p. 1 

# OAR Box 1706 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 44 ) IV-E- 5 Docket Number: 

# A-98-1 3

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

MEMORANDU M To : Ai r

an d Radiatio n Docke t Docke t No . A-98-1 3 From : Marth aSmit h U.S . EPA/OAQPS/ES D Date : Octobe r

29,200 2 Subject : Meetin g Minute s for th e Octobe r 22,200 2 Conferenc e Cal l betwee n EP A an d th e America n Petroleu mInstitut e (API ) - OL D MACT , 10:15-11:4 5 a m Purpos e o f

Cal l Two MAC T rule s wer e addresse d i n thi s phon e call . First , th e Refinery I I MAC T technica l amendments wer e discussed , followe d b y th e Organi c Liquid s Distributio n (OLD ) MAC T rule . Thes e minute s addres s onl y th e OL D MAC T portio n ofth e discussion . Attachment s Atc h 1 - Lis t

o f Participant s Atc h 2 - Agend a(e-mai l fro mKari n Ritter , API ) Atc h 3 - Diagra m1 fromAC C Comment s (docke t ite mIV-D-20 ) Summary o f

Discussio n Th e discussio n followe d th e lis t o f selecte d AP I OL D MAC T issue s show n i n th e agend a (Attachmen t

2) . Ite m3 , OL D MAC T applicability , was covere d i n th e discussio n o f Issue s 1 an d 2 . Issu e 1 . API : Al l OL D activitie s an d equipmen t shoul d b e include d i n th e Affecte d Source , no t jus t thos e actuall y subjec t

t o control s unde r

th e OL D rule . Othe r

MAC T rule s d o no t

writ e th e uncontrolle d emissio n source s ou t ofth e Affecte d Source , an d th e OL D MAC T proposa l i s inconsisten t

with thes e othe r

rules . Fo r

example , low-throughpu t organi c liqui d transfe r

rack s (whic h are no t propose d t o b e subjec t

t o controls ) shoul d b e included . Also , i f organi c liquid s ar e transferre d int o aplan t

fromoffsite throug h apipelin e int o achemica l proces s uni t (i.e. , n o OLD-affecte d tank s o r rack s ar e involved) , i t

i s no t clear whethe r th e LDA R requirement s ofth e OL D rul e woul d appl y t o th e equipmen t

o n tha t pipeline . Plan t

owners/operator s nee d t o kno w exactl y wha t i s i n th e Affecte d Source , especiall y whe n multipl e MAC T rule s appl y a t th e facility .P. 3

Meetin g Minute s EPA/API-10/29/0 2 Pag e 2 EPA : I t appear s tha

t th e principa

l effec t ofth e throughpu

t determinatio n i s on definin g wha t constitute s reconstruction , an d then on wha

t i s subject to thi s rule . W

e wil l conside

r whethe r to include al l (controlle d an

d uncontrolled) OL

D activitie s an

d equipmen

t in th e Affecte

d Sourc e (broa

d definition) . W

e agree tha t onl y organi c liqui d throughput s associate d wit h th e OL D operatio n ar

e to b e counte d i n determinin g applicabilit y (through us e ofth e whole-operatio n cutoff) . I n other words , i f th e organi c liqui d passe s through som e par t ofth e Affecte

d Source , w e believ e i t

shoul d b e "caught " in th e applicabilit

y tally . W e intend a t thi s time t o defin e th e Affecte

d Sourc e an

d th e applicabl e throughput s i n abroa

d manner . Wit h regar d to schemati c Diagra

m1 provide d in th e America n Chemistr

y Council' s comment s (Attachmen

t 3) , EPA' s vie w i s tha

t throughput s i

n line s A , C , an

d I woul d no t

b e counte d i n th e throughput

determination . (W

e asked th e industr

y representative s wha

t effec t countin g th e pipelin e throughput s would hav e on whethe r afacilit y woul d b e affecte

d by th e rule ; i t

i s no t clea r wha t percentag e ofth e OL

D industr y woul d b e affected . AP

I als o di d no t

know , bu t sai d i t woul d affec t som e o f their members ' operations. ) Comment s receive d o

n th e proposa

l fromEarthJustic e challenge d th e variou s exclusio n cutoff s i n th e rule . Th

e outcom e fromou r examinatio n of

thos e issue s coul d hav e asignifican t impact on th e us e of

throughput s fo

r applicability , o

r a t leas t on som e ofth e specifi c cutof

f values . On

e possibl e outcom

e i s tha t all size s o f operation s could b e subject to som e aspect s ofth e rule . Issue 2 . API : Activities/equipmen t "subjec t to " anothe

r Par t 6 3 rule , no t

jus t thos e tha t actually mus t appl y control s unde

r tha t othe r rule , shoul d b e exclude d fromth e OL D Affecte d Sourc e definition . EPA : W e agre e wit

h thi s position , an

d intend to revis e th e rul e to mak e thi s clear . Issu e 3 . API : Consisten

t wit h othe r EP A tan k regulation s (notably , th e requirement s i n th e HON , Refiner y MACT , an

d Gasoline Distributio n MACT) , th e complianc e schedul e shoul d allo w up to 1 0 years fo r require d upgrade s to b e performed o n floating roo f tan k seal s an d fittings . EPA : W e wil l ensur

e tha t th e fina l rul e i s consisten

t wit h othe r simila r Par t 6 3 rules . I

t appear s tha

t thi s wil l provide a

n allowanc e of

u p t o 1 0 year s fo

r floating roo f

tank s an d 3 year s fo

r fixed-roo f tanks . Issue 4 . API : Othe

r MACT rules , suc

h a s th e HON , contai n acutof f tha t exclude s fro

mcontro l thos e transfe

r rack s handlin g liquid s wit

h vapo r pressure s les s tha

n 1. 5 psia , an d th e OL D rul e should allo w thi s sam

e exclusion . 

# 2.P. 4

Meeting Minute s EPA/API-10/29/0 2 Pag e 3 EPA : W e striv e fo r consistency amon

g th e MACT rule s wher

e possible . However , w e ar e plannin g t o examine ou

r OL D dat abas e (i n connectio n wit

h th e EarthJustic e comments ) to determin e whethe r aMAC T floo r o f "n o control " exist s fo

r transfe r rack s handling thes e lowe

r vapor pressur e liquids . Issue 5 . API : Fo

r contro l device s "shared " among emissio n source s i n differen t MAC T categories , previou s tes t

result s should appl

y an d onl y on e se t of paperwor k should b e require d for

th e device . Th e propose d rul e ca

n b e rea d t o requir e anew tes t

regardles s of

existin g tes t

dat afo r acontro l system . EPA : A n issu e could aris e if

the inle t strea mi s significantl

y changed by addin g anew emissio n source ; would th e contro l performanc e b e compromised ? W e will examine subpar

t S S and othe

r MAC T rules , an d mak e th e OL D rul e consisten

t wit h regar d t o th e treatmen

t o f share d contro l systems . Issu e 6 . API : Previou s conclusion s (fro msubpar t R , Gasoline Distributio n MACT) tha t instrument

based LDA

R an d sight/sound/smell (sensory ) lea k reductio n approache s ar

e essentially equivalen

t i n reducing equipmen

t leaks , a s well a s dat

asubmitte d afte

r the OL D MAC T proposal , indicat

e tha t instrumen t LDA R shoul d no t

b e par t ofth e OL D rule . OL

D operation s perfor

msimila r transfe r activitie s to th e bul

k gasoline terminals , an

d s o th e sam

e presumption s should apply . EPA : W e foun d th e MAC

T floo r to b e instrument-base d LDA R fo r avariet y of OL D industr y categorie s (SIC/NAIC S codes ) an d plant sizes . W e d o not hav e an y datato sho w tha

t instrumen t LDA R an d asensor y progra mgiv e equivalen

t result s fo r thi s sourc e categor

y (organi c liquid s ar

e highl y varie d an

d differen t fro mgasoline) . I

t i s difficul t t o defen d th e positio n tha

t th e sensor y progra m i s equivalen

t to instrumen

t LDA R fo r eac h industr y withou t dat ademonstratin g th e equivalence . W e d o no t wan t to b e in th e positio n o

f specifyin g acontro l progra

mles s stringen

t tha n th e floor. Issu e 7 . API : The rul e need s t o clarif y which individua

l liqui d flow s should b e accounte d fo r i n th e applicabilit

y throughput

calculations . Onl

y liquid s passin g through OL D Affecte d Sourc e equipmen

t should b e counted . W

e would lik

e th e rul e t o enabl e th e owne

r o r operator t o identif y clearly wher

e on e rul e end s an

d anothe r rul e begins . EPA : A s note d unde

r Issu e 1 , w e agree wit

h thi s positio n an

d wil l clarif

y th e rul e accordingly . Issu e 8 . API : QA/QC procedure s fo r parametri c monitoring in §63.236 6 ofth e proposa l ar e unnecessary ; subpar

t S S should b e referenced fo r thes e procedures . EPA : W e agree an d intend t o delet e th e propose d detaile d procedure s fromth e final OL D rule . 

