p.1 

OAR Box 1669 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

l-E-4 

Docket Number: 

A-98-13 

Printed 9/23/2008 9:36:49 AM Sheet 72 of 110 
P.2 

mmam 

A 98 13, 

MEMORANDUM 

:r\c-;\ 

TO: Steve Shedd 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ESD/WCPG 

ESD Project No. 96/05 

FROM: Bernd Haneke and Greg LaFlam 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

DATE: February 19, 1998 

SUBJECT: ICR Meeting for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Facilities 

I. Purpose 

The purpose ofthis meeting was to bring together the project Work Team, including the 

EPA and its contractor, to discuss industry comments and issues pertinent to the industry survey 

(ICR) for organic liquids distribution facilities. This work is in support ofthe development of 

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the Organic Liquids 

Distribution (non-Gasoline) source category. 

II. Location and Date 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA/NC Mutual Building, 8th Floor Conference Room No. 838 

Durham, NC 

February 12,1998,9:00 am to noon 

III. Participants 

Present at Mutual Building 

Bill Beck, Mobil Corporation 

Joe Federowicz, EMCO Wheaton DTM, Inc. 

Bernd Haneke, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

Jay Helms, PES 

Tom Hmiel, BASF Corporation 

Greg LaFlam, PES 

Steve Shedd, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Larry Sorrels, EPA 

Telephone Participants 

Am Desmukh, Occidental Chemical Corporation 

Donna Hathaway, Louisiana DEQ 
P.3 

Memo-ICR Meeting 

February 19,1998 

Page 2 

Paul Jan, DuPont 

Jack McClure, Shell Oil Company 

Denise Michelson, ARCO Pipe Line Company 

Norman Morrow, Exxon Chemical Americas 

Karin Ritter, American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Don Wang, Union Carbide 

Gary Wilson, Marathon Oil Company 

IV. Discussion 

EPA Introduction 

After the participants introduced themselves, Steve Shedd began the discussion by stating 

that this meeting was to focus on the draft ICR, and would be held in the form of an open 

discussion. Mr. Shedd stated that he wanted to address issues pertaining to facilities should be 

addressed by the survey, and he also stated that he would answer technical questions on the 

content ofthe survey. 

Facility Size 

Mr. Shedd began the discussion by stating that the survey would focus on major sources, 

but that an analysis would also have to be perfonned for area sources. To respond to a previous 

comment made by API, Mr. Shedd stated that the EPA had decided to focus on actual emissions 

in selecting the facilities that would have to respond, and would not be dealing with potential-toemit (PTE) figures due to their complexity and controversial status. He said that the EPA would 

only be seeking information from facilities having actual emissions of at least 5 tons per year 

(tpy) ofany single hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or 12.5 tpy ofany combination of HAP. This 

represents 50 percent ofthe 10/25 tpy major source criteria for stationary source facilities. A 

participant commented that this was a sensible way to focus in on larger sources. 

Mr. Shedd also stated that he wanted survey recipients to provide a list of their facilities 

that fall below the 5/12.5 tpy level. This list, as described by Mr. Shedd, should include 

information such as name, city, State, and contact person. In response to a question, he said that 

the facility type would also have to be identified on this list. Mr. Shedd then stated that he would 

be sending the survey to compames, and not to individual facilities. He went on to say that the 

need might arise to also survey area sources, but that this determination would be made after the 

results ofthe initial survey were compiled. 

Ms. Michelson stated that this would force ARCO to inventory small, unmanned, remote 

facilities which already would have been analyzed for criteria pollutants, but not HAPs. Mr. 

Shedd responded that this information should be available for all of ARCO's facilities, and it will 

o~ 
P.4 

Memo-ICR Meeting 

February 19,1998 

Page 3 

be useful for the EPA to track facilities that are approaching the 10/25 tpy cutoff. 

Mr. Beck mentioned that by using the 5/12.5 tpy cutoff for facilities responding to the 

survey, some ofthe larger area sources would be included by default in the survey. He suggested 

that the EPA look at the objectives ofthe survey, and consider what steps the Agency needs to 

take to achieve the results required from the survey. Mr. Shedd responded that he did not want 

the industry survey to be overly complicated. 

