p.1 

OAR Box 1706 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

46) IV-E-7 

Docket Number: 

A-98-13 

Printed 10/8/2008 10:25:09 AM Sheet 46 of 142 
P.2 

A ^8-13 

\\)-£~o1 

MEMORANDUM 

AUG - 4 2003 

EPA,Ai:o;/..:,...r To: Air and Radiation Docket 

Docket No. A-98-13 ~~ " 

From: Martha Smith 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ESD 

Date: January 13,2003 

Subject: Meeting Minutes for the January 10, 2003 Conference Call between EPA and the 

American Chemistry Council (ACC) - OLD MACT Rule, 2:00-3:00 pm 

Purpose of Meeting 

The ACC requested this phone call to discuss the legal issues raised in the Earthjustice Legal 

Defense Fund's (ELDF) comments on the Organic Liquids Distribution (OLD) MACT rule, 40 CFR 

63, subpart EEEE, proposed on April 2,2002. 

Attachment 

List of Participants 

Summarv of Discussion 

Mr. Shipley spoke on behalf of ACC, saying that they have read and disagree with many of 

ELDF's arguments concerning the legal basis ofthe OLD proposal. They felt that the ELDF 

comments attack many long-standing EPA procedures and approaches in setting MACT standards. 

They were interested in discovering where EPA stood on these issues, and offered to assist EPA in 

understanding the technical issues and in developing responses to the comments. Ms. Embrey of EPA 

responded that EPA would not be able to discuss its status on dealing with these issues, and the best 

use of this meeting time would be for ACC to explain its position so that EPA could use any portions 

that it found useful. Mr. Shipley presented ACC's thoughts under the following three categories. 
P.3 

Meeting Minutes 

EPA/ACC -1/13/03 

Page 2 

1. Applicability Exclusions/Exemptions 

• Facility throughput cutoff 

ACC suggested that EPA could pursue two avenues to continue to justify the 

applicability exemptions for facilities: 

1. De minimis. ACC stated that they think EPA still has the authority to use the 

"de minimis" approach in spite ofthe National Lime decision. 

2. "Incidental" OLD. ACC stated that EPA might consider inserting a provision 

that, in order to be considered in the OLD source category, an operation 

must have a certain level of organic liquid throughput and if they do not, then 

they would be considered an "incidental" OLD operation outside the source 

category. 

Throughput cutoffs for transfer racks 

ACC stated that both ofthe above arguments for the facility throughput cutoff could 

also be applied to the throughput cutoff for transfer racks. 

Storage tanks < 20.000 gal capacity 

ACC stated that they think establishing a "no control" MACT floor is suspect and that 

EPA probably has the duty to set levels even if there are no add-on controls. ACC 

suggested that rather than using fixed roof tanks as "no control," EPA should consider 

"open roof tanks as no control and then use "fixed roof tanks as a control that 

would represent the MACT floor for storage tanks with capacities of less than 20,000 

gallons. 

5% HAP cutoff defining Organic Liquid 

ACC pointed to the rationale used in the proposal preamble ofthe HON and stated 

that they could not see anything in the recent court decisions that would prohibit EPA 

from using that same approach for OLD. They also stated that they believe emissions 

from <5% HAP liquids are not driven by the HAP content, but by other factors 

<300 hr/vr in OLD service for LDAR components 

z 
P.4 

Meeting Minutes 

EPA/ACC -1/13/03 

Page 3 

ACC stated that the 300 hr/yr exemption is not a floor issue and therefore the 

National Lime case has no impact on this aspect ofthe rule. 

2. Failure to Regulate all HAP 

ACC stated that National Lime does not apply because National Lime addressed 

the issue of failure to regulate HAP that are known to be emitted from the source 

category and that is not the case for OLD. The OLD data indicate what HAP are 

emitted and there is no need to worry about the other HAP. ACC stated that if there 

is no indication of HAP being emitted, then there is no problem with not regulating 

such HAP. 

EPA noted that the 24 other HAP (non-Table 1 HAP) would not be controlled unless 

they are in a >5% HAP organic liquid stream based on the Table 1 HAP. 

3. MACT Floor Analysis 

• Storage Tanks 

ACC was concerned that Earthjustice was focusing strictly on a statistical approach 

for calculating the MACT floors and that by doing so (1) failed to take into account 

achievability and variability, and (2) threatened to change the way EPA has performed 

its analyses, from control technology to statistical analysis. ACC urged EPA to 

continue to use the control technology approach as in the Hazardous Waste 

Combustor rule and to provide the necessary justification to meet the challenge. 

Transfer Racks 

ACC stated that EPA needs to provide a better explanation ofthe derivation ofthe 

proposed 95% limit for transfer racks, and the decision to exclude efficiency data it 

considered unreasonable. 

ACC also stated that they were informed before this meeting of a possible increase in 

the proposed rack limit from 95% up to 98% for the final rule, and requested an 

explanation of what led to this potential change. 
P.5 

Meeting Minutes 

EPA/ACC -1/13/03 

Page 4 

Attachment 

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 

Name 

Patricia Embrey 

Michael Thrift 

K.C. Hustvedt 

Martha Smith 

Ron Shipley 

Bob Morehouse 

Mike McCord 

Tara Lanier 

Rasma Zvaners 

Greg LaFlam 

Ken Meardon 

Affiliation 

EPA/OGC 

EPA/OGC 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

ACC 

ExxonMobil 

Morgan Lewis 

Ashland, Inc. 

ACC 

PES/MACTEC 

PES/MACTEC 

1-