Eastman Chemical Company 

P.O. Box 511 

Kingsport, Tennessee 37662-5075 

May 18, 2015 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Office of the Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

WJC West Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Room 3000 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Eastman Chemical Company and American Chemistry Council Joint 

Petition for Reconsideration, Amendment and Administrative Stay of 

National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-Site 

Waste and Recovery Operations; Final Rule (80 Fed. Reg. 1428; 

March 18, 2015); Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360

Dear Administrator McCarthy: 

Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman) and the American Chemistry Council 

(ACC) jointly petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reconsider, 

amend, and administratively stay the effective date of certain provisions in EPA’s final 

rule dated March 18, 2015 entitled “National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations,” 80 Fed. Reg. 14,248 (the 

OSWRO Rule). The OSWRO Rule consists of the risk and technology review (RTR) 

amendments to the original OSWRO final rule that was promulgated on July 1, 1996 (61 

Fed. Reg. 34,140). This petition is presented pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 

307(d)(7)(B) (42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B)). 

Background 

Eastman is a major manufacturer of chemicals, fibers, and plastics with over 

10,000 employees worldwide. Eastman, and its subsidiaries, own and operate 

manufacturing facilities in the states of Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as in Asia, Europe and Latin 

America. Eastman operates multiple process units that are directly affected by the 

OSWRO Rule. 

ACC is a trade association representing the leading companies engaged in the 

business of chemistry, and ACC members operate facilities subject to the OSWRO 

Rule. 
Eastman/ACC Joint Petition for Reconsideration 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360 

May 18, 2015 

Page 2 

Eastman and ACC have actively participated in the development of the OSWRO 

Rule. Eastman submitted written comments on the proposed rule and also contributed 

to comments submitted by ACC. 

In this petition, we present two issues for reconsideration. First, we hereby raise 

an objection regarding the equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR) provisions for 

connectors in the OSWRO Rule. Second, we hereby raise an objection regarding the 

new monitoring requirements for pressure relief devices (PRDs) on portable containers 

in the OSWRO Rule. 

As explained in detail below, it was impracticable for Eastman or ACC to raise 

these objections during the comment period for the OSWRO Rule, the grounds for the 

objections arose after the end of the public comment period for the rule, and the issues 

raised here are of central relevance to the outcome of the OSWRO Rule. Therefore, 

Eastman and ACC are submitting this Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to CAA 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) and the criteria set forth therein. 

Issue 1: Equipment Leak Provisions for Connectors 

In the OSWRO Rule, EPA adopted mandatory instrument-based leak detection 

requirements for connectors in gas/vapor and light liquid service. Before the 2015 

OSWRO final rule was promulgated, sources could comply with the LDAR requirements 

of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart V, or 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart H. Subpart V requires 

sensory-based monitoring of connectors, while Subpart H requires Method 21 

instrument-based monitoring. In the OSWRO proposed rule, EPA presented two LDAR 

program options. Option 1 consisted of switching from the Subpart V LDAR program to 

the Subpart H LDAR program without the Subpart H connector monitoring 

requirements. Option 2 consisted of adoption of the Subpart H LDAR program, 

including instrument-based monitoring for connectors. In the final rule, EPA adopted 

Option 2. Subpart H instrument-based monitoring for connectors under Option 2 is 

unnecessary and unlawful because there would be minimal emission reductions and the 

connector LDAR program is not cost effective. 

A. Method 21 Monitoring Will Not Result in a Statistically Significant 

Decrease in Emission Rates 

Eastman’s experience is that sensory-based monitoring leads to the prompt 

repair of leaks and reduction of fugitive emissions. For example, Eastman personnel 

routinely inspect their operating areas and if there is evidence of a leak near a flange 

(such as liquid on the ground beneath the flange), the leak will be immediately 
Eastman/ACC Joint Petition for Reconsideration 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360 

May 18, 2015 

Page 3 

investigated and repaired. Comments submitted by ACC confirm this is consistent with 

general industry practice: 

ACC believes that the low initial leak rates found when HON compliance 

commenced is representative of the actual leak rates that result from the 

combination of connector design, physical properties of the chemicals in 

service, and the normal housekeeping practices that our member 

companies employ to repair leaks found through sensory means (sight, 

sound, smell). Member companies do not wait a fixed period of time to 

repair leaks. They are normally repaired as they are discovered through 

sensory methods. Member company operators are trained to recognize 

the hazards associated with leaks and they are expected to take prompt 

action when leaks occur. 

