E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Dr., Suite 250  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Telephone: (919) 484-0222  Fax: (919) 484-0122

MEMORANDUM

Date: November 7, 2011

Subject: Impacts of Control Options to Address Residual Risks for the Pesticide Active 

Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, and Polymers and Resins IV Production Source Categories

From: Lesley Stobert, EC/R Incorporated

To: Paula Hirtz, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

Nick Parsons, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

______________________________________________________________________________

The purpose of this memorandum is to present the estimated impacts of control options 

identified to reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions and risks from seven source 

categories that are subject to the Pesticide Active Ingredient (PAI), Polyether Polyols (PEPO), 

and Group IV Polymers and Resins Production National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) – 40 CRF 63, subparts MMM, PPP, and JJJ, respectively. These source 

categories are Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, Polyether Polyols Production, AcrylicButadiene-Styrene (ABS) Production, Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene (MBS) 

Production, Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Production, Polystyrene Production, and StyreneAcrylonitrile (SAN) Production. The control options are being evaluated under EPA’s Risk and 

Technology Review program, which is addressing statutory requirements under section 112(f)(2) 

of the Clean Air Act. Section 1 provides background information, followed by a summary of the 

risk results for these source categories in Section 2. Section 3 summarizes the estimated impacts 

of the 112(f)(2) options.

1.0 BACKGROUND

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a comprehensive regulatory process 

to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In accordance 

with CAA section 112(c), EPA identifies categories and subcategories of major sources that emit 

one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). CAA section 112(d)(2) then calls for 

EPA to promulgate national technology-based emission standards for each listed category or 

subcategory of sources. For “major sources” that emit or have the potential to emit any single 

HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more 

per year, these technology-based standards must reflect the maximum reductions of HAP 

achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air health and environmental 

impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. Section 112(d)(6) then requires EPA to review the CAA section 112(d) technologybased standards and to revise them “as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies,” no less frequently than every 8 years. The residual risk 

review is described in section 112(f) of the CAA. CAA section 112(f)(2) requires EPA to 

promulgate standards for each category or subcategory of CAA section 112(d) sources “if 
2

promulgation of such standards is required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health . . . or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other 

relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.

The Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart JJJ) regulates HAP 

emissions from seven source categories. In the current action, EPA is addressing five of the 

seven Group IV Polymers and Resins source categories – ABS Production, MBS Production, 

PET Production, Polystyrene Production, and SAN Production. The other two source categories, 

Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production and Nitrile Resins Production,

are not addressed because there are no longer any operating facilities and none are anticipated to 

begin operation in the future. Sources of HAP emissions from the Group IV Polymers and 

Resins source categories investigated in the RTR include storage vessels, process vents, 

wastewater operations, heat exchange systems, equipment leaks, and for some PET facilities, 

process contact cooling towers. The emission sources regulated by the NESHAP are storage 

tanks, process vents, equipment leaks, wastewater operations, and heat exchange systems. For 

one subcategory of PET, equipment leaks are not currently regulated by the NESHAP. In 

addition, process contact cooling towers are currently not regulated sources of HAP emissions.

The PAI and the PEPO NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subparts MMM and PPP) regulate HAP 

emissions from the PAI and PEPO source categories. Sources of HAP emissions from these 

source categories include storage vessels, process vents, wastewater operations, heat exchange 

systems, and equipment leaks. The PAI source category also has HAP emissions from bag 

dumps and product dryers. All of these HAP emissions sources are regulated by the PAI and the 

PEPO NESHAP.

2.0 SUMMARY OF RISKS

The EPA performed an assessment of the residual risks from the Group IV Polymers and 

Resins, PAI, and PEPO source categories in order to determine whether additional regulation 

would be necessary under CAA section 112(f).1 The data used for this assessment was the 2005 

NEI, which was updated based on reviews of the data by the American Chemistry Council 

(ACC), the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) and the EPA. Table 1 

contains a summary of the results of this assessment. 

Table 2 summarizes the contribution of emission point types to the maximum source 

category risks, and Attachment 1 provides more detail of these contributions. While it was 

generally not possible to discern from the NEI data the exact type of each emission point, it was 

possible to distinguish whether an emissions point was a fugitive or a point source. In most 

cases, it was assumed that fugitive emissions were attributed to equipment leaks. It should also 

be noted that the assessment of residual risks accounted for all emissions at the facilities, 

regardless of whether the NESHAP currently regulate the sources of these emissions. Also, 

because the MBS and the SAN source categories were shown to be “low risk,” the emission 

point contributions to the risks were not investigated for these source categories. In addition, 

 

1 U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 7 Source 

Categories. September 2011.
3

because noncancer risks are “low” for each source category investigated, the emission point 

contributions to these noncancer risks were not investigated.

