TELEPHONE CONTACT SUMMARY – 0210426.004.015 

FROM: Karen Schaffner, RTI International 

DATE OF CONTACT: May 20, 2010 

ORGANIZATION CONTACTED: 

American Petroleum Institute and Members 

Participants: 

Matt Todd, API 

Jeff Adams, BP 

Charlie Bennett, Marathon 

Carol Butero, KinderMorgan 

Clay Freeberg, Chevron 

Bill Fritz 

Bob Hermanson, BP 

John Lowe, Chevron 

Jack McClure, Shell 

John Wagner 

Peter Weaver, ILTA 

Peter Weichart 

Other API members 

Steve Shedd, EPA 

Karen Schaffner, RTI 

SUMMARY OF CONTACT 

The purpose of the conference call was to follow up on the risk and technology review 

(RTR) project at EPA for the marine vessel loading source category. EPA continues to 

work on the RTR project, however the schedule for RTR is still being negotiated and so 

no announcement has been made on the re-proposal date. Current EPA activities related 

to the re-proposal are startup, shutdown, and malfunctions (SSM) issues, the petition 

from NRCS related to the missing standards that need addressing, and rerunning the risk 

analysis for the approximately 230 facilities in the NEI database (original proposal was 

135 facilities). EPA is also looking at the whole facility risk in addition to the source 

category risk. For the preliminary risk assessment results, there are several facilities with 

risk greater than 1 in 1 million maximum individual risk (MIR). EPA is intending to 

conduct site visits to several facilities to see the MVL operations and discuss the HAP 

emissions data. 
2 

Certain parts of 40 CFR part 63, General Provisions, subpart A that are related to SSM 

provisions were vacated. EPA is addressing startup and shutdown provisions in the reproposal package. 

EPA reviewed the 2005 NEI dataset and identified additional facilities in the MVL 

source category based on a source classification code (SCC) analysis. These facilities 

have been included in the risk analysis. API members asked about seeing the data for the 

additional facilities that have been included in the MVL source category and offered to 

verify applicability of the rule and to review the data and provide corrections. There was 

discussion on whether the SCCs are specific enough to allow determination of loading 

that would not be part of the source category, for example, dry product bulk loading. 

EPA indicated that the two missing standards identified in NRDC’s petition will be 

addressed, including: existing major sources with MVL emissions less than 10 or 25 tons 

of HAP, and existing major offshore facilities. EPA is reviewing use of submerged fill as 

a control technique for the subcategories. API members noted that use of submerged fill 

varies from facility to facility: is done for barges but not certain about tanker ships. API 

members indicated they would have to follow up on tanker vessels. EPA asked that API 

provide information on the use of submerged fill including number of vessels, age of 

vessel, commodity loaded, vapor pressures, etc. EPA indicated that cost information for 

retrofitting vessels with submerged fill would be appreciated as well. EPA continues to 

talk with other groups about the use of submerged fill, including the Coast Guard and the 

American Waterways Alliance. API members noted that discussions with the American 

Chemistry Council (ACC) may also be beneficial. API members also noted that they did 

not see EPA’s obligation to address the subcategories because there has been no ruling by 

the court on the MVL NESHAP. EPA noted that they are addressing standards for all 

emission points under this source category.