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 Di strict

Rule 4682, Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing

June 13 , 2011

Prepared by Mae WangAgency: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

SIP Approved Rule:

SJVUAPCD Rule 468 2, Polystyrene Foam, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Manufacturing (originally adopted on May 21, 1992, amended June 16, 1994, approved on June 13, 1995, 60 FR 31086).

SJVUAPCD Rule 1020, Definitions (originally adopted on 6/18/1992, amended on 1/15/2009, approved on 8/28/2009, 74 FR 44291.

Su bject of this TSD: SJVUAPCD Rule 4682, Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing Amended September 20, 2007; Submitted March 7, 2008.

Rule Summary

Rule 4682 was designed to reduce emiss ions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and trichlorofluoromethane (CFC

- 11) and dichlorofluoromethane (CFC

- 12) from the manufacturing, processing, and storage of products composed of polystyrene, polyethylene, or polypropylene. The currently submitted v ersion of the rule contains revisions that expand the rule to include reduction or control of VOC emissions from all manufacturing processes, including storage and curing. The rule requir es facilities to comply with one of the following four options: a li mit 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 th at would occur with an approved emission control system. The first option, a limit on the VOC emissions for each 100 pounds of material processed, is a new option that was not contained in the previous version of

the rule.

Changes from the approved SIP rule include:

Sections 1.0 (Purpose) and 2.0 (Applicability) were amended for clarity.

The following definitions were added to Section 3.0: APCO, ARB, Approved Emission Control System, EPA, Manufacturing Emissions, Manufacturing Operation, and Raw Mat erial.

Language was added to Section 5.0 (Requirements) to state that Section 5.1 shall be effective until September 20, 2010, and Sections 5.3 through 5.5 shall be effective on and after September
20, 2010.

Section 5.3 through 5.5 were added to ident ify the emission control options with which operators must comply after September 20, 2010.3

Section 5.6 (Compliance Plan) was added to require submission of a Compliance Plan and identify the necessary information to be included in the Plan.

Section 6 .1 (Recordkeeping) was amended to require records to demonstrate compliance with Section 5.3.1, and to require that records be kept at the facility for 5 years.

Section 6.2 (Test Methods) was amended to include methods for determining control efficiency of emission control systems, capture efficiency of emission capture control systems, and the VOC contained in polymeric materials. Language was added to state that a violation of any of the methods is considered a violation of the rule, and that alternati ve methods may be used if approved in writing by the APCO and EPA.

Section 7.0 (Compliance Schedule) was amended to include the new compliance date of September 20, 2010.

EPA Evaluation

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

1. Enforceability

- The Bluebook ( Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations , EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook ( Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability.

2. RACT

- EPA’s document en titled, “Control of VOC Emissions from Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing ” (EPA

- 450/3

- 90

- 020

, September 19 90 )

, 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

- Where previous versions of rules have been SIP approved, new submittals must comply with CAA §110 (l) and §193 regarding SIP relaxations. 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 nonattainment area, any

SIP

- approved control requirement in effect bef ore November 15, 1990 (CAA 193).

4. Compliance averaging times

– “Averaging Times for Compliance With VOC Emission

Limits

– SIP Revision Policy,” memorandu m from John R. O’Connor, OAQPS, dated January 20, 1984.

With the exception of the one enforceability issue identified in the Rule Deficiency section below, SJVUAPCD Rule 4682 fulfills the relevant criteria summarized above. Rule 4682 improves the SIP by clarifying language, adding definitions, and adding control4

requirements. This rule also improves the SIP by adding requirements for compliance plans, recordkeeping, and testing. The rule is generally clear and contains appropriate monitoring, reporting , and recordkeeping requirements to ensure the emission limits are adequately

enforceable.

The SJVU APCD regulates a n extreme 8

- hour and extreme 1

- hour ozone nonattainment

area (40 CFR 81). On April 16, 2009, SJV U APCD adopted its “2009 RACT Demonstrati on 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 requ irements 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 ru les from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and South Coast Air Quality Management District that regulate this source category.

With the exception of the deficiency discussed below, we concur that Rule 4682 fulfills RACT

for the above reasons. Additionally, we are not aware of any more stringent controls adopted or demonstrated to be reasonably available for this industry.

Rule Deficiency

The following deficiency precludes full approval of the rule into the SIP:

Section 5.3.1: This sect ion establishes an emission limit of 2.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of total material processed, as averaged on a monthly basis. EPA generally cannot approve compliance periods exceeding 24 hours unless specific criteria are met. These criteria are

dis cussed in a memorandum from John R. O’Connor, OAQPS

, dated January 20, 1984, “Averaging Times for Compliance With VOC Emission Limits

– SIP Revision Policy.”

The O’Connor memo states that longer averaging times may be permitted under certain

conditions in cases where daily emissions cannot be determined or the application of RACT for each emission point (line, machine, etc.) is not economically or technically feasible on a daily basis. The staff report for Rule 4682 does not provide a clear explanation of why daily emissions cannot be determined. Additionally, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1175 and Maricopa County (Arizona) Rule 358 contain similar limits without the monthly averaging. SJVUAPCD will need to demonstrate why an emission limit that appears to have been achieved in practice by existing operations in other districts cannot be met on a daily basis in the SJVUAPCD. We understand that certain types of facilities may have more difficulty than5

others in meeting the 2 .4 pounds VOC limit. To address this concern, some other district rules

have set limits ranging from 2.4 pounds to 3.2 pounds, depending on the type of facilit y (such as cup molding, shape molding, or block molding) . If needed, SJVUAPCD could consider su ch an approach as well.

The O’Connor memo also stresses that real reductions in actual emissions must be achieved and that the emission limits should reflect typical real

- life production rates and operating hours. These criteria should be supported by historical production and operation data. The staff report for Rule 4682 does not provide clear historical production and operating rates. Instead, the information provided in Appendix B of SJVUAPCD’s staff report for Rule 4682 appears to be largely esti mated inventories and emissions reductions based on potential or

allowable emissions.

Additional Recommendations

The following suggested revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are

recommended for the next time the rule is ame nded.

Section 5.3.5.1: We recommend the following language, “The beads used in manufacturing

have a n annual

- average VOC content of less than 4.2% per by weight as certified by the

manufacturer ; and”

EPA Action

SJVUAPCD Rule 4682 strength ens the SIP, and the associated District staff report estimates that it will reduce VOC emissions by 0.4 tons per day. The rule largely fulfills the

relevant Clean Air Act §110 and Part D requirements, but the deficiency discussed above precludes full SIP approval. EPA staff recommends a simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 4682 pursuant to CAA §110(k)(3) and §301(a).

Attachments

1. Submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4682, Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing, amended September 20, 2007. 2. Applicable SIP Rule 4682, amended June 16, 1994. 3. O’Connor memo, January 20, 1984.