Table 1. Summary of Estimated Inhalation Risks for the PAI, PEPO, and Group IV 

Polymers and Resins Production Source Categories Based On Actual Emissions Levels

Source Category

Maximum individual 

cancer risk (in a 

million)1

Maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI2

Pesticide Active Ingredient (PAI) Production 7 0.7

Polyether Polyols (PEPO) Production 30 0.8

Polymers and Resins IV3

 Acrylic-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) Production 30 0.2

 Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene (MBS) Production 0.4 0.007

 Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Production 9 0.5

 Polystyrene Production 2 0.004

 Styrene-Acrylonitrile (SAN) Production 0.03 0.0002

1 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.

2 Maximum target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI). Target organ system represented by the TOSHI varies 

across source categories. Maximum TOSHI is based on respiratory effects for the PAI, PEPO, SAN, and PET source 

categories and neurological effects for polystyrene production, and reproductive effects for MBS and ABS. 

3 Risks were not estimated for the Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production or the Nitrile 

Resins Production source categories.
4

Table 2. Contribution of Emission Point Types to Risks

Source Category

Percentage Contribution to 

Maximum Cancer Risks from Point 

Sources

Percentage Contribution to Maximum 

Cancer Risks from Fugitive Sources

Pesticide Active Ingredient 

(PAI) Production 0% 100%

Polyether Polyols (PEPO) 

Production 53% 47%

Polymers and Resins IV

Acrylic-Butadiene-Styrene 

(ABS) Production 100% 0%

Polyethylene 

Terephthalate (PET) 

Production

0% 100%

Polystyrene Production 0% 100%

3.0 IMPACTS OF RISK REDUCTION OPTIONS

One risk reduction option was identified for each of the source categories, which is the 

use of leakless valves. The risk reduction impacts of requiring leakless valves were evaluated in 

three steps. First, an estimate was obtained of the emissions from valves. The data set used for 

the RTR risk assessment did not have emissions broken down by type. However, we assumed 

that all the fugitive emissions were equipment leaks. Using information from the development 

of the MACT standards, we determined a percentage of equipment leaks that were attributed to 

valves. Applying this percentage to the fugitive emissions for a source category, we determined 

the emissions that could be attributed to valves. It was assumed that leakless valves would 

achieve a 100 percent reduction in emissions.

In the evaluation of risk reduction options for the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON), 

the EPA estimated the costs of requiring leakless valves.2The capital and annual cost per ton of 

baseline emissions from valves was calculated and applied to these source categories to obtain 

estimated cost impacts. These values were just under $1.8 million capital cost per ton of valve 

emissions and around $240,000 per year per ton of valve emissions.

The risk reductions were estimated by assuming that the risk from the valve emissions 

was proportional to the fraction of mass emissions. For instance, if emissions from valves made 

up 10 percent of the total equipment leak emissions for a source category, it was assumed that 10 

percent of the fugitive emissions were due to valves. If the maximum cancer risk due to fugitive 

emissions was 10, then it was assumed that 10 percent of that risk, or 1-in-1 million, was due to 

 

2 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry: Proposed Rule. 71 FR 34422. June 14, 2006.
5

valves. If leakless valves were installed and these valve emissions were eliminated, the 

maximum cancer risk would then be estimated to be 9-in-1 million. Table 3 shows the impacts 

of requiring leakless valves. Attachment 2 shows more detail of these estimates.
6

Table 3. Estimated Impacts of Leakless Valves

Source Category

Baseline 

Emissions 

(TPY)

Emission 

Reduction 

(TPY)

Capital 

Costs 

(million $)

Annual 

Costs 

(million $)

Cost Effectiveness 

($/TPY reduced)

Baseline Max 

Cancer Risk

Max Cancer Risk 

With Leakless 

Valves In Place

Pesticide Active 

Ingredient (PAI) 

Production

348 101 180.6 24.7 244,000 7 3

Polyether Polyols (PEPO) 

Production 438 59 104.3 14.3 244,000 30 20

Polymers and Resins IV

Acrylic-ButadieneStyrene (ABS) 

