Lyondell Chemical Company

3801 West Chester Pike Tel +1 610 359 2411

Fax +1 610 359 2328

l y ondellbasell.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 requi red “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 mode ling 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 repor t this information on TBAC as a VOC” or that “a requirement for continued reporti ng of TBAC emissions is a new burden on States, since States are already coll ecting information and reporting on these emissions.” Finally, EPA stated that “it intends to address the issue of whether recordkeeping and reporting requirements shoul d 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 r equirement 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 Reac tivity (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 thatLyondell 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 l ong distribution chain for TBAC before it is emitted at point sources or by cont ractors 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 Re port 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 m anufacturers 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 cr eate a new web page and reporting formsLyondell 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 chemic al, 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/standard s/NSF/t_Butanol? product_id=1094024Lyondell 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 redundan t, an unnecessary bureaucratic burden, and is fraught with error.

Lyondell Chemical therefore requests that EPA is sue 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 Darli ng (NPCA), Jim Sell (NPCA), Allison Keane
(NPCA), Joe Yost (CSPA)