ARKEMA
May 15, 2017
Dr. Sarah Rees
Director, Office of Regulatory Policy and Management
Office of Policy (Mail Code 1803)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.
USS. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-190
Dear Dr. Rees:
Arkema Inc. respectfully submits these comments to the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA’s") docket, entitied “Evaluation of Existing Regulations” published in the Federal
Register on April 13, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 17,793). Arkema is a diversified, worldwide chemical
manufacturer, and we are a leading supplier of high performance materials that are used in a
range of industries and applications. As EPA conduets its evaluation of “regulations that may be
appropriate for repeal, replacement or modification,” we respectfully ask that you consider the
following existing regulations that have significant impacts on Arkema Inc., the chemical
manufacturing industry and/or our customers.
fic NAP) Program Regulations
EPA’s changes to the listing status (delistings) of certain substitutes used in the household and
commercial refrigeration and foam-blowing sectors pursuant to the SNAP program are likely to
negatively impact American businesses and, ultimately, American consumers. An EPA SNAP
final rule published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 86,778) followed
a first round of restrictions published in July 20, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 42,870) that are just now
being implemented over the next several years (together, the “SNAP Rules”)!. Imposing two
sets of restrictions back-to-back on the regulated community with relatively short amounts of
time for compliance will greatly increase costs given the complexity of transitioning to new
materials. Time and money needs to be spent on a variety of tasks necessary for a safe, effective
and energy-efficient transition, including research and development activities; conducting risk
assessments of replacement materials; designing, testing and building new manufacturing units
and capabilities; developing and implementing safety and training programs; obtaining
certifications and ensuring compliance with all applicable building codes.
+ Arkema has previously submitted substantially similar comments to the agency during the comment periods for
both SNAP Rules,The primary rationale for the SNAP Rules was President Obama's Climate Action Plan, We
believe EPA exceeded its authority when it promulgated the recent SNAP delisting regulations.
Indeed, the degree of change the recent SNAP Rules required was unprecedented. In its 21-year
existence between 1994 and 2015, the SNAP program issued only 4 “delistings”, while the 2015
rule, alone, has over 120. The compliance burden, likewise, is unprecedented within the SNAP
program, while the environmental benefit that the Agency expects to achieve by imposing the
recent SNAP Rules is unclear.
In addition, there are potential timeframe conflicts with the Department of Energy's energy
conservation standards, With respect to foam applications, the Agency seems to have recognized
the above points by allowing extra time for certain military, space and aeronautic applications.
Arkema believes that a similar exception should also be allowed for other businesses in order to
ensure a level playing field.
Moreover, Congress, in the recently-enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017, included
the following language regarding the recent SNAP regulations:
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program.-The Committees reiterate the
concern expressed in Senate Report 114-281 with respect to the proposed timeframes for
delistings. Historical experience indicates that manufacturers often need several years 10
modify manufacturing processes in order to transition between new materials. Since
EPA‘s deadlines are not driven by statutory mandates, additional transition time is
allowable, and warranted, in order to avoid unintended consequences. To allow
manufacturers to fully integrate new chemicals into their product lines following rigorous
efficacy and safety testing, EPA is directed to consider harmonizing the status of any
previously approved refrigerant or foam-blowing agent with other domestic and
international programs for refrigeration and commercial air conditioning applications,
and corresponding deadlines for military, space- and aeronautics-related applications.
Since the EPA’s recent SNAP regulations are not being driven by any statutory deadline and
given the Congressional statements noted above, Arkema requests the Agency repeal, replace or
make modifications that in particular address (j) all reasonable transition costs, (ii) parallel
efforts at the international level, (iii) consensus industry recommendations, and (iv) any other
compliance concerns, with the goal of ensuring that a sufficient amount of time is provided for
an efficient and smooth status transition that minimizes, to the maximum extent possible, the
costs and problems noted above.
