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) 205-7000industry. 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) 205-7000trade 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