See Comments of American Chemistry Council at 19 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360-0061) 

(ACC Comments). Therefore, under the current OSWRO program, implementation of 

Subpart V sensory-based monitoring is an effective LDAR method for connectors. And 

the cost of the sensory program is minimal because facility personnel conduct sensory 

monitoring during the regular course of their work. 

The ACC comments further demonstrate that Method 21 monitoring of 

connectors results in no appreciable emission reduction benefit when substituted for an 

existing sensory monitoring program. ACC submitted a report summarizing average 

connector leak rates at multiple synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry 

(SOCMI) facilities under the HON LDAR program. The report shows that there is no 

statistical difference in leak rates between the initial Method 21 inspections and the 

subsequent inspections at SOCMI facilities. See ACC Comments, Attachment 1 at 10-

12. In other words, instituting a Method 21 monitoring program for connectors will result 

in no statistically significant decrease in emission rates over the currently-required 

sensory monitoring at SOCMI facilities. 

The ACC report also shows that the equipment leak emission factor for 

connectors at chemical facilities is much lower than those historically reported by EPA. 

The mean value of the ACC study was 0.00005 kg/hr/source, whereas the EPA value of 

0.00183 kg/hr/source is over 30 times higher. ACC Comments, Attachment 1 at 12-14. 

The ACC data indicate that when connectors leak, the actual emissions are extremely 

low. 

EPA asserts that no emission reductions occur with sensory-based connector 

monitoring. In particular, EPA’s cost analysis for the OSWRO Rule shows no emission 
Eastman/ACC Joint Petition for Reconsideration 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360 

May 18, 2015 

Page 4 

reductions under the baseline scenario (Subpart V sensory monitoring). See Table 5 of 

Memorandum from L. Stobert, EC/R, Inc. to P. Hirtz, EPA. February 9, 2015, Revised 

Technology Review for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations Equipment Leaks

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360-0110) (Revised Technology Review). However, this 

assumption ignores evidence in the record for chemical facilities showing that a sensory 

based monitoring program leads to emission reductions through timely detection and 

repair of leaking connectors. 

Further, EPA concludes that Method 21 monitoring of connectors under Subpart 

H would result in emission reductions over the baseline scenario (sensory monitoring). 

Specifically, in the preamble to the final rule, EPA responded to ACC comments by 

explaining that emission reductions would occur even though the initial leak frequency 

would be at the low level of 0.36 percent as reported by the chemical industry and the 

subsequent leak frequency (i.e. after instituting Method 21 monitoring) would be the 

same as the initial leak frequency: 

We note that the initial leak frequency of 0.36 percent used in the OSWRO 

analysis is the same as that reported by the commenter’s member 

companies for the HON initial monitoring, and we made the conservative 

assumption that the subsequent leak frequency after implementation of 

Method 21 monitoring of connectors would be the same as the initial leak 

frequency. However, we also assumed, as we have in other rulemakings, 

that these leaking connectors would be fixed so that the average leak 

frequency over each monitoring cycle would be equal to one-half of the 

subsequent leak frequency (i.e., 0.18 percent). 

See 80 Fed. Reg. 14248, 14257. Thus, EPA has adopted the position of Eastman and 

ACC that there is no change from the initial leak frequency to the subsequent 

frequency. Yet, in asserting that the average leak frequency would be 0.18 percent, or 

one-half of the subsequent leak frequency, EPA attempts to take credit for emission 

reductions that do not exist.1

 EPA incorrectly assumes that leaking connectors would 

 

1

 EPA adoption of a steady state leak frequency followed the approach it adopted in the 

rulemaking for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart VVa. See Standards for Performance for 

Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; 

Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries; Final 

Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 64860 (November 16, 2007); Memorandum from K. Parrish and D. 

