Lyondell Chemical 

Company 

3801 West Chester Pike 

Tel +1 610 359 2411 

Fax +1 610 359 2328 

lyondellbasell.com

Page 1 of 4 

December 21, 2009 

Steve Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Stop C404-04 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Re: Petition to Remove the Tracking and Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Tertiary-Butyl Acetate (TBAC) under 40 CFR 51.100 s(5) and add TBAC to the 

s(1) list of exempt compounds. 

Dear Mr. Page: 

When TBAC was exempted in 2004 (FR 69298), the agency created a new subcategory 

of VOC-exempt compounds, s(5), in the definition of a VOC in 40 CFR 51.100. Unlike 

exempt compounds listed in s(1), EPA required “continued” recordkeeping and reporting 

of TBAC emissions and other future exempt compounds. The main reason given for 

this new requirement was “that negligibly reactive compounds may contribute 

significantly to ozone if emitted in sufficient quantities and the need to represent these 

emissions accurately in photochemical modeling analyses.” Additional reasons given for 

TBAC were “the potential for the widespread use of TBAC and the continuing efforts to 

assess long-term health risks.” 

The EPA also stated that it did “not believe that a requirement to collect and report 

emissions data on TBAC is a new recordkeeping burden on industry, because users of 

TBAC are currently required to collect and report this information on TBAC as a VOC” or 

that “a requirement for continued reporting of TBAC emissions is a new burden on 

States, since States are already collecting information and reporting on these 

emissions.” Finally, EPA stated that “it intends to address the issue of whether 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements should apply to other exempt compounds as 

part of a future rulemaking addressing possible changes to EPA’s overall VOC policy.” 

At the time, this tracking and reporting requirement seemed reasonable. However, 

several recent developments and new evidence raise serious questions about the 

benefits of this requirement and suggest that removing it would likely benefit the 

environment and eliminate a reporting burden for state regulatory agencies and the 

regulated community. Lyondell therefore requests that EPA remove the recordkeeping 

requirement for TBAC and move it to the s(1) list of exempt compounds for the reasons 

outlined in the following paragraphs. 

I. EPA is not using the TBAC data for modeling purposes and does not 

require reporting for any other exempt compound with “borderline” 

reactivity. Acetone is a commodity chemical that has been VOC-exempt 

since 1995. Its Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) is twice that of TBAC 

which means that every pound of acetone emitted in the atmosphere produces 

twice the ozone a pound of TBAC produces. Solvent sales of acetone in the 

US were approximately 50 times greater than sales of TBAC which means that 
Lyondell Chemical request to move TBAC to the s(1) list of exempt compounds and remove the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

Page 2 of 4 

acetone produced about 100 times more ozone than TBAC. Yet companies 

and the States are not required to report acetone emissions to EPA. 

 Recently, propylene carbonate was also exempted from VOC regulations 

based on its MIR of 0.25 grams ozone/gram, which is 25% higher than the MIR 

of TBAC. Again, EPA chose not to require tracking and reporting for this 

compound. Ethane is also VOC exempt and has an MIR of 0.31 grams 

ozone/gram, 55% higher than TBAC. EPA estimates the US emissions 

inventory for ethane to be on the order of 0.6 Tg/yr or 1.32 trillion pounds per 

year. Because ethane is VOC exempt and listed in s(1), its emissions are also 

exempt from recordkeeping and reporting requirements although its potential 

contribution to ground level ozone exceed that of TBAC by a factor of 170,500. 

In other words, TBAC contributes less than 0.0006% of the ozone produced by 

other “borderline” exempt compounds like ethane and acetone. 

 TBAC’s contribution to ground level ozone is clearly negligible, even when 

compared to that of other “borderline” exempt compounds. There is also no 

need to track and report its emissions for modeling purposes since much more 

significant emissions of ethane and acetone are themselves not tracked and 

reported for that purpose. The recent addition of propylene carbonate to the 

s(1) list also indicates that the EPA is no longer requiring that “borderline” 

exempt compounds be tracked and recorded as a matter of policy. 

II. Lyondell voluntarily provides EPA annual TBAC sales volume by state. 

Lyondell is the sole producer of TBAC. All TBAC emissions in the United 

States come from Lyondell’s sales to our customers in the US. We have 

provided state sales volumes of TBAC to EPA as part of our voluntary consent 

agreement since 2004. Although these data are not particularly useful in 

determining where TBAC is emitted, they are the most accurate in determining 

how much TBAC is emitted in the US. Thus there is no need for the states to 

independently track and report TBAC emissions to determine how much is 

emitted nationwide. In fact, due to the long distribution chain for TBAC before it 

is emitted at point sources or by contractors or consumers, the potential for 

over-reporting TBAC emissions is significant if EPA were to rely on the states 

to track and report TBAC emissions. 