Production 

206 6 11.3 1.5 244,000 30 30

Polyethylene 

Terephthalate (PET) 

Production

1,181 123 219.8 30.1 244,000 9 7

Polystyrene Production 91 5 9.2 1.3 244,000 2 2
A-1

ATTACHMENT 1: Equipment Leak Contributions To Cancer Risks

PEPO Cancer

facility_id parameter source_id source_type pollutant value % fugitive % point risk from fugitives

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0001 fugitive Acetaldehyde 2.57941E-10 47.3% 52.7% 1.31101E-05

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0001 fugitive Propylene oxide 8.67619E-10

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0001 fugitive Formaldehyde 1.21936E-09

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0001 fugitive 1,4-Dioxane 2.52782E-08

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0001 fugitive Ethylene oxide 1.754E-06

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0002 fugitive Isophorone 3.67214E-09

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0002 fugitive Ethylene oxide 3.61117E-06

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0003 fugitive Propylene oxide 1.56172E-08

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0003 fugitive Ethylene oxide 5.46835E-06

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0004 fugitive Ethylene oxide 1.85717E-06

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0007 fugitive Acetaldehyde 1.03176E-09

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0007 fugitive Propylene oxide 6.07334E-09

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0007 fugitive Formaldehyde 2.74355E-08

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0007 fugitive Ethylene oxide 8.25411E-08

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0009 fugitive Ethylene oxide 2.06353E-08

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0011 fugitive Propylene oxide 7.80858E-09

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_EL0011 fugitive Ethylene oxide 2.26988E-07

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_PV0005 point Acetaldehyde 1.90835E-08

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_PV0005 point Ethylene oxide 4.72445E-06

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_PV0006 point 1,4-Dioxane 3.60758E-09

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_PV0006 point Propylene oxide 5.20053E-09

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_PV0006 point Ethylene oxide 6.45928E-07

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_PV0008 point Isophorone 2.2847E-11

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_PV0008 point Ethylene oxide 1.77967E-06

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_PV0010 point Ethylene oxide 6.19441E-06

54039NEIWV0390005 Cancer risk M_PV0012 point Ethylene oxide 1.21538E-06

Total 2.76979E-05

ABS Cancer

facility_id parameter source_id source_type pollutant value % fugitive % point risks from fugitives

17099NEI51461 Cancer risk M_PV0004 point 1,3-Butadiene 1.07344E-05 0.0% 100.0% 0

17099NEI51461 Cancer risk M_PV0004 point Acrylonitrile 1.62245E-05

17099NEI51461 Cancer risk M_PV0004 point Ethyl benzene 1.70098E-08

Total 2.69759E-05

Polystyrene Cancer

facility_id parameter source_id source_type pollutant value % fugitive % point risk from fugitives

42071NEI43287 Cancer risk M_SV0014 fugitive Tetrachloroethene 1.87485E-06 100.0% 0.0% 1.87485E-06

Total 1.87485E-06
A-2

PAI Cancer

facility_id parameter source_id source_type pollutant value % fugitive % point risk from fugitives

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0011 fugitive 1,3-Butadiene 2.59491E-08 100.0% 0.0% 7.36341E-06

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0013 fugitive Acetaldehyde 7.67312E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Acetaldehyde 9.05429E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0013 fugitive Aniline 4.46436E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0033 fugitive Aniline 3.51569E-08

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0012 fugitive Benzene 3.41691E-08

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0013 fugitive Benzene 3.53661E-07

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0024 fugitive Benzene 1.25142E-08

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0025 fugitive Benzene 2.82388E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0032 fugitive Benzene 6.5291E-11

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0033 fugitive Benzene 2.33961E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Benzene 7.07323E-08

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Benzyl chloride 2.32426E-07

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Beryllium compounds 3.6831E-07

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Bromoform 3.06925E-10

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0004 fugitive Carbon tetrachloride 2.49446E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0023 fugitive Carbon tetrachloride 1.73773E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0013 fugitive Ethyl benzene 4.8829E-10

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0024 fugitive Ethyl benzene 2.96462E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0025 fugitive Ethyl benzene 4.60996E-10

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0027 fugitive Ethyl benzene 5.071E-11

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0028 fugitive Ethyl benzene 2.79023E-10

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0033 fugitive Ethyl benzene 7.84751E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Ethyl benzene 1.81365E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Ethylene dichloride 7.07323E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Formaldehyde 2.08569E-08

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0005 fugitive Isophorone 1.01704E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0026 fugitive Isophorone 4.5202E-11

