Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0012-1022
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-05-06T04:00Z

"
Leister,
Mike"
<
MELeister@
MAPLLC.
com>
Received
Date:
02/
13/
2004
12:
49:
24
PM
Transmission
Date:
02/
13/
2004
12:
49:
24
PM
To:
Jeff
Herzog/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Andrea.
Grant@
piperrudnick.
com
cc:
Subject:
RE:
Another
wrinkle
in
the
NR
rule
exclusion
area
concept
Andrea,
I
have
had
a
hard
time
reaching
you
so
I
will
explain
my
request
via
email.
There
are
several
terminals
along
the
Ohio
river
that
supply
marine
fuel
to
water
borne
traffic.
Most
of
this
fuel
is
used
outside
of
the
proposed
marker
exclusion
area
but
several
of
the
terminals
are
located
in
Pa
on
the
short
piece
of
the
river
west
of
Pittsburgh
in
Beaver
county.
In
addition,
there
are
a
couple
of
terminals
on
the
Monongahela
that
deal
almost
entirely
with
locomotive
diesel
fuel.
These
are
in
Washington
county,
which
is
south
of
Pittsburgh.
These
terminals
and
their
customers
have
expressed
an
interest
in
using
credit
based
or
small
refiner
high
sulfur
diesel
for
marine
and
locomotive
applications.
Under
EPA's
exclusion
area
concept
they
would
be
forced
to
purchase
<
500
ppm
sulfur
diesel
fuel.
These
two
counties,
which
are
not
in
Pittsburgh,
are
the
only
counties
that
I
am
requesting
to
be
removed
from
the
exclusion
area.
Please
let
me
know
what
you
think.

Michael
E.
Leister
Fuels
Technology
Manager
Marathon
Ashland
Petroleum
LLC
Phone:
419­
421­
2674
Fax:
419­
421­
4232
Email:
MELeister@
MAPLLC.
com
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Herzog.
Jeff@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Herzog.
Jeff@
epamail.
epa.
gov]
Sent:
Monday,
February
09,
2004
4:
16
PM
To:
Andrea.
Grant@
piperrudnick.
com
Cc:
Leister,
Mike
Subject:
Another
wrinkle
in
the
NR
rule
exclusion
area
concept
Andrea,
Mike
related
that
he
thought
that
the
desire
of
the
terminals
around
Pittsburgh
for
access
to
high
sulfur
credit
and
small
refiner
locomotive
fuel
might
outweigh
their
concerns
re
the
cost
of
adding
injection
equipment
to
add
the
marker
to
heating
oil.
Thus,
Mike
was
wondering
whether
it
would
make
sense
to
take
the
counties
around
Pittsburgh
out
of
the
exclusion
area.
This
is
tough
one
to
figure
given
that
there
are
so
many
terminals
around
Pittsburgh
and
the
aim
of
the
exclusion
area
concept
was
to
keep
as
many
heating
oil
terminals
in
the
exclusion
area
as
possible.
I
encouraged
Mike
to
talk
with
you
about
the
idea.
What
do
you
think
your
terminal
facility
members
in
the
Pittsburgh
area
would
prefer?

Thanks
Jeffrey
A.
Herzog,
Mechanical
Engineer
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
National
Vehicle
and
Fuel
Emissions
Laboratory
Assessment
and
Standards
Division
2000
Traverwood
Drive
Ann
Arbor,
Michigan,
48105
Phone:
(
734)
214­
4227
Fax:
(
734)
214­
4816
E­
Mail:
herzog.
jeff@
epa.
gov