Mr. Shedd then asked the group ifthe EPA should be considering facilities emitting less 

than the 5/12.5 tpy limit. Tom Hmiel responded that he did not see the use in this as it would not 

likely enhance the survey's representativeness. Mr. Shedd replied by stating that for the present, 

the EPA would stick with 50 percent ofthe 10/25 tpy cutoffs. 

Facilitv Types 

Mr. Shedd then shifted the conversation to the facility types that should be surveyed. He 

stated that the EPA prefers the broad definition given in the EPA presentation for the "First 

Roundtable Meeting with the Project Work Team" on the Presumptive MACT for Organic 

Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Facilities. He reiterated that the EPA did not want to 

accidentally cut out a large subset ofthe industry. Mr. Shedd stated that the EPA at the present 

time intends to survey three types of facilities: 

1. Stand-alone terminals 

2. Pipeline (non-natural gas) facilities 

3. Compounding/blending/packaging facilities. 

Mr. Shedd then explained the EPA's perception/definition of a stand-alone terminal. According 

to the EPA, this type of operation receives, stores, and distributes organic liquids. These types of 

facilities are not covered by the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON). Furthermore, Mr. Shedd 

stated that HON regulated operations would not be targeted for this survey. Mr. Beck mentioned 

that it was important to exclude facilities already covered by existing or soon to be official 

MACT regulations. 

Mr. Morrow pointed out that the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON) already has 

completed the P-MACT stage, and that the Ethylene MACT rule is also available. He further 

pointed out that all operations at production facilities will be covered (or at least considered) 

eventually. Mr. Shedd then asked if refineries did a MACT determination for non-gasoline 

transfer operations, to which Karin Ritter responded that the API does not have any ofthe 

surveys that the EPA sent to the refineries. Mr. Beck responded that a survey of transfer 

operations was indeed completed for refinery operations. Mr. Shedd then said that the EPA 

might have to complete a limited industry survey for transfer operations at refineries. 

3 
P.5 

Memo-ICR Meeting 

February 19,1998 

Page 4 

Mr. Hmiel then inquired ifthe industry survey would have clear instructions, to which 

Mr. Shedd responded that it would, but that there would also still be "gray areas." Mr. Hmiel 

then asked Mr. Shedd ifthe EPA would only look at outgoing organic chemicals, to which Mr. 

Shedd responded that this would be true in all instances except for the Independent Liquid 

Terminals Association (ILTA) member type facilities. 

Mr. Morrow then stated that blending operations would be covered by the MON, and he 

asked Mr. Shedd what to tell people/facilities that expect to be covered by the MON, but are not 

sure of their status. He then suggested that the EPA look at the MON survey, and determine who 

it was sent to. He suggested that the SIC codes be considered carefully when studying this 

survey. Mr. Shedd responded that the EPA would deal as best it could with any overlap in the 

surveyed industry. 

Mr. Hmiel inquired as to whether the EPA would be requesting marine vessel transfer 

data. Mr. Shedd responded that the EPA would ask about the presence of these operations, but 

would go no further. He also stated that the EPA would be inquiring about benzene wastes so as 

to gather complete information on the facility processes. 

Mr. Morrow raised concerns about the level of detail being asked by the survey. In 

particular, he mentioned that information on the locations ofall drains, lines, etc. could become 

an excessive burden for facilities to compile and supply. Furthermore, he stated that OLD 

wastewater systems could not be segregated from VOC systems. Mr. Morrow and Mr. Hmiel 

went on to say that the benzene waste rule, ifapplicable at facilities, would bring these facilities 

to higher standards. Mr. Morrow also reiterated that ifthe equipment complied with 40 CFR 

Part 61 Subpart FF (the Benzene Waste Operation NESHAP), the wastewater system could be 

understood based on what the standard requires. Mr. Shedd responded that the EPA would have 

to know what wastes besides benzene enter the system, as there are various control options under 

this rule. 

