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 LLC, 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 operating 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 the 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 concerned 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 source categories. Nonetheless, 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 concerned 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 emissions sources as being squarely within the 

residential community surrounding our facility. These geographical coordinates are 

clearly in error. Basing 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 facility 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 geographical 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 risks from its operations 

and limiting its potential impacts on the surrounding community. 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 requiring 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 second

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 more 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 Marine 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 

therefore 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 be unfortunate for EPA to release information that 
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 3 of 3

it knows to be incorrect that would create undo concern and diminish TPC’s reputation

and efforts. We urge EPA to ensure that the proposed rule, when published in midSeptember, includes information clearly 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 have 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, Mail 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 Facilities

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 marine vessel 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 indicated 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 sought additional information 

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 has retained ENVIRON 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 

operations.

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 provided with this 

letter. In a series of figures, 2005 NEI emission release points are plotted on aerial photo images 

of each facility. Emission release points are identified by ID number, geographical 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 risk 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 offsite placement of emission release points, at times directly in residential areas, 

would cause calculated risk due to emissions from these points to be overstated, possibly 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 distillation 

containing a mixture of hydrocarbons that boil within a particular temperature range. Naphtha is 

a broad term referring to this mixture of liquid hydrocarbons and is not the same as naphthalene.

While data review and correction efforts are still underway, ENVIRON has received corrected 

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 material 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 conversations 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 deadline. 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, the nature of data 

errors uncovered to date, the effects that these errors would have on estimated risk, and 

their possible implications for residual risk rule making.

* * *

API stands ready to continue discussing with EPA how to improve residual risk assessments and 

their supporting 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, and 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 clarifications as needed.

Sincerely,

Matthew Todd

Cc: K.C. Hustvedt, EPA
Copyrighted page/s removed. Copyrighted material is not available in 

Regulations.gov since it may not be reproduced without consent of 

the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center’s Public 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