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0028 fugitive Isophorone 1.281E-12

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0033 fugitive Isophorone 3.01345E-10

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Isophorone 1.13004E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Methyl tert-butyl ether 6.5291E-11

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0004 fugitive Methylene chloride 1.639E-12

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0011 fugitive Methylene chloride 1.63926E-10

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0012 fugitive Methylene chloride 4.9178E-11

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0013 fugitive Methylene chloride 3.60637E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0034 fugitive Methylene chloride 6.88489E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Methylene chloride 9.83555E-10

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0039 fugitive Methylene chloride 6.03247E-08

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0005 fugitive Naphthalene 1.6507E-06

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0006 fugitive Naphthalene 7.18623E-07

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0011 fugitive Naphthalene 1.18585E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0013 fugitive Naphthalene 7.58942E-07

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0024 fugitive Naphthalene 2.37169E-08

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0025 fugitive Naphthalene 1.12852E-06

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0026 fugitive Naphthalene 1.89735E-07

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0027 fugitive Naphthalene 7.50256E-07

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0028 fugitive Naphthalene 5.69206E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0033 fugitive Naphthalene 1.66019E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Naphthalene 3.0832E-09

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0012 fugitive Nickel compounds 2.61165E-07

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Nickel compounds 5.87622E-07

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0012 fugitive Tetrachloroethene 4.11558E-10

54039NEIWV0390007 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Tetrachloroethene 1.81086E-09

Total 7.36341E-06
A-3

PET Cancer

facility_id parameter source_id source_type pollutant value % fugitive % point risk from fugitives

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0012 fugitive Acetaldehyde 6.29153E-09 99.9% 0.1% 8.65393E-06

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0013 fugitive Acetaldehyde 6.29153E-09

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0016 fugitive Acetaldehyde 2.51661E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0017 fugitive Acetaldehyde 2.51661E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0019 fugitive Acetaldehyde 1.25831E-10

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0029 fugitive Acetaldehyde 3.14576E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0030 fugitive Acetaldehyde 3.14576E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0032 fugitive Acetaldehyde 6.92068E-09

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0033 fugitive Acetaldehyde 1.00665E-09

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0034 fugitive Acetaldehyde 4.46699E-09

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0035 fugitive Acetaldehyde 3.39743E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0036 fugitive Acetaldehyde 5.03322E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0037 fugitive Acetaldehyde 8.17899E-07

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0038 fugitive Acetaldehyde 5.03322E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0039 fugitive Acetaldehyde 8.17899E-07

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0041 fugitive Acetaldehyde 5.03322E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0045 fugitive Acetaldehyde 4.97031E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0047 fugitive Acetaldehyde 1.19539E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0048 fugitive Acetaldehyde 1.19539E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0049 fugitive Acetaldehyde 1.88746E-09

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0050 fugitive Acetaldehyde 6.29153E-09

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0054 fugitive Acetaldehyde 2.51661E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0056 fugitive Acetaldehyde 1.69871E-06

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0063 fugitive Acetaldehyde 2.51661E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0064 fugitive Acetaldehyde 2.51661E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0065 fugitive Acetaldehyde 6.29153E-09

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0074 fugitive Acetaldehyde 1.6358E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0075 fugitive Acetaldehyde 1.6358E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0076 fugitive Acetaldehyde 1.6358E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0078 fugitive Acetaldehyde 2.13912E-07

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0079 fugitive Acetaldehyde 8.17899E-09

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0080 fugitive Acetaldehyde 2.20204E-07

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0086 fugitive Acetaldehyde 4.97031E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0089 fugitive Acetaldehyde 6.92068E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_EL0090 fugitive Acetaldehyde 5.41071E-08

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_PV0077 point Nickel compounds 7.88564E-10

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_PV0077 point Acetaldehyde 2.15241E-09

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_PV0077 point Cadmium compounds 2.49484E-09

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_WO0057 fugitive 1,4-Dioxane 1.91577E-06

54053NEI43309 Cancer risk M_WO0057 fugitive Acetaldehyde 2.25237E-06

Total 8.65937E-06
A-4

ATTACHMENT 2: Equipment Leaks Impacts Assessment

Table A-1. Baseline Emissions*

Source Category

MACT Baseline Equipment Leaks Emissions 

(TPY)