Mr. Morrow mentioned that the survey should cite all applicable rules and regulations, to 

which Mr. Shedd responded that the EPA/PES team was in the process of streamlining the 

survey. Finally, Gary Wilson inquired if collocated facilities would have to look at combined 

facility HAP emissions or just the OLD portion, to which Mr. Shedd responded that the total 

facility would have to be taken into account in estimating actual emissions for the purpose of 

determining whether the facility would have to respond. 

Pipeline Facilities 

Mr. Shedd began this discussion by stating that the EPA would be surveying pipelines 

transferring, among others, natural gas liquids (NGL) and crude oil after the point of custody 

transfer. Mr. Beck stated that a good definition of "custody transfer" could be obtained from the 

H 
P.6 

Memo-ICR Meeting 

February 19,1998 

Page 5 

Exploration and Production (Oil and Gas) MACT rule proposal. 

Ms. Michelson stated that by using the definition ofpipeline breakout facility in the 

Gasoline Distribution MACT rule, 99 percent of applicable facilities would be captured. She 

further mentioned that the survey for the organic liquids distribution source category would 

capture information pertaining to crude oil, jet fuel, diesel, etc. 

Mr. Shedd then stated that crude oil facilities pumping oil from ships to storage areas via 

pipelines might be covered by this NESHAP. Mr. Beck added that the Marine Loading MACT 

would not cover this type of operation, as it covers only the loading portion ofthe operation. Mr. 

Morrow then asked if storage was the key term/component for non-petroleum pipelines, to which 

Mr. Shedd responded that this may indeed be the case. He also asked if collocated metering 

stations would be covered by the rule, stating that ownership at these facilities could vary. Mr. 

Shedd responded that the focus was on the pipeline facility, and more than metering functions 

would be required to satisfy the emissions cutoff. 

Mr. Shedd then stated that the Oil and Gas NESHAP completely covers all natural gas 

pipelines, and that natural gas pipelines would be excluded from the OLD source category. But 

he also stated that there would probably not be very many responses for pipeline breakout 

stations, pumping stations, and storage facilities due to their low levels ofemissions. 

Compounding/Blending/Packaging Facilities 

Mr. Morrow began this discussion by stating that the MON would cover many ofthe 

compounding/blending/packaging facilities, indicating that blending (such as paint manufacture) 

is a process, and not a distribution operation. He went on to say that he thought that these 

processes should be excluded from the OLD source category. Mr. Shedd responded that a list of 

draft questions had been prepared to survey these operations and that it would be distributed to 

the Work Team. 

Mr. Hmiel stated that the only blending and distributing operations that he could think of 

would involve small agricultural companies involved in mixing/blending pesticides/herbicides or 

other agricultural product. He stated that these facilities bring in carrier liquids to blend and 

distribute the active ingredient. He did not think that any of these companies would be major 

sources, and therefore would not be picked up by the survey. 

Mr. Beck stated that companies involved in producing and blending lubricants might 

qualify under this subcategory, but would have very limited HAP emissions due to the low vapor 

pressure of their products. Mr. Shedd responded by agreeing that most of these companies 

probably are area sources. 

s 
P.7 

Memo-ICR Meeting 

February 19,1998 

Page 6 

Mr. Shedd then stated that the EPA/PES team would participate in a workshop on 

completing the survey after it had been sent out. Mr. Beck asked where the workshop should be 

held, and if there was to be more than one. Mr. Shedd responded that the workshop should be 

held only once, and that he was open to suggestions as to the location. The Gulf Coast Area 

(Texas or Louisiana) was suggested as a central location. 

Products and Liquids Surveyed 

Mr. Shedd began this discussion by stating that previous comments suggested that 

organic liquids surveyed should have a vapor pressure cutoff and a HAP cutoff. He went on to 

say that the EPA/PES team was having problems acquiring this type of information for mixtures, 

but not for pure chemicals. Mr. Shedd also stated that a thorough review of applicable State 

rules and regulations was being conducted. Preliminary results indicate that many States have 

true vapor pressure (TVP) cutoffs, with the lowest appearing to be 0.5 psia. However, none was 

identified that has a HAP content cutoff. The HON, he added, also has a vapor pressure cutoff. 

