August 16 , 2010

Stephen A. Shedd U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Mail Code: E143

- 01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 RE: Ongoing API Work to Review and Correct As Necessary Data on Four Marine Vessel Loading Facilitie s Dear Steve: In advance of our call today on the Marine Vessel Loading Risk and Technology Review Rule , I wanted to give you a brief update on our efforts to review and correct as necessary source and emission data for the following four m a rine ves sel loading facilities: TransMontaigne (Coastal Terminals in the NEI), Fort Lauderdale, FL TX Petrochemical, Houston, TX Kinder Morgan (Pasadena Terminal and Galena Park Terminal in the NEI), Galena Park, TX Unocal/Chevron (Unocal in the NEI), Nederland, TX We understand from prior communications that EPA’s preliminary risk analyses ind i cated that these four facilities may have a 70

- year cancer maximum individual risk (MIR) over 1 in a million for marine vessel loading operations. As a result, EPA has so ught additional info r mation about these four facilities, including site visits to each. We very much appreciate EPA’s efforts to review and confirm the data used to characterize these facilities in EPA’s risk analyses. To contribute to that effort, API h as retained ENV I RON to provide assistance to API in reviewing source and emission data at the four facilities and to work with facility staff to ensure that data are correct and accurately represent current facility o p erations. Matthew Todd Policy Advisor Regulatory and Scientific Affairs 1220 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 - 4070 USA Telephone 202 - 682 - 8319 Fax 202 - 682 - 8270 Email toddm@api.org www.api.orgThat effort is on

- going and is not yet complete. However, an initial review of 2005 NEI source

and emission data for the four facilities has been done, the results of which are pr o vided with this letter. In a series of figures, 2005 NEI emission release points are plotted on aeria l photo images of each facility. Emission release points are identified by ID number, ge o graphical location, and MACT code. As evident in the figures, there appear to be potentially important data errors in the NEI that could cause EPA’s preliminary ri sk analyses to calculate inaccurate and overstated risk. For example, latitude and longitude coordinates for some emission release points are incorrect at three of the four facilities (TransMontaigne, TX Petrochemical, and Kinder Morgan). Such mistaken o ffsite placement of emission release points, at times directly in residential areas, would cause calculated risk due to emissions from these points to be overstated, po s sibly by a wide margin. In other cases, emissions data in the NEI are incorrect. For example, as we have discussed with EPA previously, naphthalene emissions for the Unocal/Chevron facility are incorrectly high due a mistaken reporting of naphtha as “naphthalene.” Naphtha is a product of crude oil di s tillation containing a mixture of hydr ocarbons that boil within a particular temperature range. Nap h tha is a broad term referring to this mixture of liquid hydrocarbons and is not the same as naphth a lene. While data review and correction efforts are still underway, ENVIRON has received corre cted data for two of the four facilities. Risk analyses for these two facilities were re

- done with EPA’s HEM
- 3 risk model using corrected data. In both cases, facility

- wide cancer MIR was reduced to below 1 in a million. Data errors, such as those above , may cause inaccurate results that are misleading and m a terial to EPA’s residual risk rule making. To guard against that possibility, we believe that risk analyses for these facilities should be re

- done by EPA using corrected data. From our previous c o n versations with you, however, we understand that EPA does not plan to do so prior to rule proposal due to the short time before the court

- ordered dea dline. This is very disconcerting to the four terminals that took efforts to provide updated data to EPA . If EPA does not re - run the risk model, at a minimum, we urge EPA, both in its rule proposal and in any accompanying documentation of preliminary risk analyses, to acknowledge API’s ongoing data review and correction efforts for these four facilities, th e nature of data errors uncovered to date, the effects that these errors would have on estimated risk, and their possible implications for r e sidual risk rule making.

* * * API stands ready to continue discussing with EPA how to improve residual risk as sessments and their su p porting databases, and we will be available to participate in efforts to do so.API and its members express appreciation for EPA’s efforts to ensure the accuracy of source and

emission data used in EPA’s residual risk analyses, a nd EPA’s willingness to confirm with companies such data. We will welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further with EPA and to provide EPA with additional information or clarific a tions as needed. Sincerely,

Matthew Todd Cc: K.C. Hustved t, EPA

### Fig. 1 - Coastal Terminals (Ft. Lauderdale) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Points + Corrected Location for Marine Vapor Recovery Unit

### Fig. 1 - Unocal/Chevron (Nederland) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Points (All MACT Codes)

### Fig. 2 - Unocal/Chevron (Nederland) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Points (Marine Vessel Loading MACT Code 603)

### Fig. 3 - Unocal/Chevron (Nederland) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Points (Gasoline Distribution MACT Code 601)

### Fig. 4 - Unocal/Chevron (Nederland) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Points (Blank MACT Code)

### Fig. 5 - Unocal/Chevron (Nederland) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Point 000078 (tons/yr; naphthalene & MTBE )

### Fig. 1 - TX Petrochemicals (Houston) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Points (All) + Corrected Location for Dock Facilities

### Fig. 2 - TX Petrochemicals (Houston)

– 2005 NEI Emission Release Points (No Marine Vessel Loading MACT Code 603) + Corrected Location for Dock Facilities

### Fig. 3 - TX Petrochemicals (Houston) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Points (HON MACT Code 1501)

### Fig. 4 - TX Petrochemicals (Houston) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Points (Blank MACT Code)

### Fig. 5 - TX Petrochemicals (Houston) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Points (Incorrect Locations In/Near Residential Areas)

### Fig. 1 - Pasadena/Galena Park (Galena Park) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Points (All)

### Fig. 2 - Pasadena/Galena Park (Galena Park) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Points (Marine Vessel Loading MACT Code 603)

### Fig. 3 - Pasadena/Galena Park (Galena Park) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Points (Gasoline Distribution MACT Code 601)

### Fig. 4 - Pasadena/Galena Park (Galena Park) – 2005 NEI Emission Release Points (Blank MACT Code)

### Fig. 5 - Pasadena/Galena Park (Galena Park) – Throughput Instead of Emissions? Incorrect Locations?