GOVERNINGBOARD 

### DATE: September 20,2007

J. StevenWorthley, Chair Supervisor, Tulare County 

### TO: SJVUAPCD Governing Boa
LeroyOrnellas, Vice Chair Supervisor, San Joaquin County 

### FROM: Seyed Sadredin, Executive

TO~Y Barba 

### Project Coordinator: Manuel Salinas Supervisor, Kings County Raji Brar RE: ADOPT REVISED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO Counc~lmember, City of Arvln RULE 4682 (POLYSTYRENE FOAM, POLYETHYLENE, AND POLYPROPYLENE MANUFACTURING) Judith G. Case Supervisor, Fresno County
Ronn Dominici Supervisor, Madera County RECOMMENDATION:

JO~ McQuiston 

### 1. Adopt revised proposed amendments to Rule 4682 (Polystyrene Supervisor, Kern county 

### Foam, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene IWanufacturing).

MichaelG. Nelson Supervisor, Merced county 

### 2. Authorize the Chair to sign the attached Resolution.

William O'Brien Supervisor, Stanislaus County HenryT. Perea Councilmember, City of Fresno
ChrisVierra Councilmember, City of Ceres

SeyedSadredin Executive Director1 Air Pollution Control Officer

Northern Reoion Office BACKGROUND:


### The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is classified as a nonattainment area for the state and federal ozone standards. Inaccordance with federal Clean Air Act requirements for nonattainment areas, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) adopted the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan and the 2007 Ozone Planto establishthe strategyfor attainingthe one-hour and the eighthour ozone standards. The ozone attainment strategy is comprised of regulatory and incentive-based measuresto reduce emissions of 4800 ~nter~rlse Way 

### nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOC), the precursors Modesto, CA 95356-8718 (209)557-6400 

### to ground-level ozone. FAX (209)557-6475 

### The proposed rule amendments satisfy a control measure commitment Central Region Office 

### included in boththe 2004 Ozone Plan and the 2007 Ozone Plan. The 1990 East Gettysburg Avenue Fresno, CA93726-0244 

### proposed amendments would establish more stringent VOC emission (559)230-6000 

### limits and controlsfor affected ~lastic foam ~roduct manufacturers. FAX (559)230-6061 

### Overall,the proposed amendm'ents are estik-tatedto generate a total of about 137 tons per year of VOC reductions, which is a 28% percent Southern Region Office 2700M Street, Suite275 

### reductionfroni the calculated baseline err~issions for this category. Bakersfield.CA 93301-2373 (661) 326-6900 FAX (661) 326-6985SJVUAPCD Governing Board ADOPT REVISED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 4682 Sepfember 20, 2007
DISCUSSION: Amending Rule 4682 is intended to reduceVOC emissions from manufacturing polymeric foam and foam products by specifying material VOC content limits or emission control devices. The two major categories of processes in this category are extruded foam products and molded foam products. Although there are key differences between the two processes, each process employs a blowing agent to create spaces in the plastic structure to produce a strong, but lightweight material with good thermal insulating properties, that also is inert to water and grease.
The most common blowing agents used in the Valley are pentane and butane, but chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) and carbon dioxide, (C02)have also been used in other operations. Pentane and butane are VOC that are precursors to ozone and therefore pollutants of interest to the District. CFCs are ozone-depleting cherr~icals, which can rise to the upper atmosphere and impactthe stratospheric-ozone layer. Because of federal regulations, CFCs are not typically found in modern facilities. Non-VOC blowing agents, such as C02,may be used in some cases, but C02 systems require specifically constructed equipment and are not suitable makingfor all products, due to the affect on the foam characteristics compared to pentane. One Valley facility uses 10% C02in conjunction with a VOC blowing agent. Summary of ProposedAmendments to Rule 4682
In establishing proposed VOC emission limits, District staff considered the limitsthat have been achieved in practice, as well as limits achievable by feasible control technologies. District staff evaluated Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations established by the District, other California air districts, other states, including those that are recommended by control technology manufacturers and stakeholders. Affected operators would have to comply with one of four rule requirements: 1. Demonstrate that they emit no more than 2.4 Ib of VOC for each 100 pounds of total material processed, or 2. Use a non-VOC blowing agent, or 3. Control all manufacturing emissions with an approved system and store the finished product in a controlled warehouse for 24 or 48 hours, or 4. Demonstratethat they release no more emissions than would have occurred if complying with option 3. Based on stakeholder comments, operators using. VOC-limited beads and controlling 93% of the processing emissions are assumed to be in compliance with option 4, unless the APCO determines additional controls are required. Definitions and rule languagewere added or modified to clarify and strengthen ru'le compliance.SJVUAPCD Governing Board ADOPT REVISED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 4682 September 20, 2007 Recordkeeping,testing and compliance dates for the new requirementswere updated or added. Compliance deadline for the new requirements is September 20, 2010.

