p.1 

OAR Box 1669 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

DocumentNumber: 

£ jrn \\-D-247 

Docket Number: 

A-98-13 

Printed 9/23/2008 9:36:49 AM Sheet 57 of 110 
P.2 

QAIX 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Martha Smith 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ESD/WCPG 

ESD Project No. 96/05 

FROM: Usha Mehra, GATX Terminals Corporation 

DATE: August 25, 1999 

GATX TERMINALS CORPORATION 

405 CLINTON DRIVE 

P.O. BOX 465 

GALENA PARK. TX 77547-0465 

PHONE 713-450-0400 

FAX 713-450-0450 

\j£M T^ 

SUBJECT: August 19,1999 meeting with GATX and the 

Independent Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA) 

Purpose 

The purpose of this meeting was to meet with the EPA to discuss GATX 

and ILTA concems regarding the development of the Organic Liquids 

Distribution MACT/NESHAP. Usha Mehra had requested to meet with the 

EPA through telephone conversations with Ms. Smith. 

II. 

III. 

Location and Date 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mutual Building, 10th Floor Conference Room 

Durham, North Carolina 

August 19,1999, 1p.m. - 3p.m. 

Participants 

"ti i 3 ISw 

PA AIR DOCKET 

John Prokop, ILTA 

Jim Bailey, Houston Fuel Oil Terminal Company, ILTA Board Member 

Gary Rosch, Noco Energy Corp., ILTA Board Member 

Usha Mehra, GATX Terminals Corporation, ILTA Member 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Martha Smith 

Pacific Environmental Services. Inc.. (PES) 

Bernd Haneke 

Greg LaFlam 

IV. Minutes 
P.3 

i •_• • i _ _• -*ou-i-<t»-x o * r-MUf c ii/'fci | 

The meeting started with Mr. John Prokop providing an overview of the 

public hire terminals that are ILTA members. He provided the following 

breakdown of number of terminals in environmentally active States. 

Texas: 38 

Louisiana: 18 

New Jersey: 13 

California: 37 

Washington: 11 

Illinois: 27 

New York: 15 

I expressed concern over the EPA 114 survey (total 240 responses) and 

its use for setting floors for all the industries affected by the OLD MACT. 

The public terminals only represent 13% (32 responses) of the overall 

survey data which is dominated by chemical manufacturing and oil refining 

at 73% (174 responses). She requested EPA to reevaluate its position on 

same regulation for all industries in OLD MACT. 

I further proposed audio/visual and olfactory (AVO) monitoring option for 

LDAR controls and no controls for wastewater collection/treatment at 

stand-alone terminals. Support for categorization of terminals for these 

controls is based on the following: 

1) Different floors are likely to be established for wastewater and LDAR 

controls for stand alone terminals(SlC 4226, 4612, and 5171) if 

representative number of facilities are surveyed and evaluated 

individually and the data are not lumped with that for manufacturing and 

refining. 

2) Assuming same regulation for all industries, cost impact of compliance 

with OLD MACT for chemical manufacturing and refining that are already 

subject to MACT and other NESHAP (40 CFR Part 61-Benzene 

NESHAPS) are expected to be different (lower) than at stand alone 

terminals, as the manufacturing facilities already have the infrastructure 

for compliance (wastewater collection and treatment systems and 

extensive instrument based LDAR programs), and terminals will have to 

begin from level ground. 

3) Potential emissions impact from storage and loading equipment at 

manufacturing operations are different from those at stand alone 

terminals. Reasons are as follows: 

i) The operations at terminals are intermittent. Examples are: certain 

tanks may store HAPs only part of the year while storing other 

L:\ENVIRO\ILTA.DOC 2-
P.4 

VOCs the remainder of the year; a loading operation may be 

primarily for VOCs except for a certain time period during the year. 

ii) The operating temperatures and pressures at terminals are 

generally ambient while at manufacturing and refining locations, the 

conditions are more rigorous. 

iii) Finally, excess emissions have significant cost/business penalty for 

terminals. Terminals industry is a service based industry where 

product managed is not owned by the terminal; hence terminals 

have a business incentive for minimizing losses during their 

management of chemicals. Terminalling Contracts always have 

clauses of penalty for product losses beyond certain agreed upon 

terminalling working loss. 

4) There is precedent in EPA's rulemaking of separating similar operations 

under different MACT standards. For example, gasoline distribution 

operations at refineries are subject to Petroleum Refining MACT while 

gasoline distribution operations at stand alone terminals are subject to 

MACT at 40 CFR Part 63 subpart R. 

t 

Ms. Smith explained EPA's evolved position regarding wastewater 

collection and treatment floor evaluations and informed that EPA is 

deferring any action on this potential emission point for later and that for 

purposes of OLD MACT, there will only be the following four emission 

sources: 

1. Tanks 

2. Loading Racks 

3. Fugitive Equipment 

4. Large Containers (>55g) filling 

I, and others of ILTA commended EPA on this decision, and expressed 

that based on this undertaking of EPA, our proposal for separating 

terminal type industries from manufacturing and refining focuses only on 

LDAR controls. 

