p.1 

OAR Box 1706 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

43) IV-E-4 

Docket Number: 

A-98-13 

Printed 10/8/2008 10:25:09 AM Sheet 43 of 142 
P.2 

TSL -6 - 0*/ 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Project File - Organic Liquid Distribution NESHAP 

ESD Project 96/05 

FROM: Martha Smith 

Waste and Chemical Processes Group 

Emission Standards Division 

DATE: August 26, 2002 

SUBJECT: Exparte Meeting with the American Chemistry Council 

This memorandum is intended to document a meeting held between the American 

Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The participants 

were Mario Gamboa ofthe ACC, Bob Morehouse of ExxonMobil, Tara Lanier of Ashland, 

Charles Hester and Lori Williams of Pacific Environmental Services (PES), and KC Hustvedt, 

Barrett Parker, and Martha Smith ofthe EPA. Ron Shipley and Rasma Zvaners ofthe ACC, 

Steve Capone of GE, and Liane Piatt of Dow also attended the meeting via telephone. The 

meeting took place on July 19,2002, and lasted two hours. 

Bob Morehouse and Tara Lanier led the meeting. The discussion followed the attached 

agenda. The meeting started with discussion regarding the ACC's meeting with Jeff Holmstead 

on June 3rd. During that meeting, the ACC discussed their concerns with the performance 

specifications and QA/QC requirements for the use of continuous parameter monitors and their 

support for greater use ofthe Standard Standards in the proposed OLD rule and other rules 

currently under development. After the discussion of their meeting with Jeff Holmstead, the 

ACC began the presentation of their comments on the proposed OLD rule. 

The ACC inquired about the upcoming schedule for the project and if the EPA had 

formulated any responses to their written public comments yet. The EPA responded that the 

OLD rule is scheduled to be promulgated by May 15,2003. In order to meet the May 15th 

deadline, the EPA noted that the package would need to be sent to EPA headquarters staff in 

Washington D.C. by November 15,2002. Therefore, the promulgation BID, which would 

include the EPA's responses to comments, should be drafted and undergoing EPA management 

review by the middle of August 2002. The ACC also asked if the database used to determine the 

OLD MACT floors was available. The EPA confirmed that it was available in the docket. After 

these general questions, the ACC presentation focused on the attached agenda topics for the 

I 
.Ti.3 

remainder ofthe meeting. 

1. MACT Overlap: Exclude Emission Sources Subject to Another MACT - The ACC 

questioned EPA about what to do when they had an emission source to which another 

MACT was applicable (the "subject to" verses "controlled by" issue). Depending on the 

how "affected source" is defined The applicability ofthe LDAR provisions in the 

Marine Loading MACT to OLD is unclear without a final definition of "applicable 

source" in the OLD MACT. They were also concerned that the proposed rule did not 

include facilities subject to another rule due to the information request. The EPA 

responded by stating that OLD was different from the MON (which was used as an 

example) that uses "subject to" because it is a process rule. Other than storage tanks, the 

HON and OLD should have the same requirements. The EPA stated that it would reexamine the proposed OLD rule as it relates to the other rules discussed. 

The EPA raised a concern regarding the ACC's comment about railcars and DOT 

terminology. The OLD terminology is consistent with gasoline distribution and DOT 

terminology. The EPA questioned why the ACC wanted to create a new term in lieu of 

"cargo tank." The ACC stated that they had a concern with the difference between 

gasoline and chemical distribution. The ACC explained that with chemicals there are 

intermediate steps between tanks and drums that need to be included. In order to capture 

these steps, the ACC suggested the new term "transport vessel" with a definition that was 

partially based on the HON and Texas Regulation Chapter 115 (aka Regulation 5). The 

EPA asked the ACC to provide them with more information regarding this issue. 

2. Throughput Determination - The ACC addressed the confusion regarding calculating 

facility throughputs. Their comment focused on whether the throughputs at transfer racks 

that handle less than the 3.12 million gallons per year cutoff for transfer racks should be 

counted toward the facility threshold of 7.29 million gallons per year. 

3. Applicability/Affected Source Clarification - The ACC wants to include 

compounding/blending/packaging operations/incidental mixing and blending operations 

as part ofthe affected source, but with no control requirements. The ACC also want the 

EPA to clarify exclusions, including pipeline-only equipment, special situation 

loading/unloading, facilities to store/transfer waste, wastewater, and utility fluids, 

maintenance activities, and pressure vessels. PES asked the ACC if they thought their list 

of exclusions (which were provided with their comments) captured the full list of 

exclusions. The ACC responded that they were not aware of any other specific items that 

should be excluded. 

4. Review of OLD Diagram - The ACC supported their comment regarding clarity by 

presenting the attached diagram of OLD operations. The ACC stated that the rule should 

lead to definitive responses for answering the questions at the top ofthe diagram (what is 

the affected source and what volumes should be considered in the throughput 
P.4 

determination). They restated their position that, as currently written, the rule does not 

allow these questions to be easily answered. 

5. Standards Should be Based on Table 1 HAPs - One ofthe public commenters stated that 

all 187 HAPs should be included in the definition of "organic liquids". The ACC does 

not agree with this position. The ACC wanted to know if all HAPs or just those listed in 

Table 1 were going to be subject to control, and if compliance was going to be based on 

the Table 1 HAPs or on all HAPs. The EPA representatives stated that they were not 

ready to give a position on the issue at this time. 