Many of these rules affect loading operations for low vapor pressure liquids. 

Greg LaFlam and Steve Shedd then proposed that the EPA was considering requesting 

information on liquids with vapor pressures as low as 0.1 psia. A 0.1 psia cutoff would exclude 

some fuel oils, as well as some pure HAP liquids from the list. Mr. Shedd was concerned that 

this might prevent the EPA from collecting information on liquids/emissions that are of 

importance to the OLD NESHAP. Mr. Beck vigorously stated that this was to be an air 

emissions rule, and that therefore HAP with low vapor pressures (and hence low air emissions) 

should be of no interest to this source category. 

Mr. Hmiel and Mr. Morrow stated that the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) have a 1,000 ppm limit for carcinogens, and a 10,000 ppm limit 

for non-carcinogens. Mr. Beck then suggested a 5 percent HAP limit on liquids having a vapor 

pressure of k 0.1 psia. He furthermore noted that no other EPA regulatory team had found low 

vapor pressure, low HAP content liquids to be of interest. Mr. Shedd responded that he would 

discuss this issue with EPA management. It was concluded that there would be an exclusion for 

organic liquids that have a true vapor pressure of less than 0.1 psia and a HAP content below 

1,000 ppm, subject to further discussions within the EPA. Mr. Hmiel stated that these excluded 

liquids could be considered to contain HAPs only as impurities. 

Mr. Shedd then stated that the EPA would still want to acquire information regarding 

excluded liquids, so as to better understand the facility processes. Mr. Morrow stated that this 

would be a problem, at the least, and that it would open up a real "can of worms." Many ofthe 

participants responded that by doing so, their companies would reveal confidential business 

information, and that they were not willing to provide this type of information. Mr. Hmiel also 

noted that this would place a huge burden on facilities, and that the information supplied might 

c 
P.8 

Memo-ICR Meeting 

February 19,1998 

Page 7 

not benefit the OLD NESHAP. Mr. Shedd responded that he was looking for liquids that are 

.*> 10 percent ofthe facility throughputs, and that this would apply to any facility having to fill out 

the survey. Larry Sorrel, an EPA economist, stated that this information would be needed for 

accurate economic analysis ofthe industry. Participants once again stated that they felt this extra 

reporting would be unreasonable and unnecessary. 

Mr. Beck noted that these MACT rules are designed to address air emissions, and the 

focus was to be on air emissions, and HAPs, and major sources. He further noted that he did not 

see any value in collecting unnecessary information. Mr. Shedd responded that he felt that this 

type of information would be necessary, at a minimum to answer any future questions about the 

nature of these operations. 

ICR Comments/Suggestions 

Mr. Shedd began the final part ofthis meeting by inviting comments regarding individual 

aspects ofthe ICR. Ms. Michelson had questions regarding the request for a plot plan. Mr. 

Shedd replied that he wanted a general overview ofthe facility, not a detailed engineering 

diagram. But, he added, a diagram ofthe whole facility would be necessary. Mr. Hmiel added 

that for large facilities the EPA would be receiving a large amount of drawings/plans. 

Mr. Hmiel next asked what was meant by products "handled." Mr. Shedd stated that 

stormwater would be included in the "handled" definition. 

Donna Hathaway stated that if a terminal was contiguous with a refinery, having a 

refinery SIC code, it would probably be covered by the Refinery NESHAP. Mr. Shedd 

responded that contiguous common ownership determines the major source status, and that SIC 

codes should be used in determimng applicability. He then stated that wording to this effect 

would be worked into the ICR. 

A participant stated that vapor phase HAP content data would be needed for emissions 

calculations, and asked whether facilities would need to derive this information. Mr. Shedd 

responded that the EPA/PES team would be working on these calculations using liquid HAP 

content data supplied by facilities. 