Ms. Smith expressed that, even though EPA may evaluate issues 

presented during the meeting in consideration of available options for 

LDAR controls, the floor for LDAR appears to be instrument based 

monitoring; hence, support for AVO monitoring will need to be provided. 

I and ILTA members agreed to pursue developing data on leak 

frequencies based on Texas's Houston/Galveston area terminals (about 8-

10 terminals) that have been conducting instrument-based monitoring as 

part of Texas' BACT requirements. The data would be expected to 

support that at OLD terminals, instrument monitoring only provides limited 

benefit if any, therefore, AVO monitoring, similar to the one required in 

L:\ENVTRO\ILTA.DOC 3 
P.5 

c- r-i\_w_G. Z>s O 

gasoline distribution MACT, and being evaluated for MON MACT may 

provide adequate controls. 

When asked on time constraints on providing the above data supporting 

AVO program, Ms. Smith said that ideally by October 5, 1999, when EPA 

plans to discuss its draft OLD MACT proposed rule with stake holders, or 

soon there after. Data needs to be evaluated by EPA before proposed 

rule is sent forward for further administrative review. 

_• 

I and Mr. Prokop raised the question regarding the 5 ton and 12.5 ton 

(5/12.5t) applicability threshold used in the 114 Survey of facilities in 

1998. Mr. Greg Laflam explained that this threshold was somewhat 

arbitrarily selected with expectation that facilities with actual 5/12.5t 

emissions will be potential OLD MACT facilities with potential to emit 

(PTE) 10 tons per year of any single or 25 tons per year of combined 

HAPs [therefore would be considered Major Sources for HAPs]. 

I suggested that EPA use 10/25 tpy actual emission threshold for 

applicability in the OLD MACT Rule versus the presently contemplated 

10/25tpy PTE threshold. The actual threshold is used in EPA's Marine 

RACT/MACT rule at 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart Y. In this MACT rule, actual 

emissions at 10/25 tpy are used as a trigger for applicability. For public 

terminals, this is a key consideration as terminals generally tend to 

maintain permits for HAPs for flexibility purposes. The PTE will subject 

many terminals to the OLD MACT rule even if actual HAPs are not being 

managed. This applicability will lead to imbalance on cost/benefit analysis 

ofthis rule. 

Regarding applicability for control requirements for storage tanks, loading 

and LDAR, Ms. Smith discussed EPA's plan to use HAP levels in liquids 

as one or one of many triggers. I expressed that use of HAP levels is not 

workable for terminals as terminals depend on material safety data sheets 

(MSDSs) for chemical composition of HAPs and since MSDSs are 

required by OSHA for addressing material handling safety issues, the 

HAPs data on MSDSs is generally extremely non-specific. The data is 

provided in ranges such as 5-50%. Terminals do not have the ability to 

obtain specific concentration data. The problem is specially compounded 

for mixture streams. If subjected to HAP level based thresholds/triggers for 

controls, terminals will be forced to err on the side of higher level of range 

identified in MSDSs, a situation that may rarely occur and will lead to 

potential over-regulation. EPA has used vapor pressure, tank size and 

throughputs as triggers for controls in many of its MACT rules and these 

thresholds have proven to be satisfactory. Mr. Prokop and I strongly 

suggested that these triggers should be used in OLD MACT as these 

triggers can be monitored and controlled by terminals. HAP levels are 

beyond temninals routine control. 

L:\ENVIRO\ILTAX)OC 4-
P.6 

.OC C 1 0~O O A O • O A t I\W1'I • u 

Finally, Ms. Smith asked for comments to EPA's model plant memo dated 

July 28, 1999 to which we agreed. GATX and ILTA agreed to pursue an 

effort to implement an AVO support study and advise EPA of their 

progress. GATX and ILTA also said that they would comment on to EPA's 

proposed OLD MACT rules when drafted (early October 1999). 

L:\ENVIRO\ILTA.DOC 0 
P.7 

A-48-13 

GATX TERMINALS CORPORATION 

GATX 

Date: 

To: 

Company: 

Fax#: 

405 Clinton Drive 

P.O. Box 465 

Galena Park, Texas 77547-0465 

Phone: (713) 450-0400 

Fax: (713) 450-0450 

<?- 13 ^ 

>>-A. rh^vika-^ S^r/K 

FPA 

q\ <?- 5"MI- o^wt 

Number of Pages (including cover): 

From: Scott D. Gemberling 

C. Mike Reed 

Carlin Conner 

Donna Whittleman 

Sheila Cleveland 

Roger C. Swift 

Matt Impagliatelli 

David Barrow 

TJsha Mehra 

Lynda Ballcnger 

Transmitted by: 

Message: JM- £^rfk ' 

X S*r*"r "1)UL -€*--vto$-«^ -yr\<A/i^o ov>\VsXu cv>«» 'l ^ 

Qp l^VS >rJ&^