III. Most States Do Not Track and Report TBAC Emissions Anyway. TBAC is 

now exempt in 49 States. I am aware of only one, New Jersey, which has 

requested TBAC emissions data from manufacturers and distributors of TBACcontaining products. 

IV. Tracking and reporting TBAC emissions is a new and burdensome 

requirement. Before EPA created the s(5) category of exempt compounds, no 

state or manufacturer of TBAC products were required to track and report any 

other VOC-exempt compound or speciated their VOC emissions. Evidence 

that this a new a burdensome requirement is demonstrated by recent events in 

New Jersey, where the DEP had to create a new web page and reporting forms 
Lyondell Chemical request to move TBAC to the s(1) list of exempt compounds and remove the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

Page 3 of 4 

for TBAC and ask the New Jersey Paint Council to remind manufacturer, users, 

and distributors of TBAC to report their emissions. 

Before its VOC exemption in 2004, TBAC was not widely used in the US. 

Therefore, its emissions were not tracked either as a distinct compound or as a 

component of total VOC emissions. Most States still do not track or report 

TBAC emissions because they have received no guidance from EPA on how to 

do so and have neither the time nor resources to enforce this requirement. 

New Jersey is the exception and its recent attempts to prompt users to report 

their TBAC emissions show that this requirement is new and burdensome. The 

exemption of TBAC in New Jersey was also substantially delayed by this new 

requirement as were the environmental benefits of using TBAC instead of 

photochemically reactive VOCs and HAPs such as toluene and xylene. 

V. TBAC Poses No Significant Short- or Long-term Health Risks That Would 

Warrant Unique Tracking and Reporting Requirements. TBAC is not a 

VOC, HAP, ODC, PBT, GHG, TRI chemical, carcinogen or reproductive toxin. 

Since we first petitioned the US EPA in 1997, we have submitted extensive 

environmental and toxicological information to the US EPA. We also entered in 

a voluntary consent agreement to conduct additional toxicological studies to 

address concerns raised by California’s Office of Environmental Health 

Hazards Assessment about the potential chronic toxicity of TBAC. We 

conducted additional subchronic studies that confirmed that TBAC has low 

acute and subchronic toxicity, and Mode of Action Studies to determine if the 

rodent tumors observed in a 1995 NTP chronic study of its tert-butanol 

metabolite were relevant to human risk assessment. At EPA’s request, we 

drafted a risk assessment document for TBAC that addressed the acute, 

subchronic and chronic toxicities of TBAC and its TBA metabolite and 

submitted this risk assessment for independent PEER review. 

The non-profit organization TERA (Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment) 

was chosen to convene a panel of 11 independent toxicologists and to conduct 

a two-day peer consultation to address EPA’s questions about the data and 

risk assessment. The panel of experts reviewed the acute, subchronic, 

genotoxicity, and reproductive toxicity data on TBAC as well as the chronic and 

two mode of action (MOA) studies conducted on TBA. The panel agreed that 

TBAC presents a low order of toxicity, is not genotoxic, is not a reproductive or 

developmental toxicant, and is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans, based on 

the weight of the evidence.1

 These conclusions were entirely consistent with 

those of another panel of expert toxicologists who reviewed the toxicology of 

TBAC’s metabolite TBA in 2003.2

 

In summary, none of the reasons given in 2004 to impose a unique tracking requirement 

on TBAC are valid today. 1) The majority of States do not report TBAC emissions to the 

EPA and those who do cannot possibly keep accurate records. 2) The EPA cannot use 

 

1 http://www.tera.org/Peer/TBAC/index.html 2 http://www.techstreet.com/standards/NSF/t_Butanol?product_id=1094024 
Lyondell Chemical request to move TBAC to the s(1) list of exempt compounds and remove the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

Page 4 of 4 

these data to accurately model air quality since it does not track speciated emissions for 

other exempt compounds or VOCs. 3) TBAC has low toxicity and negligible 

environmental impact. Reporting and tracking its emissions does not help protect human 

health or the environment. 4) This new and unique reporting requirement is burdensome 

to the States, to TBAC users, and deters its use. 5) Lyondell Chemical has provided and 

continues to provide TBAC sales data by State to the EPA. Requiring that users and the 

States also report emissions is redundant, an unnecessary bureaucratic burden, and is 

fraught with error. 

Lyondell Chemical therefore requests that EPA issue a direct final rule moving TBAC to 

the s(1) list of exempt compounds in 40 CFR 51.100 and remove all reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements required in s(5). Please fee free to contact me if you have 

questions or need additional information. I look forward to your response. 

Thank you, 

Dan Pourreau 

Technical Advisor 

Cc: Terry Keating (US EPA), Dave Darling (NPCA), Jim Sell (NPCA), Allison Keane 

(NPCA), Joe Yost (CSPA)