Randall, RTI International, to K. Rackley, USEPA. October 30, 2007. Final Impacts 

Analysis for Regulatory Options for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI (EPA-HQOAR-2012-0360-0097). However, the connector LDAR provisions in that rule have 
Eastman/ACC Joint Petition for Reconsideration 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360 

May 18, 2015 

Page 5 

only be detected and repaired at the time of scheduled monitoring events (which can be 

between one and four years apart). This assumption is directly contrary to evidence in 

the record that shows that companies look for and repair known leaks promptly, without 

waiting for the next cycle of monitoring. 

EPA’s selection of 0.36 percent as the initial and subsequent leak frequency for 

connectors is also indicative of the very low likelihood that connectors will leak at all. At 

a threshold of 0.5 percent leak frequency, the Subpart H LDAR program for connectors 

allows for a reduced monitoring frequency (from one year to up to four years). See 40 

CFR § 63.174(b)(3). This is undoubtedly because EPA recognizes that 0.5 percent is a 

very low leak frequency. The framework of the OSWRO Rule, with an initial leak 

frequency that is below the de minimis level, shows that a Subpart H Method 21 

instrument-based monitoring program for connectors is not appropriate. 

With respect to emission factors for SOCMI facilities, EPA provided the following 

response to the ACC comments: 

We disagree with the commenter’s claim that the estimated emissions per 

connector used in the EPA’s analysis are too high. The leak rates used 

were based on those reported in the Protocol for Equipment Leak 

Emissions Estimates (EPA–453/R–95–017, November 1995), which 

determined these leak rates based on screening data from 33 chemical 

production units and bagging data from 22 chemical production units. We 

consider this to be relevant and robust data, and the resulting average 

leak emissions rates are appropriate to use in our analyses. 

See 80 Fed. Reg. at 14257. 

Eastman and ACC believe that EPA’s citation to leak rates in the Protocol for 

Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates (EPA Protocol Document) is misplaced. The 

document identifies an initial leak frequency of 3.9 percent prior to Method 21 

monitoring, followed by a reduction to a subsequent leak frequency of 0.5 percent. EPA 

Protocol Document (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360-0080), Table G-1. This model 

(consisting of an 87 percent reduction in the initial leak frequency) is far different from 

 

been stayed for nearly seven years. See Footnote 5 and accompanying text. 

Therefore, EPA’s assumption has not been verified by any actual experience with 

implementation of an instrument-based LDAR program for connectors. 
Eastman/ACC Joint Petition for Reconsideration 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360 

May 18, 2015 

Page 6 

the framework of the current rule, which is based on a steady state leak frequency of 

0.36 percent. And the value of 0.36 percent is below the initial leak frequency and the 

subsequent leak frequency in the EPA protocol document. The EPA Protocol 

Document should have no bearing on the OSWRO Rule. Therefore, Eastman and ACC 

believe Method 21 monitoring of connectors will not result in appreciable emission 

reductions. 

B. The Method 21 Monitoring for Connectors Is Not Cost Effective 

At various stages throughout the OSWRO rulemaking, EPA prepared cost 

analyses for the proposed LDAR programs.2

 At the proposed rule stage, EPA 

estimated the costs of implementing an instrument based LDAR program for connectors 

at an OSWRO model facility with 1,350 connectors (the median value among the 

OSWRO facilities surveyed in the ICR). EPA’s cost analysis was based on an 

estimated monitoring cost of $2.50 per connector. EPA also estimated the annual 

administrative costs for the model OSWRO facility would be $4,646, based on 50 hours 

of work at an hourly labor rate of $92.92. Based on these and other assumptions, EPA 

estimated that the incremental cost effectiveness of adopting Option 2 (instrument 

monitoring) over Option 1 (sensory monitoring) would be $6,715 per ton. EPA 

concluded that the Method 21 monitoring program for connectors would be cost 

effective. 

