P.1 

OAR Box 1669 

Prepped by Charmelie Mathews 

Document Number: 

0) ll-E-22 

Docket Number: 

A-98-13 

Printed 9/23/2008 9:36:49 AM Sheet 90 of 110 
/ 

P.2 

•jj>£_T-22-

These are the e-mail messages received from OMB and SBA 

Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov 

07/18/2001 03:23 PM 

- EPA AIR DOCKET 

To:Martha Smith/RTP/USEPA.US_}bPA 

cc: 

Subject:Re: OLD electronic preamble and rule 

(See attached file: Questions on the OLD NESHAPS.doc) 

MarthaAttached is a word file containing data requests related to the issues we 

discussed over the telephone. I am particularly interested in seeing more 

data on the emission potential of various kinds of crude in various 

situations. 

Thanks, 

Bryon 

Questions on the 0 D NESHAPS.dc 

Questions on the NESHAP: OLD 

I would like to see some data supporting the decision to include all types of crude oil other 

than black oil under this NESHAP. Particularly, I would like to see the data that justifies 

classifying OLD facilities that handle only crude, or only some types of crude, as "major 

sources". 

On the loading rack issues, I would like to see some an estimate of the cost to add another 

loading rack position and a comparison of this cost to the cost to implement the required 

controls on a position. 
Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov 

08/06/2001 11:46 AM 

MarthaTo:Martha Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc: 

Subject:Re: OLD electronic preamble and rule 

DOT forwarded me the following question about the potential impacts of the 

OL'D" NESHAP on tank" trut-is 

Although not explicitly stated, I believe the rule will have the affect 

of requiring vapor recovery systems on more cargo tanks and more bottom 

loading of cargo tank motor vehicles (there are no other ways I know of to 

reduce emmissions at a loading rack). This is supported by: Table 7 to 

Subpart EEEE—Initial Compliance with Work Practice Standards. As stated in 

63.2370(a) and 63.2382(e), you must show initial compliance with the work 

practice standards for existing or new affected sources according to the 

following table: Under #3 of this table, transfer racks are required to 

take steps to ensure that only vapor-tight cargo tanks load at affected 

loading positions. 

The safety ramification of more bottom loading is obvious. Unless the 

pipes are drained, bottom loading leads to wet lines and wet lines lead to 

HM on the ground during crashes with cars. In doing a little research on 

the list of materials EPA included in the rule, they include many class 3 

materials that are packing group I. This stuff is worse than gasoline. 

Also included are some poisons and acids. The safety ramification of more 

vapor recovery systems is that more cargo tanks will use the EPA Method 27 

test as a substitute for the DOT leakage test (allowed by 180.407(h)(2)). 

Included in this will be many MC 307/DOT 407 tanks. While EPA Method 27 is 

currently allowed, it is not an equivilent test to a DOT leakage test. In 

fact it is conducted at 27% of the pressure for a MC306/DOT406 tank for 

which we intended it to be used when we authorized it as an exception. We 

never intended that it be used for MC307/DOT407 tanks which have MAWP of 

25-40 The EPA test is conducted at 2.0 to 3.3 percent of the leakage test 

pressures for these tanks. This rule would expand its use in the motor 

carrier industry. 

Could you look into this and let me know what the actual impact of the rule 

would be. 

Thanks, 

Bryon 

P.3 

\ 

7-
..,.-

P.4 

Jonathan.Pawlow@sba.gov 

08/08/2001 12:59 PM 

To:Martha Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc:Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov, kevin.bromberg@sba.gov 

Subject:*** OLD MACT Rule 

Dear Martha, 

I understand that you are the project manager for the OLD MACT Rule, which is currently 

at OMB for review. I am currently reviewing and digesting, on behalf of the SB A/Office of 

Advocacy, the rule and supporting information you sent to us. I want to introduce myself to you, 

and to ask you a couple of questions, which have come up so far during my review of the rule. 

First of all, I noted that the rule's Preamble makes a few brief references to discussions the 

Agency has had with the regulated community. For example, on p.34 of the Preamble, in a 

discussion about rule applicability cutoffs, mention is made of the cutoff point that was selected 

as having been "agreed to by industry reviewers as a reasonable level." And on p. 67, in the 

discussion of the RFA, mention is made that the Agency "worked with various trade associations 

during the development of the proposed rule." Is there anything which further lays out the 

discussions/agreements reached with the industry representatives referred to above? What 

representatives of the regulated community, including the small business community, has EPA 

been in touch with regarding the rule (e.g., what trade associations, individual companies, etc.)? 

What sorts of outreach/dialogue (such as any meetings, briefings, discussions, summaries, etc.) 

has the Agency had with the industry regarding the OLD rule? When did these occur? (The Air 

Toxics Website for this rule doesn't seem to provide much information about any of this.) 

In addition, I am currently reviewing the OLD MACT floor database (on MS Access) which 

you provided to us recently. The database has a lot of information in it, but are there any 

narrative/tabular/spreadsheet summaries of the data in the database, beyond what I've seen in the 

EIA and TSD you've provided us? 

Has the Agency looked separately at the nature/characteristics of co-located versus 

standalone facilities, either of those in the database or otherwise? Have any analyses been done 

to compare them (such as their sizes, emissions, throughput, any existing control approaches, 

number of small businesses, etc.), and to identify the "floors" for each category (i.e., of colocated versus standalone facilities)? 

Please call if there are any questions. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks for 

your help. 