# 3_P,5 _

Meetin g Minute s EPA/API-10/29/0 2 Pag e 4 Followu p AP I questions : 1 . Will th e respons e t o comment s documen t b e mad e availabl e fo

r review ? EPA : Thi s documen

t wil l b e place d in th e docke t a t th e tim e th e rul e i s promulgated . 2 . Doe s EP

A nee d an y information fromAP

I in orde r t o respon d to th e comment s fro mEarthJustic e (docke t ite mIV-D-11) ? EPA : Ou r response s wil l b e based on the curren t record , which consist s primaril y ofth e OL D dat a bas e mad e u p o f facilit y datasubmitted b

y individua

l companie s wit

h OL D operations . A

t thi s time , ther e i s apossibilit

y tha t asupplementa

l proposa l could b e necessary , dependin g o n th e result s o f curren t reanalyse s w e ar

e performing on th e databas e t o respon d t o comments . Schedul e The deadlin e fo

r promulgatin g th e final OL

D rul e i s Augus t

2003 ; however , EP

A anticipate s tha t i t ma y occu r sooner . Actio n Item s Th e AP I agree d to provide t

o EPA : 1 . A summar

y of their understandin g of

EPA' s descriptio n of

it s curren t thinkin g o n rul e applicability , th e compositio n ofth e Affecte d Source , an

d calculatio n of

throughput s fo

r th e OL D MAC T rule . 2 . Additiona

l informatio n (in particular , specifi c facilit y configuratio n scenario s i n th e petroleum refining industry ) tha

t wil l hel p to focu s and clarif

y th e dialogu e on th e Affecte d Sourc e descriptio n an

d th e calculatio n ofth e appropriat e throughput .



# H-P. 6

Meetin g Minute s EPA/API-10/29/0 2 Pag e 5

Attachmen t 1 . Lis t o f Participant s in th e OL

D MAC T Rule Discussio n Nam e Charle s Benne

t Joh n Cai n Miria mConne r Chuc k Feerick Ro b Ferr y Ken t C . Hustved

t Greg LaFla

m Ja n Laughlin Ke n Meardon Ush aMehr

a Bo b Morehous e Gar y Muelle r Kari n Ritte

r Marth aSmit

h Ken t Vero n TomWiggleswort

h Affiliation

Maratho n Ashland Chevron Shel l ExxonMobi l TG B U.S . EP A PES , Inc . PhillipsConoc o PES , Inc . Kindermorga

n ExxonMobil Shell AP I U.S . EP A Maratho n Ashland NPR A



# 5 "P. 7

Attachmen t

2

AGENDAFO

R EP ACONFERENC E CAL L October 22,200 2 @ 9:00a

mE T CALL-I N NUMBE R 919-541-448 6 1 .Welcom e an d introduction s 2 . Refiner y MAC T I

I Discussio n o f

AP I technica l amendment s 3 . EP A clarificatio n o f intende d OL D MAC T applicabilit y 4 . Discussio n o f

selecte d AP I OL D MAC T issue s (liste d below ) Issu e 1 . Affecte d source definitio n 2 . "subjec

tto " v s "controlled by " exclusio n 3 . Compliance schedul e fo r upgradin

g storage tank

s 4 . Vapo r pressur

e cutof f for transfe

r rack s 5 . Simplifyin g requirement s fo r share d equipment, ven tsystems , control device s 6 . Instrument-base

d LDA Rfo

r equipmen

tleak s 7 . Calculating throughpu t 8 . Revisin g the QA/Q C procedure s fo r parametri

c monitorin g AP I Comme n 10,1 3 (also , 2-7,9 , 8 a 1 2 2 6 15a, 15 b 3 0 8 b 1 8 No . 11) Affecte d Dortio

n ofth e rule 63.2334(b)&(d) , 63.2338(b) , an

d 63.234 6 63.2338(b)(1 ) 63.2342(b ) Tabl e 2 63.2362(a) , 63.2366(a ) Tabl e 4 63.2338(b)(1 ) 63.2366(b)-(e )



## 6Diagra m 1 (ACC ) 

### OL D Operation s 1 ) Wha t i s th e affecte d source ? 2 ) Wha t volume s shoul d b e considere d i n th e throughpu t determination ?

N J Pipelin e from

offsit e Pipelin e from offsit e 

# <z> HO N Uni t 

# 3

t Pipelin e t o offsit e c

Loadin g position— - ^ 3 - 1 2 Mgals/yea r <3.1 2 Transfe r Rack (Inbound ) MO N Uni t 

# e

( = ) & 

# 0

<3.1 2 Mgals/yea r 

# M5 >

2:3.1 2 Transfe r Rac k (Outbound ) 2:3.1 2 Marin e loadin g facilit y (subjec t t o MACT ) Marin e unloadin g facilit y

Assumption s 1 . Al l lines contai n organi c liquid s 2 . Al l tank

s subjec t t o control s excep t where note d a s TKX " 

# £ 8 r o B