In its comments, ACC submitted a summary of Subpart H LDAR costs for 

connectors. The summary was based on Eastman’s experience with Method 21 

monitoring under other NESHAP rules. See ACC Comments, Attachment 2. For 

example, the implementation of a Subpart H instrument-based monitoring program 

requires management of change activities associated with detected leaks. Unlike EPA, 

which assumed that regulated sources would hire outside consultants to address LDAR 

tasks, Eastman based its LDAR costs on staffing by its own lower-cost engineering 

technicians and process unit technologists. These projections reflect Eastman’s actual 

experience with implementation of instrument-based monitoring of connectors. Eastman 

estimated that the annual administrative costs would be $27,000 which equates to 781 

hours of work at an average hourly labor rate of $34.56. In addition, Eastman 

demonstrated that the average monitoring cost is approximately $6.50 per connector 

 

2

 In its cost analyses for the OSWRO Rule, EPA followed the approach it adopted in the 

proposed Uniform Standards rulemaking. Revised Technology Review at 5. Eastman 

and ACC note that EPA never developed a final rule for the Uniform Standards. See

Footnote 6 and accompanying text. 
Eastman/ACC Joint Petition for Reconsideration 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360 

May 18, 2015 

Page 7 

because of the typical quantity of connectors and the difficulty in locating and accessing 

them as compared to other LDAR components such as pumps and valves. Eastman 

determined the incremental cost effectiveness of instrument-based monitoring of 

connectors would be $18,139 per ton.3 Based on the real-world data presented and 

submitted to EPA by Eastman, adoption of Option 2 is clearly not cost effective.4

In response to the Eastman data, EPA adjusted its cost estimate by incorporating 

the Eastman monitoring cost of $6.50 per component. EPA also selectively 

incorporated some administrative cost data from Eastman. EPA increased its projected 

administrative workload to only 100 hours but reduced the hourly labor rate to make it 

equivalent to Eastman’s ($34.56). As a result, EPA’s estimate of administrative costs 

decreased to $3,456. Based on these two changes, the incremental cost effectiveness 

was $6,825 per ton, or nearly equivalent to EPA’s estimate at the proposed rule stage 

($6,715 per ton). 

EPA’s response simply ignores the level of effort that is necessary to implement 

a Subpart H LDAR program. In the face of real world data showing the actual time 

required to implement an administrative program is nearly 800 hours per year, EPA’s 

doubling of its estimate of 50 hours to 100 hours makes EPA’s assumption of the time it 

takes to actually implement a connector monitoring program no less arbitrary and out of 

touch with chemical industry experience. Thus, EPA’s decision to exclude most of 

Eastman’s real world cost data from its analysis is arbitrary and capricious. 

C. EPA Should Reconsider the Connector LDAR Provisions 

EPA’s cost justification for the connector LDAR provisions is flawed for multiple 

reasons. First, EPA selectively incorporated only some of the real world LDAR 

emissions and cost data supplied by industry and ignored the rest of the data. These 

 

3

 Eastman used EPA’s value for estimated emissions reduction for the limited purpose 

of demonstrating how Eastman’s cost data affected cost effectiveness. However, 

Eastman and ACC do not consider EPA’s estimates of emissions reductions valid. 

4

 Eastman and ACC disagree with several other assumptions that EPA made in its cost 

analysis. For example, EPA applied an escalation factor of 1.7 to the initial and 

subsequent leak fraction (0.36 percent) at OSWRO facilities due to observations made 

at refinery LDAR programs where EPA applied an escalation factor of 2.6. 80 Fed. 

Reg. at 14257. There is no basis for applying any escalation factor to chemical 

facilities. 
Eastman/ACC Joint Petition for Reconsideration 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360 

May 18, 2015 

Page 8 

data starkly show lower emission reductions and higher costs than EPA’s assumptions. 

