BOARD MEETING DATE: November 5, 2010
AGENDA NO. 38
PROPOSAL:
Amend Rule 1175 – Control of Emissions from the Manufacture of Polymeric Cellular (Foam) Products
SYNOPSIS:
Proposed Amended Rule 1175 will address the concerns expressed by the U.S. EPA in their disapproval of the September 2007 amendment. As requested by the U.S. EPA, the proposed amended rule will require source testing to demonstrate compliance, require all operational parameters necessary for compliance to be contained in a federally enforceable permit and recordkeeping to verify operational techniques and parameters. The proposed rule will also clarify the prohibition of use for chlorofluorocarbons to be consistent with U.S. EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, correct typographical errors and make minor clarifications and editorial corrections to the rule. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and are not expected to impact emissions or costs.
COMMITTEE:
Stationary Source, September 24, 2010, Reviewed
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Adopt the Resolution:
- Certifying the Notice of Exemption for the proposed amendments to Rule 1175 – Control of Emissions from the Manufacture of Cellular (Foam) Products; and
- Adopting Proposed Amended Rule 1175 - Control of Emissions from the Manufacture of Polymeric Cellular (Foam) Products.
Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer
Background
Rule 1175 was adopted November 3, 1989 and has since been amended three times with the last amendment on September 7, 2007. The rule prohibits the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and methylene chloride in polymeric cellular foam product operations except for expandable polystyrene molding and extrudable polystyrene foam operations. The rule controls VOC emissions of expandable polystyrene molding operations and extrudable polystyrene foam operations by either requiring control devices to capture VOC emissions or by limiting emissions to 2.4 pounds of VOC emitted per 100 pounds of product produced.
The September 7, 2007 rule amendment provides block foam manufacturers with an alternative compliance option that allowed for equivalent emissions collection and control by over-controlling the manufacturing emissions, in lieu of controlling their less cost-effective block storage areas. On May 10, 2010, as published in the Federal Register [FR Doc 2010-109121], U.S. EPA announced their disapproval to the amendment on the grounds that the rule did not explicitly require source testing to demonstrate compliance. Although source testing requirements are currently reflected in the individual permits held by facilities subject to the rule, the proposed amendments will address the rule deficiencies identified by U.S. EPA by explicitly stating source testing requirements and other improvements into the rule.
Affected Facilities
The facilities subject to the proposed rule include polystyrene foam product manufacturing, urethane and other foam product manufacturing. Such facilities manufacture food containers, ice chests, insulation, packaging and other foam products. Currently there are an estimated 21 facilities subject to the proposed rule.
Public Process
On May 10, 2010, U.S. EPA announced their disapproval to the amendment. A public workshop was held on September 7, 2010.
Proposal
As requested by the U.S. EPA, the proposed amended rule will require source testing to demonstrate compliance, require all operational parameters to be contained in a federally enforceable permit and include record keeping to verify operational techniques and parameters.
Sources subject to Rule 1175 that utilize an approved emission control device to comply with the rule are required to obtain a federally enforceable permit from the District. At the time of permit issuance, the Executive Officer, in writing, will impose specific permit conditions reflecting the necessary parameters needed to achieve this level of control. The specific parameters may include, but are not limited to, establishing specific temperatures and pressure limits for aging rooms, establishing volumetric flow rates into a control device and requiring a minimum operating temperature for the control device. Failure to maintain the control device in good operating condition, including conditions imposed by the Executive Officer, will be considered a violation of Rule 1175.
Furthermore, facilities utilizing control equipment to comply with the provisions of the proposed rule will be required to conduct source testing, approved in writing by the Executive Officer, to demonstrate the collection and control efficiency. Such testing is routinely required as part of the permitting process.
The prohibition of using methylene chloride and CFCs has been relocated to subdivision (d) to clarify that the prohibition applies to all polyurethane operations subject to the rule including expandable polystyrene molding operations and extruded polystyrene foam operations. All CFCs used in operations subject to Rule 1175 are prohibited unless specifically approved as acceptable alternatives under 40 CFR Part 82 Subpart G – Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program. This will provide consistency between Rule 1175 and federal requirements. At this time the only use of CFCs approved in foam products is HCFC-141b for space vehicle, nuclear, defense and research and development for foreign customers (see Appendix M to Subpart G—Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the September 30, 2004 Final Rule, Effective November 29, 2004).
Records of operations and emission control system parameters shall be maintained for five years to maintain consistency with Title V permit requirements.
The proposed rule will also make clarifications to the definitions and applicability of the rule, correct typographical errors and make minor editorial corrections to the rule.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and are not expected to impact emissions or costs.
Key Issues
A few key issues have been brought to staff’s attention during the rule making period. The most notable issues and their resolutions are summarized below:
ISSUE: Clarify that Rule 1175 is not in conflict with Federal requirements on prohibited foam blowing agents.
RESPONSE: The proposed rule has been modified to prohibit the use of all CFCs in foam operations except those specifically approved under the SNAP program. This will provide consistency between Rule 1175 and the federal requirements.
ISSUE: The alternative compliance option under (c)(5) should be available to shape molding operations. Shape molders have similar issues as the block molders do when it comes to product density, inability to construct 48-hour controlled enclosures due to leased property and limited space and the need to process some higher pentane material while processing mostly low-to-mid-range pentane material.
RESPONSE: The data currently provided to demonstrate equivalence is insufficient to make a determination to include shape molding operations under the alternative compliance option. Further testing is necessary to establish the collection efficiency of the control equipment and emissions lost during the initial 48 hours of storage. Staff will continue to work with interested parties to determine if the alternative compliance option can be made available to shape molding operations.
Emission Reductions and Cost Effectiveness Determination
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and are not expected to impact emissions or costs.
AQMP and Legal Mandates
Proposed Amended Rule (PAR) 1175 will address the concerns expressed by the U.S. EPA in their disapproval of the September 2007 amendment. While the proposed amendments do not result in additional emission reductions, the amendments are consistent with AQMP objectives. The proposed amendment does contain source testing, permitting and record keeping requirements; however, these demonstration and documentation activities are routinely required as part of the permitting process.
California Environmental Quality Act
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendments to Rule 1175 – Control of Emissions from the Manufacture of Cellular (Foam) Products, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15002(k)(1) - Three Step Process, and has determined that the proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) – Review for Exemption. The proposed amendments are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which may have a significant effect on the environment. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendments and has determined that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that proposed amendments to Rule 1175 will have a significant impact on air quality or other environmental areas. Therefore, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA. If approved by the Governing Board, a Notice of Exemption (NOE) will be prepared for the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15062 – Notice of Exemption, and mailed to the county clerks of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties.
Socioeconomic Analysis
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and are not expected to impact emissions or costs.
Implementation and Resources
Staff does not anticipate the need for additional resources to adequately implement and enforce the proposed rule.
Attachments (ZIP, 167k)
A. Summary of Proposed Amendments
B. Rule Development Process
C. Key Contacts List
D. Resolution
E. Rule Language
F. Final Staff Report
G. Notice of Exemption