A participant requested to know what electronic format the ICR would be available in. 

Mr. Shedd responded that he wasn't sure, at which point Mr. Haneke stated that it was now 

available in MS Word 6.0, WordPerfect 6.1, and Adobe PDF. Mr. Shedd stated that the files 

would be placed on the EPA Technology Transfer Network (TTN) and that a hardcopy of the 

survey would be sent to all companies included in the list. 

Mr. Morrow then asked if it was acceptable to use the default tank emission control 

1 
P.9 

Memo-ICR Meeting 

February 19, 1998 

Page 8 

options in TANKS3.1 to report data on the survey. Not being able to do this would force his 

team to climb every tank to gather that type of information. Mr. Shedd responded that it would 

be necessary to receive information on tank fitting controls, and that the defaults from 

TANKS3.1 would not provide this. Mr. Morrow then asked if it would be sufficient to say that a 

tank met 40 CFR 60 Subpart Kb standards. Mr. Shedd responded that this would not be 

sufficient as there are various interpretations to this subpart regarding the control of tank fittings. 

Mr. Hmiel referred to page 6 ofthe EPA's Roundtable presentation; Table 1 "Organic 

Liquids Handled and HAP Content," and stated that he thought the information could be 

presented in a better manner. He recommended that the EPA/PES study the format in which the 

MON survey was structured. This, he stated, was a more efficient way of representing all liquids 

handled. 

Mr. Shedd then made a request on Mr. Sorrel's behalf. Mr. Sorrel, he stated, had 

requested that facilities provide the following information: 

1. Whether facility is a public or privately owned institution 

2. The Dun-Bradstreet identification number 

3. Information on the level of utilization 

This final request was countered by the participants who expressed that this latter measurement 

would be difficult to obtain. Mr. McClure mentioned that it might be better to ask if there are 

any permit limitations affecting the facility. Mr. Hmiel requested that the EPA/PES team look 

into what the terminal industry was using as a standard of measuring performance or level of 

utilization. 

Mr. Shedd then mentioned that the EPA/PES team was working on producing a mailing 

list. Mr. LaFlam stated that information on the mailing list was being compiled from four major 

sources: 

1. ILTA Membership Directory 

2. National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) Membership Directory 

3. Petroleum Terminal Encyclopedia (Stalsby/Wilson) 

4. Petroleum Supply Americas (OPIS) 

Mr. Shedd then requested information on who the proper company contacts would be for 

receiving the survey. He mentioned the environmental affairs departments of individual 

companies as possible mailing addresses. Mr. Beck responded that the EPA/PES should provide 

the meeting participants with the EPA's mailing list, and that the participants would then 

attempt to identify the proper personnel. 

V 
P.10 

Memo-ICR Meeting 

February 19, 1998 

Page 9 

Mr. Morrow then asked ifthe survey would be reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), since the mailing list would be large. Mr. Shedd responded that the survey 

would not be sent to OMB as it was a derivative ofthe official approved survey. Mr. Shedd also 

stated that he expected to receive about 300 completed surveys. Meeting participants stated that 

they would like to see the revised survey before it is finalized. Ms. Michelson asked about a 

deadline for comments on the survey, to which Mr. Shedd responded that comments were 

required as soon as possible. 

Concluding Remarks 

Mr. Beck inquired as to the timing ofthe survey. Mr. Shedd responded that it would be 

revised within the next 2 weeks, and that presumably, it would be sent out by early March. The 

workshop would then be organized for mid to late March. Mr. Morrow inquired as to the time 

available to complete the survey. Mr. Shedd responded that facilities would have 60 days to 

complete the survey, but that extensions would be granted, if justifiable. Mr. McClure then 

stated that he encouraged the electronic distribution ofthe survey. Mr. Shedd responded that 

both paper copies and an electronic format would be sent to the companies on the mailing list. 

Mr. Beck mentioned that the files should have the proper extensions identifying them as 

MSWord, WordPerfect, etc. files.