GOVERNING BOARD DATE: September 20,2007 

J. Steven Worthley, Chair 

Supervisor, Tulare County TO: SJVUAPCD Governing Boa 

Leroy Ornellas, 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). 

Michael G. Nelson 

Supervisor, Merced county 2. Authorize the Chair to sign the attached Resolution. 

William O'Brien 

Supervisor, Stanislaus County 

Henry T. Perea 

Councilmember, City of Fresno 

Chris Vierra 

Councilmember, City of Ceres 

Seyed Sadredin 

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. In accordance 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 

Plan to establish the strategy for attaining the one-hour and the eighthour ozone standards. The ozone attainment strategy is comprised of 

regulatory and incentive-based measures to 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 both the 2004 Ozone Plan and the 2007 Ozone Plan. The 

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue 

Fresno, CA 93726-0244 proposed amendments would establish more stringent VOC emission 

(559) 230-6000 limits and controls for affected ~lastic foam ~roduct manufacturers. 

FAX (559) 230-6061 Overall, the proposed amendm'ents are estik-tated to generate a total of 

about 137 tons per year of VOC reductions, which is a 28% percent Southern Region Office 

2700 M Street, Suite 275 reduction froni the calculated baseline err~issions for this category. 

Bakersfield. CA 93301-2373 

(661) 326-6900 

FAX (661) 326-6985 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPT REVISED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 4682 

Sepfember 20, 2007 

DISCUSSION: 

Amending Rule 4682 is intended to reduce VOC 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 impact the 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 making for all products, due to the affect on 

the foam characteristics compared to pentane. One Valley facility uses 10% C02 in 

conjunction with a VOC blowing agent. 

Summary of Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

In establishing proposed VOC emission limits, District staff considered the limits that 

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. Demonstrate that 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 language were 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 requirements were 

updated or added. 

Compliance deadline for the new requirements is September 20, 2010. 

The rule will generally require facilities to 1.1pdate their 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 rebuild to 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 

in their blowing agent to reduce emissions. 

Option 3 may be the best option, with minor operational changes, for two 

existing Valley operations with controlled warehouses. For those facilities that 

do not current have controlled warehouses, other options may be more costeffective. 

Option 4 is thought to be the 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 reductions to 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. 

District staff felt that clarifying changes were appropriate and incorporated tliese minor 

language changes to 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 analyze the cost effectiveness of proposed or amended rules that 

significantly affects air quality or strengthens an err~ission limitation. Since the proposed 

amendments to 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 costs to comply with the proposed rule requirements. The cost 

effectiveness analysis is presented in Appendix C of the Final Draft Staff Report. 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPT REVISED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 4682 

September 20, 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 expected to 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 

Pursuant to CH&SC Section 40727.2, District staff prepared a rule consistency analysis 

that compares the elements of Proposed Rule 4682 with the corresponding elemelits of 

other District rules and federal regulations that apply to the same source category or 

type of equipment. District staff has determined that Proposed Rule 4682 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 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), District 

staff investigated the likely environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to Rule 

4682. District staff has determined that the proposed rijle would not have any 

significant adverse effect on the environment. A Notice of Exemption wo~~ld be 

recommended to the Governing Board to be filed 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 amendments to the foam products manufacturing rule. Comments received during 

the workshop process were incorporated into the proposed rule amendments as 

appropriate. Comments received and District responses to the July 2007 draft 

amendments are discussed in Appendix 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 identifies the 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 (8 pages) 

Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 (75 

pages)