Best regards, 

Jon 

Jon Pawlow 

Jonathan R Pawlow, Esq. 

_3 
P.5 

\ 

kevin.bromberg@sba.gov 

08/08/2001 02:13 PM 

To:Jonathan.Pawlow@sba.gov, Martha Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc:Bryon_P ._Allen@omb.eop.gov 

Subject:RE: *** OLD MACT Rule 

Martha, I have two quick additional questions for EPA. Does the scope of this rule include 

manufacturing facilities that have on-site storage facilities, and not just "distributors" in the 

normal sense of the word? (in other words, like Dow Chemical)? If yes, are these same units 

already covered (or going to be covered) by other MACT standards? 

Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov 

08/20/2001 03:56 PM 

To:Martha Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc:jonathan.pawlow@sba.gov, kevin.bromberg@sba.gov, Ken 

Hustvedt/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: Re: OLD meeting 

MarthaThe meeting will be held in the Wils6n Room of the White House Conference 

Center. The Conference Center is located on Jackson Place, which forms the 

western boundary of Lafayette Park, directly behind the New Executive 

Office Building. If you need driving or metro specific directions, let me 

know. 

My intention is for the meeting to consist of an overview of the OLD 

rulemaking and of some discussion of specific questions that I have. I will 

try to provide the questions either this evening or tomorrow. 

Thanks, 

Bryon 

MarthaThe meeting will be held in the Wilson Room of the White House Conference 

Center. The Conference Center is located on Jackson Place, which forms the 

western boundary of Lafayette Park, directly behind the New Executive 

Office Building. If you need driving or metro specific directions, let me 

know. 

My intention is for the meeting to consist of an overview of the OLD 

rulemaking and of some discussion of specific questions that I have. I will 

try to provide the questions either this evening or tomorrow. 

Thanks, 

Bryon 

H 
P.6 

Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov 

08/20/2001 03:59 PM 

To:Martha Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

ccjonathan.pawlow@sba.gov, kevin.bromberg@sba.gov, Ken 

Hustvedt/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: Re: OLD meeting 

MarthaI neglected to mention in my previous e-mail that the White House 

Conference Center is not a security-controlled facility, so I do not need 

any information on the attendees for security purposes. 

Thanks' again, 

Bryon 

Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov 

08/21/2001 05:42 PM 

To:Martha Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc: 

Subject:RE: *** OLD MACT Rule 

MarthaIn addition to whatever briefing EPA will give regarding the OLD NESHAP on 

Friday, I would like to touch on the following issues: 

- The treatment of loading racks in this rule. I think I mentioned earlier 

that I have some concerns about the possible unintended consequences on 

businesses decisions as to how to utilize their loading racks that could 

result from utilizing the position-as-source approach currently proposed. I 

would like to explore the possibility of setting a control level for the 

entire system and then allowing averaging to achieve that control level in 

order to preserve flexibility while eliminating the possibility of 

behavioral distortions. I would also like to discuss how the two approaches 

(position-as-source or system-as-source) reflect the treatment of transfer 

racks in other NESHAP. 

- I believe John Pawlow of SBA has expressed some concerns about the cost 

estimates for various control devices, particularly flares, used in the 

economic impact analysis. I would like to discuss ways to evaluate the 

accuracy of these estimates including the possible need to contact a few 

vendors. I would also like to discuss what expenses related to the 

installation and operation of a flare (ducting, venting, fuel feed lines) 

were included in the estimates and what expenses ought to be included in 

any research to refine those estimates. 

I am in the process of looking at the database that you provided and may 

have another question or two based upon that data. I will try to get those 

questions to you tomorrow so that you have time to prepare for discussion. 

Thanks, 

Bryon 

3 
P.7 

Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov 

08/22/2001 12:15 PM 

To:Martha Smith/RTP/USEPAAJS@EPA 

cc: 

Subject:Re: 8/24/01 OLD Meeting 

MarthaOkay, we'll handle this as a conference call then. 

Thanks, 

Bryon 

Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov 

08/30/2001 05:36 PM 

To:Martha Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc: 

Subject:OLD text edits 

MarthaI have attached a document with some suggested edits to the OLD preamble 

text. All of these are changes of phrasing to a conditional tense in order 

to ensure that folks understand that this is a proposed rule. All changes 

are in red, with existing language struck-through and new language in red 

text. If y'all have any questions about these proposed changes, please let 

me know. 

Also, do you have any sort of ETA on the various follow-ups from our 

conference call last week? 

Thanks, 

Bryon 

Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov 

08/30/2001 05:37 PM 

To:Martha Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc: 

SubjectOld text edits 

(See attached file: OLDPreambleAndRule-OMBtextedits.wpd) 

MarthaObviously, I failed to attach the document to my previous e-mail. Here it 

is. 

Thanks, 

Bryon 

OLDPreambleAndRule-OMBtextedits.wi 

(t 
P.8 

Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov 

09/12/2001 01:33 PM 

To:Martha Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc: 

Subject:Remaining OLD info 

MarthaI'll understand if in the weirdness he hasn't gotten it done yet, but I was 

just wondering if you could check the status of that sensitivity analysis 

on the OLD for me. 

Thanks, 

Bryon 

Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov 

09/17/2001 01:02 PM 

To:Martha Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc: 

SubjectRe: OLD preamble and rule 

MarthaOkay, thanks. I got the sensitivity analysis from Larry a few minutes ago. 

Once I've had a chance to look at it, I'll give you the final word. 

Thanks, 

Bryon 

7