Total Valves Other % Valves

 Polyether Polyolsa1,790 654 1,136 36.5%

 PAIe,f 3,410 NA NA 53.0%

P&R IV

 PETb,c 6,019 222.2 843.5 20.9%

 ABSd398 NA NA 20.9%

 Polystrened1,356 NA NA 20.9%

*References:

a

 Memorandum. Summary of Nationwide Baseline Emissions for Polyether Polyols Production Facilities. Seaman, J., EC/R, to 

Svendsgaard, D., EPA/OAQPS/ESD/OCG. Table 6. April 29, 1996. Contained in Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from the Production 

of Polyether Polyols--Supplementary Information Document for Proposed Standards. EPA-453/R-97-010c. May 1997.

b

 Total emissions from memorandum. Baseline Emissions Estimates for the Group IV Thermoplastics. King, B., PES, to Group IV Resins 

Doket No. A-92-45. Table 2. March 24, 1995. Contained in Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Process Units in the Thermoplastics 

Manufacturing Industry--Supplementary Information Document for Proposed Standards. EPA-453/R-95-003a. March 1995.

c Valves, other and % valves based on data from file PET equipment leak summary data.xlsx

d Emissions data per component not available, assumed same % valves as that of PET.

e

 Percentage values from memorandum. Environmental Impacts for the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production NESHAP. Randall D. and 

Karen Schmidke, MRI, to Banker, L., EPA/ESD/OCG. Attachment 2. April 30, 1997. Contained in Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from 

the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production Industry--Supplementary Information Document for Proposed Standards. July 1997.

f Total emissions from memorandum. Baseline Emissions for the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production Industry -- Pesticide Active 

Ingredient Production NESHAP. Randall D., Karen Schmidke, and Charlie Hale, MRI, to Banker, L., EPA/ESD/OCG. Table 3. April 30, 

1997. Contained in Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production Industry--Supplementary 

Information Document for Proposed Standards. July 1997.

Costs of Leakless Valves* Cost/ton

Total Capital Cost $5,700,000,000 $1,781,250

Total Annual Cost $780,000,000 $243,750

VOC Emission Reduction (tpy) 3,200

Assumption: All organic HAP are VOC so VOC cost effectiveness = HAP cost effectiveness

*Reference:

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry: Proposed Rule. 71 FR 34422, June 14, 2006
A-5

Table A-2. HAP Reductions and Costs from Use of Leakless Valves

Total 

Source 

Category

Total 

EqLk Valves

 Polyether Polyols 437.8 160.4 58.5 36.5% 13.4% $14,270,588 23 $620,460 $104,285,063 $4,534,133 $243,750

 PAI 347.5 191.3 101.4 53.0% 29.2% $24,713,569 17 $1,453,739 $180,599,156 $10,623,480 $243,750

 ABS 206.4 30.4 6.4 20.9% 3.1% $1,548,690 5 $309,738 $11,317,350 $2,263,470 $243,750

 Polystrene 91.1 24.7 5.2 20.9% 5.7% $1,258,311 11 $114,392 $9,195,347 $835,941 $243,750

 PET 1,181.3 590.4 123.4 20.9% 10.4% $30,077,190 15 $2,005,146 $219,794,850 $14,652,990 $243,750

P&R IV

Annual 

Cost/Facility Capital Cost

Capital 

Cost/Facility

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton 

Source Category reduced)

 HAP Emissions (tons/yr) Reduction 

In 

Equipment 

Leak 

Emissions

Overall 

Emission 

Reduction Annual Cost

# 

Facilities

Table A-3. Cancer Risk Reductions from Use of Leakless Valves

Total 

Baseline

Baseline 

from 

Equipment 

Leaks

Baseline 

from 

Valves

New 

Total Risk 

After 

Controls

 Polyether Polyols 100% 36.5% 28* 13.1* 5 23* $2,854,118

 PAI 100% 53.0% 7 7 4 3 $6,178,392

 ABS 100% 20.9% 30 0 0 30 N A

 Polystrene 100% 20.9% 2 2 0.4* 1.6* $3,145,777

 PET 100% 20.9% 9 9 2 7 $15,038,595

*While risks are generally presented with only one significant digit, more digits are shown here to illustrate 

the difference between baseline risks and risk after controls. 

P&R IV

Source Category

Reduction 

in Valve 

Emissions 

from 

Leakless 

Valves

Percentage 

Equipment 

Leaks from 

Valves

Max Cancer Risk (in a million)* Cost 

Effectiveness 

(annual $ per 

1-in-1 million 

cancer risk 

reduced)