p.1 

OAR Box 1706 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

44) IV-E-5 

Docket Number: 

A-98-13 

Printed 10/8/2008 10:25:09 AM Sheet 44 of 142 
P.2 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Air and Radiation Docket 

Docket No. A-98-13 

From: Martha Smith 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ESD 

Date: October 29,2002 

Subject: Meeting Minutes for the October 22,2002 Conference Call between EPA and the 

American Petroleum Institute (API) - OLD MACT, 10:15-11:45 am 

Purpose of Call 

Two MACT rules were addressed in this phone call. First, the Refinery II MACT technical 

amendments were discussed, followed by the Organic Liquids Distribution (OLD) MACT rule. 

These minutes address only the OLD MACT portion ofthe discussion. 

Attachments 

Atch 1 - List of Participants 

Atch 2 - Agenda (e-mail from Karin Ritter, API) 

Atch 3 - Diagram 1 from ACC Comments (docket item IV-D-20) 

Summary of Discussion 

The discussion followed the list of selected API OLD MACT issues shown in the agenda 

(Attachment 2). Item 3, OLD MACT applicability, was covered in the discussion of Issues 1 and 2. 

Issue 1. API: All OLD activities and equipment should be included in the Affected Source, not just 

those actually subject to controls under the OLD rule. Other MACT rules do not write the 

uncontrolled emission sources out ofthe Affected Source, and the OLD MACT proposal is 

inconsistent with these other rules. For example, low-throughput organic liquid transfer racks (which 

are not proposed to be subject to controls) should be included. Also, if organic liquids are transferred 

into a plant from offsite through a pipeline into a chemical process unit (i.e., no OLD-affected tanks or 

racks are involved), it is not clear whether the LDAR requirements ofthe OLD rule would apply to 

the equipment on that pipeline. Plant owners/operators need to know exactly what is in the Affected 

Source, especially when multiple MACT rules apply at the facility. 
P.3 

Meeting Minutes 

EPA/API-10/29/02 

Page 2 

EPA: It appears that the principal effect ofthe throughput determination is on defining what 

constitutes reconstruction, and then on what is subject to this rule. We will consider whether to 

include all (controlled and uncontrolled) OLD activities and equipment in the Affected Source (broad 

definition). We agree that only organic liquid throughputs associated with the OLD operation are to 

be counted in determining applicability (through use ofthe whole-operation cutoff). In other words, if 

the organic liquid passes through some part ofthe Affected Source, we believe it should be "caught" 

in the applicability tally. We intend at this time to define the Affected Source and the applicable 

throughputs in a broad manner. 

With regard to schematic Diagram 1 provided in the American Chemistry Council's 

comments (Attachment 3), EPA's view is that throughputs in lines A, C, and I would not be counted 

in the throughput determination. (We asked the industry representatives what effect counting the 

pipeline throughputs would have on whether a facility would be affected by the rule; it is not clear 

what percentage ofthe OLD industry would be affected. API also did not know, but said it would 

affect some of their members' operations.) 

Comments received on the proposal from EarthJustice challenged the various exclusion 

cutoffs in the rule. The outcome from our examination of those issues could have a significant impact 

on the use of throughputs for applicability, or at least on some ofthe specific cutoff values. One 

possible outcome is that all sizes of operations could be subject to some aspects ofthe rule. 

Issue 2. API: Activities/equipment "subject to" another Part 63 rule, not just those that actually must 

apply controls under that other rule, should be excluded from the OLD Affected Source definition. 

EPA: We agree with this position, and intend to revise the rule to make this clear. 

Issue 3. API: Consistent with other EPA tank regulations (notably, the requirements in the HON, 

Refinery MACT, and Gasoline Distribution MACT), the compliance schedule should allow up to 10 

years for required upgrades to be performed on floating roof tank seals and fittings. 

EPA: We will ensure that the final rule is consistent with other similar Part 63 rules. It appears that 

this will provide an allowance of up to 10 years for floating roof tanks and 3 years for fixed-roof 

tanks. 

Issue 4. API: Other MACT rules, such as the HON, contain a cutoff that excludes from control 

those transfer racks handling liquids with vapor pressures less than 1.5 psia, and the OLD rule should 

allow this same exclusion. 

2. 
P.4 

Meeting Minutes 

EPA/API-10/29/02 

Page 3 

EPA: We strive for consistency among the MACT rules where possible. However, we are planning 

to examine our OLD data base (in connection with the EarthJustice comments) to determine whether 

a MACT floor of "no control" exists for transfer racks handling these lower vapor pressure liquids. 

Issue 5. API: For control devices "shared" among emission sources in different MACT categories, 

previous test results should apply and only one set of paperwork should be required for the device. 

The proposed rule can be read to require a new test regardless of existing test data for a control 

system. 

EPA: An issue could arise if the inlet stream is significantly changed by adding a new emission 

source; would the control performance be compromised? We will examine subpart SS and other 

MACT rules, and make the OLD rule consistent with regard to the treatment of shared control 

systems. 

Issue 6. API: Previous conclusions (from subpart R, Gasoline Distribution MACT) that instrumentbased LDAR and sight/sound/smell (sensory) leak reduction approaches are essentially equivalent in 

reducing equipment leaks, as well as data submitted after the OLD MACT proposal, indicate that 

instrument LDAR should not be part ofthe OLD rule. OLD operations perform similar transfer 

activities to the bulk gasoline terminals, and so the same presumptions should apply. 

