Urge EPA to Strengthen Standards for Chemical Plants

Our comments submitted to the U.S. EPA use Toxic Release Inventory data and EJScreen tools to evaluate the communities where the majority of the targeted synthetic organic plants are located. As described above, the majority of these facilities are located in heavily industrialized regions where communities living in these regions are exposed to elevated concentrations of carcinogenic and toxic hazardous air pollutants (air toxics) emitted from these facilities.

Using GIS mapping techniques paired with EJ Screen, the following site assessments report the counts of SOCPRMs in each region, and summarize the existing impacts of air toxic releases on the region. Bar charts of air toxics emissions and risk show that these regions are all in the upper percentiles for volumes of air toxics releases and both respiratory and cancer risk. Additionally, the majority of these disparately impacted regions are also predominantly marginalized communities of color and low income communities with higher levels of unemployment.

Additional recommendations that would improve the proposed rules include:

• The EPA must strengthen the over-30-year-old leak detection and repair requirements used to minimize fugitive emissions. As it stands, EPA declined to update most facilities’ leak detection and repair requirements. Fenceline communities are affected adversely by fugitive emissions of a cocktail of pollutants from these chemical manufacturing facilities, and the facilities must be required to use pollution prevention technologies such as leakless pumps and valves with verification using advanced leak detection sensor networks. While EPA does propose updated leak standards for sources that use ethylene oxide or chloroprene and for new/modified facilities under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), EPA’s failure to revise the leak standards at all for the vast majority of facilities is a major failure and missed opportunity in this rule. As EPA admits, the majority of emission sources from SOCPRMs are fugitive. Therefore the outdated leak standards that EPA last revised well over a decade ago should be revised. In addition, EPA’s analysis of the developments in leak detection technologies and practices is faulty, as the agency failed to consider leakless (or low-leak) valves, optical gas imaging, or leak detection sensor networks. EPA also used a flawed cost- effectiveness analysis by using current-day cost figures for new requirements while relying on 2007 cost figures for the savings in preventing losses of valuable chemicals. In short, EPA should consider the proper range of leak detection technologies and should apply revised standards for all facilities.
• While we support the proposed regulatory requirement for fenceline monitoring, multiple fenceline monitors should be required at all of the SOCPRM facilities. The current proposal only requires facilities emitting a minimum of six priority pollutants to institute fenceline monitoring. Additionally, the specified detection limits for some of the pollutants are too high. For instance, despite low detection levels being achieved by advanced monitoring methods, the EPA is using a 300 ppt detection limit and then tripling that to create the fenceline action limit (900 ppt) for Ethylene Oxide (ETO). ETO is toxic at 11 ppt in the ambient air. EPA’s action level at the fenceline is 100 times the health protective level. EPA should mandate the use of advanced monitoring technologies to achieve lower detection limits and lower the action levels at the fenceline.
• While we support the new risk analysis, the results of the risk analysis should be paired with recommended solutions and regulatory options to decrease risk. Enhanced leak detection and repair requirements and increased flaring efficiency requirements are the highest priorities because leaks and flaring are substantial contributors to excess risk for neighboring communities. EPA can better support its regulatory requirements by linking the findings in the risk analysis more directly to the regulatory requirements in the rule.
• Flares can be a major source of air toxics emissions when they are not operating efficiently to entirely combust harmful waste gases. Combustion efficiency in open flame stack flares is impossible to monitor, and open flame stack flares are also a physical nuisance due to sound and light pollution. EPA’s proposed enhanced monitoring requirements for flares are a vast improvement over current standards, but are inadequate to identify inefficiently operating, smoking flares. Also, EPA wrongly proposes to give smoking flares multiple exemptions when operating above “smokeless capacity.” EPA should require the phaseout of all open-flame stack flares, and require monitoring systems for enclosed flares to maintain smokeless burns.
• While there has been much discussion and opposition by industry over the proposed elimination of the much-abused startup, shutdown, and malfunction exemptions, the EPA must retain this proposed rule in the final rulemaking. These exemptions have allowed chemical manufacturing facilities across sectors to emit unregulated volumes of air toxics, without the risk of a violation. The proposed rule will require SOCPRMs to better ensure that their facilities consistently operate within regulatory constraints. Additionally, the agency’s proposal should be improved by removing loopholes for uncontrolled emissions from pressure release devices during malfunctions. While pressure release devices may be necessary for worker safety, they should not be exempt from emissions regulations. If facilities are operating safely and responsibly, the use of pressure release valves should not be necessary. Uncontrolled emissions from pressure release devices should be treated as any other violation in order to disincentivize facilities from operating at dangerous capacities.These exemptions allow for the unregulated release of harmful air toxics and must be removed as well.