3 

composed of polystyrene, polyethylene, or polypropylene. The rule requires facilities to comply 

with one of four emission control options: a limit on the emissions of VOC for each 100 pounds 

of material processed, use of a non-VOC blowing agent, use of an approved emission control 

system with product storage in a controlled warehouse, or a demonstration that emissions are no 

greater than those that would occur with an approved emission control system. 

Changes from the previous submittal include the following:

1. Several definitions were added to Section 3.0: Expanded Polystyrene Molding, Extrusion, 

Operator, and Total Product Emissions. 

2. Section 5.1, regarding previous emission control options, was removed as these 

requirements are no longer valid. New emission control options are now captured in 

Section 5.2. 

3. Section 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 split the emission limit requirement into separate requirements for 

extrusion and expandable polystyrene molding facilities. Both facility types are still 

subject to an emission limit of 2.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of total material 

processed, calculated over a monthly period. Expandable polystyrene molding facilities 

are now subject to an additional emission limit of 3.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of 

total material processed, calculated daily. 

4. Section 6.1.4 adds a daily VOC emissions recordkeeping requirement for expandable 

polystyrene molding facilities subject to 5.2.3. 

EPA EVALUATION CRITERIA 

The following criteria and guidance documents were used to evaluate the submitted rule: 

1. Enforceability - The Bluebook (Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, 

and Deviations, EPA, May 25, 1988) , the Little Bluebook (Guidance Document for 

Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) and 

Averaging Times for Compliance With VOC Emission Limits – SIP Revision Policy

(memorandum from John R. O’Connor, OAQPS, dated January 20, 1984) were used to help 

evaluate compliance with the CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability. 

2. RACT - EPA’s document entitled, “Control of VOC Emissions from Polystyrene Foam 

Manufacturing” (EPA-450/3-90-020, September 1990), and other state and local rules for 

this category were used to help evaluate the RACT requirements of CAA §182(b)(2) and 

§182(f). 

3. SIP Relaxation - We have evaluated this SIP revision to determine whether it would 

interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 

progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act (CAA 110(l)) or modify, in a 
4 

nonattainment area, any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 

1990 (CAA 193). 

EPA EVALUATION 

On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745), we proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of a 

previous version of SJVUAPCD Rule 4682. We determined that the rule largely fulfills the 

relevant criteria summarized above. The rule improves the SIP by clarifying language, adding 

definitions, adding control requirements, and adding requirements for compliance plans, record 

keeping, and testing. The rule is generally clear and contains appropriate monitoring, reporting, 

and recordkeeping requirements to ensure that emission limits are adequately enforceable. The 

District staff report estimated VOC emission reductions resulting from this rule revision were 0.4 

tons per day. While we found the rule largely fulfills relevant Clean Air Act 110 and Part D 

requirements, we identified one deficiency. SJVUAPCD had not adequately demonstrated that a 

new monthly emission limit satisfied the criteria for approving an averaging time >24 hours, as 

outlined in the O’Connor memo. 

In its latest submittal, the District revised the rule and added supporting documentation to 

address the deficiency. District staff identified two major processes covered by Rule 4682, 

extrusion foam and expanded polystyrene molding production. The District argues that unlike 

expanded polystyrene molding, extrusion foam production is a multi-day, highly variable process 

where emissions cannot accurately be determined on a daily basis. As such, the District split the 

rule requirements by process type. Both processes are still subject to an emission limit of 2.4 

pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of total material processed, calculated over a monthly period. 

Expandable polystyrene molding facilities, however, are now subject to an additional emission 

limit of 3.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of total material processed, calculated daily. We 

evaluate these two requirements and supporting documentation below, to determine if the 

deficiency identified has been adequately addressed. 

Expanded Polystyrene Molding Production

Rule 4682 now imposes an additional emission limit on expandable polystyrene molding 

facilities of 3.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of total material processed, calculated daily. 

Rule 4682 requires facilities to record emissions daily to ensure that the new emission limit is 

adequately enforceable. Rule 4682 continues to impose an emission limit of 2.4 pounds of VOC 

per 100 pounds of total material processed, calculated over a monthly period. There is no SIP 

relaxation associated with this modification. 

To determine RACT for expandable polystyrene molding production, we compared Rule 4682 

with analogous local and state rules for this category: 

• SJVUAPCD Rule 4682 imposes an emission limit of 2.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds 

of total material processed, calculated over a monthly period. The rule revision includes 

an additional daily limit of 3.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of total material 

processed, calculated daily. 
5 

• South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1175 has a limit of 2.4 

pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of total material processed. 

• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 8-52 has a limit of 

2.8 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of total material processed. 

SJVUAPCD argues that its rule is more stringent than the BAAQMD rule since theoretically a 

facility could emit 2.8 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of throughput over the course of a month 

according the BAAQMD rule, as opposed to 2.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of throughput 

in Rule 4682. 

Rule 4682 requires facilities to comply with one of four emission control options. There is 

currently only one cup making facility (emitting ~29 tons VOC per year) in San Joaquin Valley 

(SJV) complying with the rule using the emission limit compliance option. The remaining 

expandable polystyrene molding production facilities (3 shape making facilities) comply using 

an approved emission control system. According to the District, these facilities could not change 

their compliance option without triggering Best Available Control Technology/Lowest 

Achievable Emission Rate permit modification requirements, which is the use of an approved 

emission control system. Therefore, in practice, SJV’s 2.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of 

total material processed, calculated over a monthly period compliance option at issue is limited 

to only the one cup making facility. 

SJVUAPCD argues that while SCAQMD has possibly a more stringent limit of 2.4 pounds of 

VOC per 100 pounds of total material processed (no time frame is stated in the rule), production 

of certain products unique to this company would push the cup maker out of compliance if they 

were subject to an equivalent continuous or daily limit. SJVUAPCD’s staff report asserts that 

90% of the company’s products are manufactured with ultra-low pentane beads of 3.2% VOC 

content or less. To meet custom cup requirements, however, ~10% of products require beads 

with a 5.4% VOC content. District staff further determined that continuous or daily compliance 

would require facility modifications of $58,997/ton of VOC, beyond the $22,000/ton of 

reductions spent on control measure in the previously submitted version of this Rule, which they 

argue is not economically feasible. 

Based on the monthly limit being effectively limited to one cup maker with a unique product 

line, the analysis that additional controls on this company would not be economically feasible, 

the lack of a nationally established presumptive RACT for this category, and the fact that we are 

not aware of any source producing analogous products while meeting more stringent daily limits 

in other areas, we propose to approve that the District’s combined daily and monthly limits 

satisfy VOC RACT and enforceability requirements for expandable polystyrene molding 

production in the San Joaquin Valley area for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS at this 

time. However, we encourage the District to reexamine the necessity of these unique products 

and consider revising the rule to be consistent with the SCAQMD emission limit as expeditiously 

as possible. 
6 

Extrusion Facilities

SJVUAPCD retained the emission limit for extrusion facilities of 2.4 pounds of VOC per 100 

pounds of total material processed, as averaged on a monthly basis and thus should demonstrate 

that the criteria outlined in the O’Connor memo are satisfied. The O’Connor memo states that 

longer averaging times may be permitted under certain conditions where daily emissions cannot 

be determined or where the application of RACT for each emission point (line, machine, etc.) is 

not economically or technically feasible on a daily basis. In the staff report, SJVUAPCD argued 

that while expanded polystyrene molding facilities can meet a daily limit, extrusion facility 

operations cannot because (i) production spans multiple days with inconsistent processing times 

over many emission points, complicating recordkeeping, (ii) companies have many product lines 

with variable inputs, increasing emission variability, and (iii) current calculations are generally 

done with Standard Accounting Program, which allow facilities to back calculate VOC 

emissions based on material usage. The process takes 10-hours to complete, making the current 

system unusable for daily compliance. The District estimates recordkeeping equipment needed to 

meet daily limits would cost $1.1 million and is not cost effective as it would not be associated 

with any emission reductions. 

SCAQMD Rule 1175 and BAAQMD Regulation 8-52 include an emission limit for extrusion 

facilities of 2.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of material processed. The two facilities within 

SCAQMD currently using this compliance option perform a multi-day source test every five 

years to take the worst case scenario product and follow the batch of material from start to finish 

establishing compliance.

1

 Rule 1175 requires recordkeeping of raw material processed, 

equipment and type of blowing agent used. Daily VOC emission calculations are not required. 

There are currently no extrusion facilities operating within BAAQMD subject to Regulation 8-

52. 2 

SJVUAPCD requires a compliance plan, which includes VOC content at relevant manufacturing 

points and recordkeeping of key variables, to calculate daily average concentrations on a 

monthly basis. Violation of the rule would result in a separate violation on each of the 30 days 

during that period, which the District argues makes the rule more enforceable than SCAQMD 

Rule 1175. 