The rule will generally require facilities to 1.1pdatetheir operations or limit their material VOC content. While stakeholders have expressed concern about the cost and feasibility of compliance, based on existing operations, staff believe there is a feasible compliance option for each facility. For example, Option 1 is currently achieved by a cup maker in Corona, California and for two, new, foam product lines operated in Bakersfield. An informal review of Valley facility permits indicates that several molding operations may also choose to comply with the Option 1, depending on the VOC content of their raw materials. Option 2 would require a complete facility rebuildto handle non-VOC blowing agents and is not suitable for some products, therefore, Valley facilities are not expected to choose this option. One Valley extruder, however, is using 10% C02 intheir blowing agent to reduce emissions. Option 

### 3 may bethe best option, with minor operational changes, for two existing Valley operations with controlled warehouses. For those facilitiesthat do not current have controlled warehouses, other options may be more costeffective. Option 4 is thought to bethe most likely compliance path since it allows operators to tailor their controls to their operational layout and product needs. This option will still requires some material or control system changes to produce equal reductionsto Option 3. After the publication of the proposed rule amendments, foam manufacturing operators met with District staff to request clarification on how the new requirements were stated. Districtstafffelt that clarifying changes were appropriate and incorporatedtliese minor language changesto Section 5.0 of the now revised proposed rule. Cost Effectiveness Analysis Pursuant to California Health &Safety Code Section 40728.5 (b)(4), the District is required to analyzethe cost effectiveness of proposed or amended rules that significantly affects air quality or strengthens an err~ission limitation. Since the proposed amendmentsto Rule 4682 would ensure that the rule is as stringent as other district rules as well as strengthen the VOC emission standards, it qualifies as a Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) rule amendment and is subject to the cost effectiveness analysis mandate. District staff has prepared a cost effectiveness analysis of the estimated coststo comply with the proposed rule requirements. The cost effectiveness analysis is presented inAppendix C of the Final Draft Staff Report.SJVUAPCD Governing Board ADOPT REVISED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 4682 September20, 2007
Socioeconomic ~nalysis
Pursuant to CH&SC Section 40728.5, District staff is required to analyze the socioeconomic impacts of any proposed rule or rule amendment that significantly affects air quality or strengthens an emission limitation. Based on the cost effectiveness information and estimations of profit for affected operators, the costs of compliance are not expectedto have any significant adverse impact on the regional employment and economy of the San Joaquin Valley. The final socioeconomic impact analysis report is attached as Appendix D of the Final Draft Staff Report.
Rule Consistency Analysis
Pursuantto CH&SC Section 40727.2, District staff prepared a rule consistency analysis that comparesthe elements of Proposed Rule 4682 with the corresponding elemelits of other District rules and federal regulationsthat apply to the same source categoryor type of equipment. District staff has determined that Proposed Rule4682 is in harmony with, and not in conflict with or contradictory to, existing District or federal regulations that apply to the same type of equipment or source category. The analysis is attached as Appendix E of the Final Draft Staff Report. Environmental Impacts
Pursuant to Section 15061of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), District staff investigatedthe likely environmental impacts of the proposed amendmentsto Rule 4682. District staff has determined that the proposed rijle would not have any significant adverse effect on the environment. A Notice of Exemptionwo~~ld be recommended to the Governing Board to befiled under the provisions of Public Resource Code 15061 (b)(3). Rule Development Process As part of the rule development process, District staff conducted a public scoping meeting in July 2006, and public workshops in April 2007 and July 2007 in order to present, discuss, and solicit comments from the public, affected sources, EPA, and ARB on amendmentsto the foam products manufacturing rule. Comments received during the workshop process were incorporated intothe proposed rule amendments as appropriate. Comments received and District responsesto the July 2007 draft amendments are discussed inAppendix A of the Final Draft Staff Report. The proposed amendments have been made available and the notice of the public hearing for the proposed r~~le amendments has been published in a general circulation newspaper in each of the eight San Joaquin Valley counties. The public notice has been mailed to affected sources and interested parties. The notice of public hearing solicits written comments, and identifiesthe name and telephone number 

### of District staff who can answer questions and respond to comments.SJVUAPCD Governing Board ADOPT REVISED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 4682 September 20, 2007



### FISCAL IMPACT:
District staff expects no fiscal impact to result from this action.

Attachments: Resolution for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 (5 pages) Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 (8pages) Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 (75 pages)