EPA: We found the MACT floor to be instrument-based LDAR for a variety of OLD industry 

categories (SIC/NAICS codes) and plant sizes. We do not have any data to show that instrument 

LDAR and a sensory program give equivalent results for this source category (organic liquids are 

highly varied and different from gasoline). It is difficult to defend the position that the sensory program 

is equivalent to instrument LDAR for each industry without data demonstrating the equivalence. We 

do not want to be in the position of specifying a control program less stringent than the floor. 

Issue 7. API: The rule needs to clarify which individual liquid flows should be accounted for in the 

applicability throughput calculations. Only liquids passing through OLD Affected Source equipment 

should be counted. We would like the rule to enable the owner or operator to identify clearly where 

one rule ends and another rule begins. 

EPA: As noted under Issue 1, we agree with this position and will clarify the rule accordingly. 

Issue 8. API: QA/QC procedures for parametric monitoring in §63.2366 ofthe proposal are 

unnecessary; subpart SS should be referenced for these procedures. 

EPA: We agree and intend to delete the proposed detailed procedures from the final OLD rule. 

3 
_P,5_ 

Meeting Minutes 

EPA/API-10/29/02 

Page 4 

Followup 

API questions: 

1. Will the response to comments document be made available for review? 

EPA: This document will be placed in the docket at the time the rule is promulgated. 

2. Does EPA need any information from API in order to respond to the comments from EarthJustice 

(docket item IV-D-11)? 

EPA: Our responses will be based on the current record, which consists primarily ofthe OLD data 

base made up of facility data submitted by individual companies with OLD operations. At this time, 

there is a possibility that a supplemental proposal could be necessary, depending on the results of 

current reanalyses we are performing on the data base to respond to comments. 

Schedule 

The deadline for promulgating the final OLD rule is August 2003; however, EPA anticipates 

that it may occur sooner. 

Action Items 

The API agreed to provide to EPA: 

1. A summary of their understanding of EPA's description of its current thinking on rule applicability, 

the composition ofthe Affected Source, and calculation of throughputs for the OLD MACT rule. 

2. Additional information (in particular, specific facility configuration scenarios in the petroleum 

refining industry) that will help to focus and clarify the dialogue on the Affected Source description and 

the calculation ofthe appropriate throughput. 

H-
P.6 

Meeting Minutes 

EPA/API-10/29/02 

Page 5 

Attachment 1. 

List of Participants in the OLD MACT Rule Discussion 

Name 

Charles Bennet 

John Cain 

Miriam Conner 

Chuck Feerick 

Rob Ferry 

Kent C. Hustvedt 

Greg LaFlam 

Jan Laughlin 

Ken Meardon 

Usha Mehra 

Bob Morehouse 

Gary Mueller 

Karin Ritter 

Martha Smith 

Kent Veron 

Tom Wigglesworth 

Affiliation 

Marathon Ashland 

Chevron 

Shell 

ExxonMobil 

TGB 

U.S. EPA 

PES, Inc. 

PhillipsConoco 

PES, Inc. 

Kindermorgan 

ExxonMobil 

Shell 

API 

U.S. EPA 

Marathon Ashland 

NPRA 

5" 
P.7 

Attachment 2 

AGENDA FOR EPA CONFERENCE CALL 

October 22,2002 @ 9:00am ET 

CALL-IN NUMBER 919-541-4486 

1 .Welcome and introductions 

2. Refinery MACT II Discussion of API technical amendments 

3. EPA clarification of intended OLD MACT applicability 

4. Discussion of selected API OLD MACT issues (listed below) 

Issue 

1. Affected source definition 

2. "subject to" vs "controlled by" exclusion 

3. Compliance schedule for upgrading storage tanks 

4. Vapor pressure cutoff for transfer racks 

5. Simplifying requirements for shared equipment, 

vent systems, control devices 

6. Instrument-based LDAR for equipment leaks 

7. Calculating throughput 

8. Revising the QA/QC procedures for parametric 

monitoring 

API Commen 

10,13 

(also, 2-7,9, 

8a 

12 

26 

15a, 15b 

30 

8b 

18 

No. 

11) 

Affected Dortion ofthe rule 

63.2334(b)&(d), 

63.2338(b), and 63.2346 

63.2338(b)(1) 

63.2342(b) 

Table 2 

63.2362(a), 63.2366(a) 

Table 4 

63.2338(b)(1) 

63.2366(b)-(e) 

6 
Diagram 1 (ACC) 

OLD Operations 

1) What is the affected source? 

2) What volumes should be considered in the throughput 

determination? 

N J 

Pipeline from 

offsite 

Pipeline 

from offsite <z> 

HON Unit 

3 

t Pipeline to offsite

 c 

Loading position—- ^ 3-

1 2

 Mgals/year <3.12 

Transfer Rack 

(Inbound) 

MON Unit 

e 

( = ) & 

0 

<3.12 Mgals/year 

M5> 

2:3.12 

Transfer Rack 

(Outbound) 

2:3.12 

Marine loading 

facility (subject 

to MACT) 

Marine unloading 

facility 

Assumptions 

1. All lines contain organic liquids 

2. All tanks subject to controls except 

where noted as TKX" 

£ 

8 

ro 

B