k Management Program Regulations
EPA finalized changes to the Risk Management Program (RMP) as part of the "Accidental
Release Provention Requirements: Risk Management Programs under the Clean Air Act" final
rule that was published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 4,594). This
rule will also likely significantly impact Arkema Inc. and/or the chemical manufacturing
? Arkema also previously submitted comments to the Agency during the comment period for this rue,
‘900 ist Avenue, King of Psa, PA 15405 ph. (610) 205-7000industry. Prior to this final rule, the RMP has been effective in making chemical facilities safer,
and Arkema is committed to safety for our employees and the public. However, the new changes
to the RMP will likely create new and unreasonable burdens and, potentially, new security
concerns. Among our chief concerns are the following: (1) new mandates that require the release
to the public of facility-specific chemical information may create new security concerns if there
are not sufficient safeguards to ensure that those requesting the information have a legitimate
need for the information for the purposes of community emergency preparedness; (2) third-party
audit requirements will likely add new costs and burdens without providing any new benefits
‘beyond those already provided by current audit practices and (3) new burdens imposed by
consideration and documentation of inherently safer technology design changes as part of the
RMP process
‘The American Chemistry Couneil (ACC) and others have questioned whether the EPA, in
promulgating this rule, met its statutory obligations to demonstrate the need for additional
requirements, ACC has maintained that EPA did not show how the new RMP requirements will
improve chemical safety “commensurate with their additional regulatory burdens.” Arkema,
therefore, respectfully requests that the RMP be evaluated and repealed, replaced and/or
modified so that the above issues raised by ACC and many other associations are fully
addressed.
janoscale Materials Reporting and Recordkeeping Regulations
EPA established new reporting and recordkeeping requirements for nanoscale materials as part
of its final rule, entitled “Chemical Substances When Manufactured or Processed as Nanoscale
Materials: TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements” that was published in the Federal
Register on January 12, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 3641). As with the above rules, the new nanoscale
reporting requirements will create additional burdens to companies and the chemical
manufacturing industry.
This new rule mandates reporting and recordkeeping requirements that exceed the information
collection authorized in section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), By requiring
companies to file a burdensome report with EPA 30 to 135 days before a nanomaterial can be
used in a commercial activity, EPA has created a de facto permitting program. During this
review period, EPA may decide to require further testing or place restrictions on the commercial
activity. EPA's processes under the rule appear to more closely track the data submission form
and information requirements for new chemicals rather than for existing substances.
‘Various trade associations have noted that the EPA has not provided the industry and
stakeholders with clear and adequate guidance as to what is required under the new reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, And, the guidance that has been provided is often subjective, such
as what constitutes a reportable nanoscale material; how to determine whether substances such as
emulsion polymers fall within the definition; and what constitutes "unique and novel”
properties.” Thus, the rule risks creating significant new costs, uncertainty and unevenness in
reporting, Arkema, therefore, respectfully requests that this rule be evaluated and repealed,
replaced and/or modified so that the above issues, as well as those raised by various industry
900 1st Avenue, King of Prussia, PA. 19406-gh. (610) 205-7000trade associations (including the comments of the Nanomanufacturing Association that were
submitted to Department of Commerce Docket No. DOC-2017-0001), are adequately and.
appropriately addressed,
Det
yn and Repair (LDAR) Re
EPA imposes numerous leak detection and repair regulations (LDAR) and requirements on a
variety of manufacturing operations, many of which are overlapping regulations that have
inconsistent leak definitions and monitoring frequency requirements. Instances of regulation
overlap and inconsistencies are found throughout Part 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In
many instances the requirements, such as connector or leak-less pump monitoring, provide very
low emission reductions and are often not cost-effective. Many of the current Method 21
Inspections could be replaced with periodic visual (AVO) or infrared imagery leak inspections to
achieve similar emission reductions at a lower cost, These requirements are in need of
improvement and/or streamlining, and Arkema supports the comments of ACC and others in
terms of specific LDAR provisions that should be repealed, replaced and/or modified.
Area Sourees (CMAS)
EPA regulations provide certain standards for hazardous air pollutants for chemical
manufacturing area sources. ‘These standards can be confusing and can ereate unintended
consequences in some cases, Arkema respectfully requests that these regulations be evaluated
and repealed, replaced or modified particularly in cases where CMAS regulations cause the
triggering of a Title V permit requirement for an area source. Area sources are minor air
emission sources that would not otherwise be subject to Title V permitting, and such permitting
requirements can result in tens of thousands of dollars in costs for the preparation of the permit
application and for other ongoing reporting obligations and fees. These costs arc particularly
burdensome for small manufacturing sites, and such regulatory burdens are often not offset by
any measurable air emission reductions.
Hee ee
‘Thank you, in advance, for your consideration of the above comments. Please do not hesitate to
contact us if you have any questions or if we can provide any additional information.
David Kunz 3
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
Singgyely,
900 ist Avenue, King of Prussia, PA 19406 ph. (610) 205-7000