They also show that sensory monitoring of connectors is a highly effective low cost 

method for detecting and repairing leaks. Second, in developing the framework for the 

connector LDAR program in the OSWRO rule and conducting the related cost analysis, 

EPA relied extensively on data and methodologies used to support two previous 

rulemakings. In one of those rulemakings, provisions relating to the monitoring of 

connectors have been stayed pending EPA’s grant of reconsideration to ACC and 

others that filed both a petition for review and a petition for Agency reconsideration. 5 In 

the other rulemaking, EPA has never responded to comments and data submitted by 

ACC and others in opposition to its proposed connector monitoring and it appears that 

EPA does not intend to finalize that proposed rulemaking. 6 Thus, neither of the rules 

upon which the OSWRO connector monitoring program is based is in effect now and 

they offer no insight on the real world application of Method 21 monitoring. Because of 

these flaws in the rule, EPA should reconsider the connector LDAR provisions in the 

OSWRO Rule. 

Issue 2: Requirement to Monitor PRDs on Portable Containers 

In the proposed OSWRO Rule, EPA proposed to require specific PRD monitoring 

provisions found in 40 CFR § 63.691(c) to the OSWRO affected source. The affected 

source is defined as the entire group of off-site material management units associated 

with OSWRO. An off-site material management unit is defined in 40 CFR § 63.680(c) as 

a tank, container, surface impoundment, oil water separator, organic-water separator, or 

transfer system used to manage the off-site material. The PRD monitoring provisions 

apply therefore to both fixed sources, e.g., tanks, and non-fixed or portable sources, 

e.g., containers. In comments submitted on this proposal, ACC member company, Dow, 

specifically addressed the impracticability, if not impossibility, of requiring PRD 

monitoring provisions for containers, which typically are portable, because they are 

moved frequently and are received from a number of off-site locations. Dow requested 

that EPA clarify in the final rule that the PRD monitoring provisions do not apply to 

containers. 

 

5

 Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic 

Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of 

VOC in Petroleum Refineries; Final Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 64860 (Nov. 16, 2007). 

6

 National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations, 

Equipment Leaks, and Closed Vent Systems and Control Devices; and Revisions to the 

National Uniform Standards General Provisions, Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 17898 

(March 26, 2012). 
Eastman/ACC Joint Petition for Reconsideration 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360 

May 18, 2015 

Page 9 

EPA finalized its proposed requirements for PRD monitoring and management as 

proposed. In response to Dow’s concerns about these requirements applying to 

containers, EPA responded as follows: 

We believe the PRD monitoring requirements are necessary for all PRDs to 

enable operators to identify and minimize emissions from pressure relief events. 

We note that many OSWRO containers do not have PRDs and that, by definition, 

devices that are actuated either by pressure of less than or equal to 2.5 pounds 

per square inch gauge (psig) or by a vacuum are not PRDs.7

This response clearly belies knowledge of waste recovery operations and fails to 

consider the fact that numerous containers of various sizes, with PRDs that release at a 

higher pressure than 2.5 psig, are frequently found and used at facilities subject to the 

OSWRO Rule. It is extremely challenging, if not impossible for these facilities to design 

and implement a monitoring system for portable containers. Given that Eastman and 

ACC only discovered EPA’s erroneous assumptions about containers subject to the 

OSWRO Rule after the final rule was published and the Response to Comments made 

available, EPA should reconsider its position on making the PRD monitoring 

requirements in 40 CFR § 63.691(c) apply to containers, especially portable containers. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, Eastman and ACC respectfully request that EPA 

initiate the process for reconsideration of the OSWRO Rule to address the issues raised 

herein. Furthermore, Eastman and ACC request that EPA issue an immediate 

administrative stay of the equipment leak provisions for connectors and the standards 

for PRDs on portable containers pending reconsideration of this matter. A stay is 

necessary to prevent the hardship that Eastman and other ACC member companies 

will face if the rule remains applicable in its current status. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have any questions 

regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned using the contact information 

provided below. 

 

 

7

 Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule (79 Fed. Reg. 

37850, July 2, 2014), see Response 5.2.1.