Three facilities in SJV comply using this option (total emissions = 214 tons VOC per year).3 

SJVUAPCD argues that the companies cannot meet the requirement on a daily or continuous 

basis for the three reasons outlined above. Additionally, SJVUAPCD argues that the products 

produced in SJV are unique. For example, one extrusion facility produces meat trays for two 

large local poultry companies, which comprise 40% of the company’s profits. The trays require 

higher VOC blowing agent to meet durability and leak-resistance needs and thus could not meet 

a continuous requirement. Additionally, the company often receives last minute requests. Daily 

 

1 Email from Doug Gordon (SCAQMD) to Rynda Kay dated April 13, 2012. 

2 Email from Douglas Tolar (BAAQMD) to Rynda Kay dated May 22, 2012. 

3 Email from Chelsea Gonzalez (SJVUAPCD) to Rynda Kay dated May 7, 2012. 
7 

limits would require the facility to turn down last minute requests losing a significant amount of 

business. 

SJVUAPCD argues that affected companies cannot cost-effectively comply using another 

control option. The companies use a non-VOC blowing agent (methyl-formate) for many 

products. However, meat trays require a VOC blowing agent to have sufficient durability to 

prevent leakage. Additionally, the District argues that facilities use extensive capture and control 

systems, but are unable to reach the 90% capture efficiency required for that option. 

The O’Connor memo also requires a demonstration that the averaging provision will not 

jeopardize attainment or the reasonable further progress plan for the area. As the attainment 

demonstrations utilize “summer average” emissions, the monthly reporting will leave this term 

unchanged and as such does not affect the demonstration of attainment or RFP. 

Based on this information, we propose that Rule 4682 for extrusion facilities is consistent with 

RACT and the O’Connor memo guidelines as outlined above. 

Overall RACT Discussion

The SJVUAPCD regulates an extreme 8-hour and extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (40 

CFR 81). On April 16, 2009, SJVUAPCD adopted its “2009 RACT Demonstration for Ozone 

SIP,” which provides the District’s demonstration that RACT is implemented for all appropriate 

activities. Rule 4682 was included as part of this demonstration. SJVUAPCD’s 2009 RACT 

Demonstration asserts that Rule 4682 fulfills CAA RACT requirements for reasons including: 

1. The requirements in Rule 4682 are consistent with recommendations contained in 

EPA’s Control Technique Guidelines and Alternative Control Technology documents. 

2. The requirements in Rule 4682 are consistent with the Standards of Performance for 

New Stationary Sources (NSPS) in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart DDD – Standards of 

Performance for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from the Polymer 

Manufacturing Industry. 

3. The requirements of Rule 4682 are consistent with rules from the Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District and South Coast Air Quality Management District that 

regulate this source category. 

We concur that Rule 4682 fulfills RACT for the above reasons and as discussed in our July 15, 

2011 (76 FR 41745) proposed action. 

EPA ACTION 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4682 strengthens the SIP, and the associated District staff report 

estimates that the rule reduces VOC emissions compared to the SIP approved rule by 0.4 tons per 

day. The rule meets the relevant Clean Air Act §110 and Part D requirements. The deficiency 

previously outlined in our July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745) proposed limited approval and limited 
8 

disapproval has been adequately addressed and we do not intend to finalize that action. We 

recommend full approval. 

On January 10, 2012, EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the RACT SIP 

submitted by California on June 18, 2009 for the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area (2009 

RACT SIP), based in part on our conclusion that the State had not fully satisfied CAA section 

182 RACT requirements for polystyrene manufacturing operations. See 77 FR 1417, 1425 

(January 10, 2012). Final approval of Rule 4682 would satisfy California's obligation to 

implement RACT under CAA section 182 for this source category for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and thereby terminate all CAA sanction and Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) implications of our RACT SIP action as it relates to polystyrene manufacturing. 

REFERENCES 

1. SJVUAPCD Rule 4682, Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products 

Manufacturing, amended December 15, 2011. 

2. Final Staff Report, SJVUAPCD, December 15, 2011. 

3. SJVUAPCD Rule 4682, Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products 

Manufacturing, amended September 20, 2007. 

4. Final Staff Report, SJVUAPCD, September 20, 2007. 

5. Technical Supporting Document for proposed limited approval, limited disapproval of 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4682, July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745). 

6. Proposed limited approval, limited disapproval of SJVUAPCD Rule 4682, July 15, 2011 (76 

FR 41745). 

7. Applicable SIP SJVUAPCD Rule 4682, amended June 16, 1994. 

8. Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits – SIP Revision Policy, 

memorandum from John R. O’Connor, OAQPS, dated January 20, 1984.