6. Allow Vapor Balancing for Transfer Racks - The ACC would like for the final rule to 

specifically allow vapor balancing as a control measure for transfer racks. The stated 

EPA position is that in order for vapor balancing to be allowed, the collected vapor would 

have to go to a controlled operation. Otherwise, the emissions from the transfer rack are 

simply being moved to another location and still being released uncontrolled. 

7. Clarify Equipment Subject to LDAR (i.e. exclude connectors) - The ACC wants the rule 

to clarify what is subject to LDAR. They requested that the EPA look at Subparts TT and 

UU and note the inconsistencies between these rules and the proposed OLD rule. 

8. Expand Allowable Test Methods - The ACC stated that Method 18 is for vapors and that 

the OLD rule needs to include ASTM methods to analyze liquids. They want more 

methods included in the final rule to allow flexibility in performing the analyses. The 

EPA stated that they would consider comments regarding this issue. 

9. Allow for Use of Process Knowledge - The ACC requested that process knowledge and 

information such as MSDSs be allowed in identifying an "organic liquid" rather than the 

current requirement to test all liquids for HAP content. They stated that member 

companies usually know which materials contain above 5 percent by weight HAP without 

performing a test. The EPA stated that the intent ofthe rule is to allow facilities to 

identify liquids as an "organic liquid" if the HAP content is obviously higher than 5 

percent by weight and only to test those that might be questionable. They also pointed 

out that the results of a test on a material would take precedence over other means of 

identifying whether material qualifies as an "organic liquid". 

10. Direct Reference to Standard Standards - The ACC wants the EPA to delete Table 3 and 

reference the Standard Standards. This is the approach taken in the Ethylene MACT. 

The EPA suggested keeping Table 3 and adding an "in lieu" statement for use ofthe 

Standard Standards. Some members ofthe ACC thought this would be more confusing 

while others agreed with the EPA's suggestion. 

11. Remove QA/QC Requirements for Continuous Parameter Monitoring - The ACC voiced 

concern over those requirements that they felt would waste process operator time and not 
P.5 

improve the quality ofthe monitoring system results. EPA stated that they are still 

considering how to address tiiese concerns for all MACT standards under development. 

12. Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements Should be Streamlined - The ACC asked that the 

EPA refer to page 66 of their comments and consider their recommendations (strikeouts). Regarding LDAR, the ACC asked that the EPA refer to Subparts TT and UU for 

those requirements. 

13. Implementation Issues - The ACC requested that the EPA line up the proposed OLD rule 

with other storage tank and transfer operation rules to determine whether applicability and 

compliance requirements matched. The ACC requested that the final rule make such 

requirements clear up front instead of relying on the Title V permitting process to 

establish the requirements. 

14. Elimination of Duplicative Requirements when Multiple MACTs Apply to a Shared 

Control Device - The ACC expressed their concern that under the OLD rule, as proposed, 

facilities may be required to keep and report information related to a control device that is 

already subject to similar requirements under another rule, and that the information 

format required may differ between the two rules. One member ofthe EPA noted that 

expanded use ofthe consolidated air rule should eliminate this issue. 

The meeting concluded with the ACC stating that they would collect more information 

regarding the use of and definition of cargo tanks for the EPA. The EPA expressed their thanks 

to the ACC for their comments and stated that other chemical companies had expressed some of 

the same concerns. The EPA also stated that all comments would be carefully considered in the 

development ofthe final rule. 
P.6 

Organic Liquid Distribution MACT 

EPA/American Chemistry Council Meeting 

July 19,2002 

Meeting with Jeff Holmstead- June 3 

• QA/QC- continuous parameter monitoring 

• Use ofthe Consolidated Air Rule and Standard Standards 

Applicability and Affected Source 

• MACT overlap: exclude emission sources subject to another MACT (p 14) 

• Throughput determination (p 18) 

• Applicability/affected source clarification (p 22) 

- Broaden affected source (p 24) 

- Include compounding/blending/packaging operations/incidental mixing and 

blending but with no control requirements (p 25) 

- Clarify exclusions, including pipeline-only equipment, special situation 

loading/unloading, facilities to store/transfer waste, wastewater, and utility fluids, 

maintenance activities, and pressure vessels (p 25) 

• Review of OLD diagram (attached) 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards 

• Standards should be based on Table 1 HAPs (p 33) 

• Allow vapor balancing for transfer racks (p 36) 

• Cargo tank definition should exclude portable tanks (p 41) 

• Clarify equipment subject to LDAR (i.e. exclude connectors) (p 42) 

Testing. Initial and Continuous Compliance Requirements 

• Expand allowable test methods (p 45) 

• Allow for use of process knowledge (p 46) 

• Direct reference to Standard Standards (p 48,60) 

• Remove QA/QC requirements for continuous parameter monitoring (p 55) 

• Recordkeeping/reporting requirements should be streamlined (p 64) 

Implementation Issues 

• Overlap with other storage tank and transfer operation rules (p 77) 

• Elimination of duplicative requirements when multiple MACTs apply to a shared 

control device (p 78) 

s 
OLD Operations 

1) What is the affected source? 

2) What volumes should be considered in the throughput 

determination? 

Pipeline from 

offsite 

Pipeline 

from offsite e 

6\ 

Pipeline to offsite

 c 

Loading position--H^ 3 1 2 Mgals/year 

Transfer Rack 

(Inbound) 

MON Unit 

a 

0 

TK 

<3.12 Mgals/year 

A 

M5> 

>3.12 

Transfer Rack 

(Outbound) 

[TKX] 

>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 TIOC 

TJ