September 3, 2010

Mr. Stephen Shedd US Environmental Protection Agency

109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Mail Code: E143

- 01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

SUBJECT: Docket ID: EPA

- HG

- OAR

- 2008

- 0008

RIN 2060

- AO91 Marine Vessel Loading Risk and Technology Review Rule

Dear Mr. Shedd,

TPC Group (TPC) , formerly Texas Petrochemicals L LC

, appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Marine Vessel Loading Risk and Technology Review Rule,

Docket ID EPA

- HG

- OAR

- 2008

- 0008, prior to the planned mid

- September publication of a proposed rule. TPC is a Houston

- based company, with operatin g facilities in Houston, Port Neches, and Baytown, Texas. We have approximately $2 billion in annual sales revenue, and employ nearly 800 full time employees and contractors.

We understand that EPA has identified t he dock facility of TPC’s Houston plant as one of four marine vessel loading facilities within the U.S. with an estimated maximum individual risk (MIR) exceeding one in a million. 1 For the reasons explained in below, we believe that such a designation is incorrect due to flawed data. TPC is c oncerned that if the EPA proceeds with the issuance of proposed rule, TPC will suffer reputational harm as the public and other key stakeholders will have an inaccurate picture of the risks posed by TPC’s operations.

TPC appreciates EPA’s work to address the risk and technology reviews. We also are cognizant of the constraints placed on EPA by the Sierra Club v. Lisa P. Jackson
Consent Decree , which establishes a schedule for addressing the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) for individual so urce categories. Noneth e less, we believe it is incumbent on the agency to ensure that its information is accurate and that persons and organizations are not subjected to unwarranted criticism due to misleading information.

TPC is especially concern ed regarding the MIR estimates prepared by EPA . These estimates are overestimated, inaccurate, and misleading. EPA’s MIR estimates are predicated on inaccurate information including inaccurate geographical coordinates and inaccurately identified chemicals

. See letter from Matt Todd, American Petroleum Institute, to Stephen A. Shedd, EPA, dated August 16, 2010 , a copy of which is enclosed

1 EPA identified the facility as the “Texas Petrochemicals” facility.Docket ID: EPA

- HG

- OAR

- 2008

- 0008
RIN 2060

- AO91 Marine Vessel Loading Risk and Technology Review Rule Mr. Stephen Shedd US Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC

September 3, 2010

Page 2 of 3 and incorporated by reference. In the case of TPC’s Houston plant, EPA’s database incorrectly depicts many of TPC’s emis sions sources as being squarely within the residential community surrounding our facility. These geographical coordinates are clearly in error. B asing the MIR calculations on sources located at these inaccurate geographical coordinates results in grossly overestimated risk values.

TPC is disappointed that EPA has elected not to request that the court extend the date required for publishing the proposed rule for the Marine Vessel Loading source category to allow time for EPA to correct the information in its database and to develop corrected
MIR calculations. We are confident that the only reason that TPC’s f acility is mistakenly identified as one of the sites with an estimated MIR greater than one in a million is

because the geographical coordinates incorrectly depict the emission sources as being within residential neighborhoods. The use of the correct geog raphical coordinates within

the Houston Plant’s fenceline will remove TPC’s facility from the group of sites

.

TPC has a well established record of minimizing the potential risk s from its operations

and limiting its potential impact s on the surrounding com munity. Our commitment to environmental excellence is demonstrated in ongoing effort to work closely with both the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the City of Houston on emissions reduction projects for 1,3

- butadiene, a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) that we handle in significant quantities at our Houston plant as a feedstock and a product. TPC entered into a voluntary emissions reduction agreement (VERA) with TCEQ and a settlement agreement with the City of Houston in 2005, each requi ring specific emissions reductions projects. At this time, we have completed the emissions reductions projects and we continue to operate our Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) fenceline system fenceline monitoring system. In 2009, we entered into a secon d agreement with TCEQ providing for additional emissions reductions projects and continued operation of our fenceline system. To

- date, we are well underway towards meeting the 2009 agreement commitments

.

The success of our emissions reductions projects and of our fenceline monitoring has been unparalleled. From 2004 to 2008, TPC reduced its emissions of 1,3

- butadiene by over 75 percent. As a result, concentrations of 1,3

- butadiene at TCEQ’s monitor at a park near TPC’s Houston Plant have decreased by m ore than 75 percent. In 2009 and 2010, TPC reduced the allowable 1,3

- butadiene emissions authorized by our Houston plant ’s air permit to make these emissions reductions permanent.

EPA’s MIR estimates upon which EPA has relied in drafting its proposed Mar ine Vessel Loading rule further overestimate potential risks because EPA has relied on the year 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). As described above, TPC’s emissions reductions of 1,3

- butadiene occurred in late 2005 and subsequent years, and are

th erefore largely unaccounted for in the 2005 NEI.

In closing, TPC has worked hard to reduce its emissions and develop a well

- deserved reputation as a company committed to improving its environmental performance and minimizing potential impacts. It would b e unfortunate for EPA to release information thatDocket ID: EPA

- HG

- OAR

- 2008

- 0008
RIN 2060

- AO91 Marine Vessel Loading Risk and Technology Review Rule Mr. Stephen Shedd US Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC

September 3, 2010

Page 3 of 3 it knows to be incorrect that would create undo concern and diminish TPC’s reputation
and efforts. W e urge EPA to ensure that the proposed rule, when published in mid

September, includes information clearl y describing the errors in EPA’s emissions database and MIR calculations. Only through a clear explanation of the systematic errors in the emissions database can EPA provide a more accurate and appropriate description of MIR for these sources.

If you hav e any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact

me at 713

- 840

- 2410 or marise.textor@tpcgrp.com

.

Sincerely,

Marise Lada Textor, P.E. Corporate Director

– Regulatory Affairs

Enclosure: Letter, Matt Todd, American Petroleum Institute, to Stephen A. Shedd, EPA, dated August 16, 2010

cc: Christine Higgins, OMB, Washington, D.C. (original by FedEx, copy by email to chiggins@omb.eop.gov ) Ken Hustvedt, EPA, Mail Code: E143

- 01, Research Triangle Park, NC (original by FedEx, copy by email to Hustvedt.Ken@epamail.epa.gov) Kevin Neyland, OMB, Washington, D.C. (original by FedEx, copy by email to kneyland@omb.eop.gov) Peter Tsirigotis, EPA, Ma il Code: D205

- 01, Research Triangle Park, NC (original by FedEx, copy by email to tsirigotis.peter@epa.gov) Matt Todd, American Petroleum Institute (by email to ToddM@api.org ) Jim Griffin, American Chemistry Council (by email to Jim_Griffin@americanchemistry.com )

### 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.org

### That 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

## Copyrighted page/s removed. Copyrighted ma terial is not available in Regulations.gov since it may not be reproduced without consent of the copyright holder.

Contact the EPA Docket Center’s P ublic Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document.

Requests for copies may be made as follows:

In person/writing: Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center 1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334 Washington, DC. 20004

Telephone:

202-566-1744

Fax:

202-566- 9744

Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov