March 4, 2021

Ronald W. Gore, Chief

ADEM-Air Division
1400 Coliseum Blvd.
Montgomery, AL 36110-2400

Submitted via email to: rwg@adem.alabama.gov; airmail@adem.alabama.gov

Re: Comments Regarding ADEM’s Proposed Renewal of Title V Draft Permit No. 503-3013
to Plains Marketing, L.P.

Dear Mr. Gore,

We are submitting these comments on behalf of the undersigned organizations, which

include: Greater-Birmingham Alliance to Stop Pollution (“GASP”), Mobile Environmental
Justice Action Coalition (“MEJAC”), Mobile Alabama NAACP Unit #5044 Environmental and
Climate Justice Committee, and Sierra Club Mobile Bay Group, regarding the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management’s (“ADEM”) proposal to renew the Draft Title V
Permit No. 503-3013, for the Plains Marketing, L.P. Mobile Terminal located at1871 Hess Road,
Mobile, Mobile County, Alabama, 36610. The Mobile Terminal–with its truck and marine
loading operations, 17 large tanks, wastewater, stormwater pumps, various engines, and
connected operations–has the potential to emit more than 400 tons per year (“tpy”) of volatile
organic compounds (“VOCs”) and nearly 20 tpy of hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”). There is
no question that the minority and low-income population that lives in the surrounding
communities have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects
from poor air quality from this and other sources. Those that live in these communities–as well
as groups like GASP that advocate on their behalf–request and expect that ADEM place special
focus and resources to address these adverse effects via issuing air permits that accurately
characterize, control, monitor, record and report emissions.
 As discussed in these comments, ADEM’s draft permit does meet the legal requirements
much less protect this environmental justice (EJ) community. As is clear from what limited
information is available, the required technical foundation for the Title V renewal permit is
simply not here.

• ADEM has enabled Plains Marketing to circumvent major source permitting by

relying on incomplete and inaccurate information.

• ADEM failed to require—and Plains Marketing failed to submit—requisite

information necessary to review and issue the proposed renewal permit. It is not
possible for the public to determine whether the facility is subject to applicable
requirements. Notably missing is an accurate and complete inventory of the criteria
and hazardous air pollutants emitted from the Mobile Terminal. Therefore, while the
draft permit suggests that total HAP emissions are less than 20 tpy, that value does
not represent emissions from this facility, because like the estimates for criteria
pollutants, it is void of a rational basis or credible support.

• ADEM’s proposed permit terms are not practically enforceable. So, while ADEM
asserts that the draft permit will limit VOC emissions to less than 100 tpy, the draft
permit terms are not enforceable by citizens, EPA or even ADEM to limit these
emissions.

GASP is a nonprofit organization with a mission to advance healthy air and

environmental justice in the Greater-Birmingham area through education, advocacy, and
collaboration. This includes actively addressing community concerns involving air quality issues
in communities throughout the State. One way in which GASP seeks to improve air quality and
address historic and ongoing air pollution issues is through advocating for stronger air permits.

These comments are submitted as a supplement to those GASP sent to ADEM on

October 30, 2020, and which we include with these comments for your convenience. 1 The
commenters appreciate the opportunity to provide these supplemental comments. Because
ADEM’s proposal to approve the draft Title V permit is inconsistent with the legal requirements
and not protective of the surrounding EJ community the commenters look forward to reviewing
and providing comments on ADEM’s renotice of this action.

I. The EJ Community and the Proposed Draft Renewal Permit

Environmental justice is at the core of commenters’ work for a very simple reason:
communities of color and lower incomes are disproportionately affected by pollution. 2 The

1
Comments submitted by GASP, Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition (“MEJAC”), Clean Healthy
Educated Safe Sustainable Africatown (“CHESS”) and the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice to
Ronald W. Gore, Chief, ADEM-Air Division (Oct. 30, 2020).
2
As defined by EPA, environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people,
including a racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative

1
people that live in the area surrounding the Mobile Terminal have been disproportionately
impacted for decades. Emissions from the Clean Air Act (“CAA,” “Act”) Title V renewal permit
as proposed by ADEM would allow Plains Marketing: to continue to emit VOCs without the
required controls; and fail to include the required monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. Breathing VOCs can irritate the eyes, nose and throat, can cause difficulty
breathing and nausea, and can damage the central nervous system as well as other organs. Some
VOCs can cause cancer. Outdoors, VOCs can cause similar health effects, but also can react with
nitrogen oxides to produce ozone pollution. The community has been adversely impacted by
emissions from this source alone for more than 60 years. Therefore:

ADEM must place a priority on—and dedicate sufficient resources to—renoticing this
permit so that what is reproposed meets the legal requirements and is protective of the EJ
community.

Our research efforts in reviewing this renewal permit identified permits issued to Plains
Marketing and other companies that have Title V permits for crude oil and petroleum product
marine and truck loading terminals. There is much experience throughout the country in
regulating other Plains Marketing facilities as well as facilities owned by its competitors. As
discussed in these comments and seen when one reviews the Statement of Basis documents
prepared and Title V permits issued by other permitting agencies, there is no comparison
between ADEM’s draft documents and the permits issued and supporting analysis prepared by
other permitting authorities. 3 Indeed, the materials included with these comments show that

environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of
federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. Presidential Executive Order 12898, “General Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires all federal agencies
to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing the disproportionately high
and/or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income
populations and communities. Exec. Order No. 12898, § 1-101, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994), as amended by
Exec. Order No. 12948, 60 Fed. Reg. 6381 (Feb. 1, 1995). Additionally, on January 27, 2021, the current
Administration signed Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. “Executive Order on
Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” (Jan. 27, 2021) (Climate Change and EJ EO), available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-
climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/; see also, White House Fact Sheet, “President Biden Takes Executive Actions to
Tackle the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, Create Jobs, and Restore Scientific Integrity Across Federal
Government,” (Jan. 27, 2021), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
releases/2021/01/27/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-executive-actions-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-
abroad-create-jobs-and-restore-scientific-integrity-across-federal-government/. The new Executive Order on climate
change and environmental justice provides that: “[i]t is the policy of [this] Administration to organize and deploy the
full capacity of its agencies to combat the climate crisis to implement a Government-wide approach that reduces
climate pollution in every sector of the economy; … protects public health … delivers environmental justice …[and
that] … [s]uccessfully meeting these challenges will require the Federal Government to pursue such a coordinated
approach from planning to implementation, coupled with substantive engagement by stakeholders, including State,
local, and Tribal governments.” Alabama can facilitate EPA’s compliance with these Executive Orders by
considering environmental justice.
3
See e.g., Title V Operating Permit Registration No. 60116, issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia to Plains
Marketing L.P., Yorktown bulk petroleum liquids storage and distribution terminal (Oct. 12, 2017) (copy enclosed);
Commonwealth of Virginia, Statement of Legal and Factual Basis, Plains Marketing L.P., Yorktown, Permit No.
TRO-60116 (Oct. 12, 2017) (copy enclosed).

2
significant work is needed by ADEM to bring the draft permit and supporting documents up to
the level seen in the permits issued by its counterparts. 4

The proposed renewal permit would be issued to Plains Marketing, L.P. for its Mobile
Terminal located at 1871 Hess Road, Mobile, Alabama 36610. The facility is an existing
petroleum bulk storage and transfer terminal for the storage and loading of petroleum products.
The terminal has the capability of receiving crude oil, petroleum liquids, and ethanol via ships,
barges, tank trucks, or pipeline. The petroleum products are stored in one of the 17 large existing
storage tanks and loaded out by ships, barges, tank trucks, or pipeline. The Mobile Terminal is
one of many owned and operated by the Company, as shown in Figure 1.

4
The contrast between the applications submitted, statement of basis documents, and permits issued for facilities
that contain similar emitting units to different permitting agencies is also striking; see, e.g., Plains Marketing Title V
Operating Permit Renewal Application submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) for
Registration No. 60116 (May 5, 2016) (copy enclosed); Email from Plains Marketing to VDEQ (March 26, 2020)
(requesting a completeness determination) (copy enclosed); Plains Marketing to VDEQ, Section 1, Emission
Estimates, including laboratory data (Feb. 2, 2020) (File name: 60116 - Application - EE-Pt2a -
20200213_53103657); Title V Permit Modification submitted by Envirospace Engineering, PLLC, on behalf of
Global Companies LLC. - Albany Terminal (Terminal), to New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSEC), Title V Facility Permit No. 4-0101-00112/00029 (March 18, 2020) (copy enclosed); State
Environmental Quality Review Environmental Assessment Form Supplement, Global Albany Terminal, DEC
Permit Application #4-0101-00070/02003 (March 2020) (copy enclosed); Global Companies, LLC., to NYSEC,
Response to Request for Additional Information (RFAI), Air Title V Application, DEC #4-0101-00112/00029 (July
7, 2020); Final EPA Plantwide Applicability Limit Permit for Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC and Limetree Bay
Refining, LLC, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (Dec. 2, 2020) (facility includes thermal oxidizer control, storage
tanks, truck loading rack, oily wastewater collection system and treatment plant, marine loading operations); Email
exchange between Umesh Sholakia, US EPA, and Catherine Elizee (LB Terminals) (Feb. 12-13, 2019, Feb. 20,
2019 – March 11, 2019) (copy enclosed) (EPA requested and permit applicant provided additional emission
information regarding marine vessel loading, terminal VOC emission estimates).

3
Figure 1. Plains Marketing Operations.5

Figure 2 provides additional insight into where the crude oil is produced in the U.S., showing
data for the most recent year available from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In
particular we note the significant production off the coast of Alabama, in the Gulf of Mexico.

5
Plains Marketing, View of Assets, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-do/view-our-assets.

4
Figure 2. U.S. Crude Oil Production by State for 2019 (1,000 barrels per day). 6

6
U.S. EIA, Where U.S. Crude Oil is Produced, available at https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-
products/where-our-oil-comes-from.php (copy enclosed); Alabama has three petroleum refineries with a combined
processing capacity of about 142,000 barrels of crude oil per calendar day. The state’s largest refinery is located
near Mobile, the second-largest refinery is in Tuscaloosa on the Black Warrior River, and the third and smallest
refinery is in Atmore. U.S. EIA, Refinery Capacity Report 2019 (June 21, 2019), Table 3, Capacity of Operable
Petroleum Refineries by State as of January 1, 2019.The refineries can process a range of domestic and imported
crude oils into refined products that include feedstocks for chemical plants, motor gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel,
residual fuel, and asphalt for local and regional markets. Shell, Mobile, AL; Goodway Refining, LLC; Hunt
Refining Company, Refining Operations, Tuscaloosa Refinery. Alabama receives additional refined products from
Texas and Louisiana via two major interstate pipelines—the Colonial and Plantation pipelines—that also move
gasoline and other petroleum products through Alabama to supply half a dozen other southern and East Coast states.
Colonial Pipeline Company, System Map; Kinder Morgan, Plantation Pipe Line Company (PPL). U.S. EIA,
Alabama State Profile and Energy Estimates, available at https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=AL. (copy
enclosed)

5
Finally, Figure 3, below, shows the spider web of crude oil pipelines that crisscross the country.

Figure 3. Crude Oil Pipelines in the U.S. and Canada. 7

II. ADEM’s Draft Title Permit Does Not Meet the Legal Requirements

Under 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(a), a permit can “be issued only if all of the following condition
has been met: (i) The permitting authority has received a complete application for a permit . . . .”
“An application may not omit information needed to determine the applicability of, or to impose,
any applicable requirement . . . .” 8 A draft permit must include all applicable emission limits and
standards and must also include all monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements to
assure compliance with those standards. 9 Citizens possess the right to enforce federally
enforceable provisions under the CAA.

7
U.S. Crude Oil Pipelines, available at
https://ft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=49a1d3fbb3754490aab86e0684692515.
8
40 C.F.R. § 70.5(c).
9
42 U.S.C. §§ 7661a(a), 7661c(a); 57 Fed. Reg. 32,250, 32,251 (July 21, 1992).

6
 While states with EPA-approved Clean Air Act programs have independent discretion
and are not necessarily required to follow all EPA policies or interpretations, 10 a state must
conduct its analysis in a way that is reasoned and faithful to the Act’s statutory framework. 11
When EPA and the federal courts assess whether a permitting authority’s decision is supported
by a reasoned basis, they consider prior decisions of EPA’s Administrator and the EPA’s
Environmental Appeal Board (EAB). 12 Similarly, these comments also assess ADEM’s draft
Title V permit action against these the Administrator’s and the EAB’s prior decisions.

A. ADEM’s Statement of Basis Lacks a Reasoned Basis for Its Proposed

Completeness Determination

ADEM’s SOB suggests that Plains Marketing submitted a “timely and complete
application” and yet, its Statement of Basis (SOB) does not include a basis for its assertion that
the application is complete. ADEM’s notice did not provide the date the “renewal” application
was received and whether it was timely. ADEM did not explain that it reviewed the application
materials against what is required for an application. In sum, ADEM failed to inform the public:

• What application (or application materials) ADEM refers to in making its

completeness determination;
• When ADEM received the application;
• Whether ADEM requested that Plains Marketing submit supplemental information
because it initially found the application incomplete; and
• The basis for ADEM’s determination that the application was complete.

As discussed below, this is a significant and serious error because a substantial amount of
information is missing from the application. In implementing the Part 70 requirements and
carrying out the responsibilities that EPA and the public entrust them with, air permitting
agencies routinely request that permit applicants submit clarifying and supplemental information.
Evidence of this can be seen in the State of New York, which in May 2020, requested that the
owner of the Albany Terminal that stores and distributes petroleum products (a facility similar to
the Plains Marketing Terminal), supplement its Title V application to renew and modify its
permit. 13 The owner of the Albany Terminal responded providing more than 500 pages of
supplemental information. 14 Further, review of records for an EPA issued permit for a refinery
and marine/truck tank loading facility, provide further evidence of the communications between
the permitting agency and permit applicant where the applicant responded to questions and
provided additional details to EPA. 15 Here, the record shows that ADEM failed to require that

10
See, e.g., 57 Fed. Reg. 28093, 28095 (June 24, 1992).
11
See Alaska Dep't of Envt'l Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 484-91 (2004).
12
See, e.g., In re East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc., at 5 (Hugh L. Spurlock Generating Station) Petition No.
IV-2006-4 (Aug. 30, 2007), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
08/documents/east_kentucky_spurlock_response2006.pdf. (“Spurlock”)
13
Global Companies, LLC., to NYSEC, Response to Request for Additional Information (RFAI), Air Title V
Application, DEC #4-0101-00112/00029 (July 7, 2020) (copy enclosed).
14
Id.
15
Emails between Umesh Sholakia, U.S. EPA, and Catherine Elizee (LB Terminals) (Feb. 12-13, 2019, Feb. 20,
2019 – March 11, 2019) (copy enclosed) (EPA requested and permit applicant provided additional emission
information regarding marine vessel loading, terminal VOC emission estimates).

7
Plains Marketing submit any supplemental information. Indeed, as discussed here and elsewhere
in these comments, despite information required under the regulations, which was and remains
missing, ADEM determined the application was complete.

ADEM has once again erroneously determined a Title V application was complete. As
GASP has encouraged ADEM in prior comments submitted on draft Title V permits, it again
urges ADEM to take the completeness requirement seriously and document for the record and
the public–including details and its rationale–for its assessment of whether an application is
complete. And as evidenced by the other permitting agencies that have recently considered and
issued permits for similar facilities, it is commonplace for agencies to request supplemental
information to complete an application. A permitting needs a rational basis for its conclusions
and ADEM should not assert an application is complete when it has not done the work to make
that determination. Clearly here, had ADEM reviewed the application against the requirements in
the regulations for what needs to be included in the application it would have identified the
missing information as commenters have done. 16 Instead, ADEM published a misleading
package to the public suggesting that it received all that was required, and it did not.
Furthermore, while an application may default to complete if a permitting agency does not
determine it is incomplete within the first 60 days of receipt, the agency nevertheless can – and
must – request the missing information from the permit applicant, including setting a deadline
for the applicant to respond. ADEM provides not evidence this was done for the proposed
renewal permit.

B. ADEM’s Proposed Permit Thwarts Meaningful Public Participation

ADEM’s SOB is further flawed because while it explains that Plains Marketing is subject
to applicable requirements issued in a SIP permit—that apparently allowed the source to avoid
major source permitting requirements—the underlying Title I permit was not made available to
the public. 17 A Title V source must have a Title V permit that assures compliance with the
applicable requirements of the Act, including SIP requirements like those in Title I permits. In
addition, the EPA’s guidance has explained that a Title V permit may not simply “supersede,

16
For example, as discussed in these comments, and required by 40 C.F.R. § 70.5(c), we provide the following
initial examples of what the application lacked, this list is further supplemented through these comments where they
identify required information that is missing: (A) all emitting units and the PTE of criteria and HAP emissions so
that ADEM can determine the applicability of major source status, NSPS, MACT and other applicable requirements
(40 C.F.R. § 70.5(c)); (B) contrary to the mandatory requirements in 40 C.F.R. § 70.5(c)(3)(i), ADEM did not
require additional information related to the air pollutants to verify the applicable requirements (major source status,
NSPS, MACT and others) are applicable; (C) information about the operating scenarios and raw materials (crude oil
and ethanol) used during the different types of operations was neither provided nor asked for, thus the application
materials failed to include those required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.5(c)(3)(iv), 70.5(c)(7); and (D) the Title I synthetic
minor permit(s) that ADEM suggests limits VOCs, which is information required by an applicable requirement (40
C.F.R. § 70.5(c)(3)(vii).
17
As EPA has explained the regulatory requirements of what is necessary to include in the permit application is
related to information that must be available to the public during the public comment period. (“Analysis of the
availability of information during the public comment period is related to the regulatory standard under 40 C.F.R.§
70.5(c) governing information that may not be omitted from a permit application. Specifically, under 40 C.F.R. §
70.5(c), a permit application may not omit information “needed to determine the applicability of, or to impose, any
applicable requirement.”) In the Matter of U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Operations at 29, Petition No. X-
2019-8 (Feb. 19, 2020), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-
02/documents/hanfordthirdorder2020.pdf. (“Hanford”)

8
void, replace, or otherwise eliminate the independent enforceability of terms and conditions in
SIP-approved permits.” 18 ADEM’s SOB explains that:

This facility is considered a major source under PSD regulations because the
potential emissions for VOC exceed the 100 TPY major source threshold. Plains holds no
PSD permits, but as a result of a 2005 permitting action to avoid PSD permits, Plains has
a PSD synthetic crude oil throughput limitation on the truck rack of 2,284,170 gallons
during any consecutive 12-month period. 19

ADEM suggests that the draft permit includes language from a 2005 SIP permit action
that it purports limits emissions of product throughput via the gallon number mentioned in the
SOB (i.e., “2,284,170 gallons of crude oil during any consecutive 12-month period”). 20

So, we went searching for the 2005 permit action ADEM references. First, we reviewed
the permit provisos in the draft Title V permit that apply to the truck rack to find a reference to
the 2005 permitting action. Our review found that that the permit does not reference a 2005
permit that was issued by ADEM. Instead, the proviso references ADEM’s Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting regulations. See Figure 4, below. 21 Notably, the PSD
SIP regulations do not provide authority for ADEM to create synthetic minor permit conditions
that would allow Plains Marketing to escape the PSD major source permit program.

Figure 4. Permit Provisos That Apply to the Truck Rack. 22

18
Letter from J. Seitz, EPA, to R. Hodanbosi and C. Lagges, STAPPA/ALAPCO (May 20, 1999), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/hodan7.pdf. EPA_SeitztoHodan1999. (copy
enclosed)
19
SOB at 2, infra note 23.
20
Draft Title V Renewal Permit for Plains Marketing Mobile Terminal Permit at 23, available at
http://adem.alabama.gov/newsEvents/notices/oct20/pdfs/10plains.pdf. (“Draft Permit”)
21
Notably, contrary to the requirement to do so, the proviso does not reference the ADEM SIP rules that EPA
approved for creating synthetic minor permit conditions, 335-3-15.
22
Draft Permit, at 23-25,

9
ADEM’s authority for issuing practically enforceable terms and conditions that limit a source’s
potential to emit so it can avoid major source status is found in Chapter 335-3-15, which ADEM

10
neither cites in the draft permit, nor mentions and follows as its authority for limiting the PTE for
VOCs from Plains Marketing.

To locate the 2005 permit, we next reviewed ADEM’s public notice, which explains that:

The administrative record for this action, along with other information on file, will be
available in eFile. Select Media Area “Air”, enter the facility number shown above as the
Permit Number, select Document Type “Permitting”, and press Search. 23

Reviewing the “administrative record” for ADEM’s proposed approval of the draft Title V
permit for Plains Marketing to locate the 2005 SIP permit, we searched the eFile as ADEM
suggested and identified a total of 54 documents, as seen in screenshot at Figure 5, which shows
the first page of the list of documents found.

Figure 5. Permitting Documents in ADEM’s eFile for Plains Marketing.

23
Id.

11
Figure 6. Calendar Year 2005 Permitting Documents in ADEM’s eFile for Plains
Marketing.

Further limiting the search to the 2005 calendar year, which is the year ADEM explained
the permit was issued, identified eight documents as see in Figure 6 (above). 24 There are two
non-Title V air

24
Draft Renewal Permit, available at ADEM Efile, (“Draft Permit”) (File Name: 4468 503-3013 097 05-13-2005
T5APP MOG REN MOG1199); Permit Application Summary Form, available at ADEM Efile (File Name: 4468
503-3013 097 05-16-2005 T5SUM REN MOG3124); Air Permit No. 503-3013-X010 (August 15, 2005), available
at ADEM Efile (File Name: 4468 503-3013 097 08-15-2005 PERV MOG AP X010 VOID 8-16-07); Fee Schedule
for Air Permits, available at (File Name: 4468 503-3013 097 09-12-2005 FPR MSOP REN MOG3123); Statement
of Basis (“SOB”), available at ADEM Efile (File Name: 4468 503-3013 097 09-19-2005 T5SOB REN MOG2646);

12
permit documents in the eFile for 2005:

• The first is an Air Permit issued Plains Marketing by ADEM that authorized
construction of “Tank No. 1114: 420,000 Gallon Capacity Internal Floating Roof
Storage Tank [NSPS, Kb].” 25

• The second document is a letter from ADEM to Plains Marketing, which explained
that the Air Division personnel conducted an inspection on November 2, 2005, and
based on the results of that inspection the letter authorized Plains Marketing to
operate, “Tank No. 1103: 3,360,000 Gallon Capacity Internal Floating Roof Storage
Tank,” which ADEM’s letter referenced as covered ny Air Permit No. 503-3013-
X007.

Neither of these non-Title V permit documents is the 2005 permit that ADEM offers it issued to
limit emissions at the truck loading rack so that Plains Marketing is not subject to PSD major
source permitting. ADEM’s notice does not provide an email or phone number for the public to
contact with questions. Therefore, the public was not provided access to the 2005 permit, which
contains applicable requirements.

Withholding the 2005 permit from the public is a violation of the Title V permitting
requirements and ADEM must make this permit available to the public and renotice the permit
so that the public can meaningfully participate in the public process. The inability of the public
to review the Title V permit upon which this condition is based means the public cannot verify
whether there are deficiencies in the Title V permit. For example, the public has no way of
knowing whether the 2,284,170 crude oil gallon limit in the draft Title V permit is the same as
the limit in the Title I permit. Furthermore, presumably, Title I permit contains the details on
how the gallon limitation was derived, relating the calculations and assumptions for throughput
of crude oil at the truck loading unit and VOC emissions, which is critical for the public to
review, understand and verify in participating in the Title V process. The public is unable to
comment on any errors ADEM made in adding the Title I permit requirements to the Title V
permit. Where a Title I permit is used by a facility to avoid the Act’s requirements, the permit
must be included in the permit application, part of the set of documents available in the record,
and available for public review because its contents are needed to impose the applicable
requirements that allow the facility to escape major source permitting, so that the public can
review its contents.

Without evidence of the 2005 Title I permit that ADEM refers to, or anything other
synthetic minor permit that ADEM issued under Chapter 335-3-15, Plains Marketing is not
entitled to the limits as proposed because as drafted, the Title V permit lacks the underlying legal
document that contains the applicable requirement upon which it purports to rely.

Title V Renewal Application (Sept. 29, 2005), available at ADEM Efile (File Name: 4468 503-3013 097 09-29-2005
T5APP MOG REN ADD MOG1213); ADEM Letter Air Permit No. 503-3013-X007 (Nov. 3, 2005), available at
ADEM Efile (File Name: 4468 503-3013 097 11-03-2005 ATO X007 MOG3111); Title V Permit (Nov. 8, 2005),
available at ADEM Efile (File name: 4468 503-3013 097 11-08-2005 T5PERM FINAL REN MOG3122).
25
August 15, 2005 Air Permit at 1.

13
 ADEM must correct the draft renewal permit deficiency and renotice this action for
public comment because this process has been so flawed by failing to provide the 2005 Title I
permit to the public that the public could not meaningfully review the draft renewal permit to
determine if it was deficient. 26

C. ADEM’s Erroneously Excludes Emission Units from SIP Requirements

The permit application discloses that all 17 tanks emit VOCs. 27 Thus, while all 17 tanks
are subject to the SIP Title I construction and modification permit requirements, ADEM’s SOB
suggests that four tanks are not subject to SIP requirements, and instead are only subject to 40
CFR Part 60, Subpart Kb (Tank Nos. 1109, 1103, 1102, 1108, 012, 013, 014, 015). 28 This is
incorrect and ADEM must correct the error, as emissions from these tanks are also subject to the
Title V permitting requirements.

D. ADEM’s Proposed Approval Fails to Identify and Include Any Title I Permit
Requirements

All federally enforceable emission limits must be incorporated in a Title V permit,

including specific permit conditions or emission limits from pre-existing permits. 29, 30 The

26
Hanford at 29 (So an EPA objection to a proposed permit based on a permit application deficiency may be
accompanied by an EPA objection based on a resulting flaw in the public participation process because, in some
instances, the unavailability during the public comment period of information needed to determine the applicability
of or to impose an applicable requirement also may result in a deficiency in the permit’s content. See in the Matter
of Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Petition No. V-2006-3, Order on Petition No. V-2006-3, at 4–7 (Nov. 5, 2007)
(“LP”); In the Matter of WE Energies Oak Creek Power Plant, Order on Petition, at 24–27 (June 12, 2009) (“Oak
Creek”); In the Matter of Alliant Energy, WPL Edgewater Generating Station, Order on Petition No. V-2009-02
(Aug. 17, 2010). (“Alliant Energy”)
27
Permit Application at 3-2. Note, however, as discussed in these comments Plains Marketing used flawed and
inaccurate methodology to calculate emissions.
28
SOB at 3; Draft Permit at 19 (“(b) When storing a product with a maximum true vapor pressure ≥0.5 psia, these
tanks are subject to the applicable requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Kb, ‘Standards of Performance for
Volatile Organic Liquid Tanks (Including Petroleum Liquid Tanks) for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification Commenced After July 23, 1984.’”)
29
In the Matter of Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co., Inc., Petition No. II-2002-09 at 7 (Feb. 18, 2005), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/bms_response2002.pdf. (“Bristol-Meyers”)
30
In the Matter of Consolidated Environmental Management, Inc. — Nucor Steel Louisiana Pig Iron and Dri
Manufacturing, Petition Nos. VI-2010-02, VI-2011-03, at 14-15 (March 23, 2012), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/nucor_steel_response_2012_zennoh.pdf. (“Nucor
Steel”) (“A source subject to Title V must have a Title V permit that assures compliance with applicable
requirements of the Act, including the requirements of the applicable state implementation plan. CAA § 504(a), 42
U.S.C. § 7661c(a); see also 40 CFR 70.1(b). The EPA's Title V regulations define applicable requirements to
include “[a]ny term or condition of any preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or
promulgated under title I, including parts C or D, of the Act.” 40 CFR 70.2. Moreover, a basic precept of the Title V
operating permit program is that it does not generally impose new substantive air quality control requirements, or
new applicable requirements, but does require permits to contain monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and other
requirements to assure compliance with applicable requirements. 57 Fed. Reg. 32,250, 32,251 (July 21, 1992) (the
EPA final action promulgating Part 70 rule); see also 40 C.F.R. § 70.1(b). In addition, the EPA's guidance has
explained that a Title V permit may not simply “supersede, void, replace, or otherwise eliminate the independent
enforceability of terms and conditions in SIP-approved permits.” Letter from J. Seitz, EPA, to R. Hodanbosi and C.
Lagges, STAPPA/ALAPCO (May 20, 1999), Enc. A at 4. That is, Title V permits must assure compliance with the

14
permitting authority must provide the permit records for which the full scope of applicable
requirements for a Title V permit can be determined. 31 ADEM’s SOB provides information
about the tanks and other emission units but does not explain if each unit was individually
authorized by a Title I construction permit to emit a specific amount of criteria and hazardous air
pollutants, or whether the units collectively were authorized to emit a combined total. 32 Second,
neither the SOB nor the draft Title V permit identify which criteria and HAP pollutants the Title
I permits authorized Plains Marketing to emit. 33 If every Title I permit authorized all pollutants,
it would completely undermine the integrity of the Title I construction and modification permit
program. Therefore, it is unclear whether and how the draft Title V permit includes the
construction and modification Title I permit provisions, undermining the enforceability of the
SIP requirements. 34, 35

Third, ADEM’s analysis is further flawed because although emissions have undoubtedly
changed over the course of the past 60 years, as 15 of the tanks were modified and/or
construction occurred due to age and other factors, the SOB does not consider whether the
facility needed a construction permit to modify or construct for activities related to the tanks or
any of the other emission units.

Fourth, the SOB explains that three tanks were constructed and operated by another
company and during that time period the permitting authority was the Mobile County Board of
Health. ADEM’s SOB fails to provide the Title I permits issued by Mobile Country to construct
and modify these three tanks: Tank Nos. 62061, 62062, and 62063 [EU Nos. 009-011]. 36 Thus,
for the same reasons discussed above, the permit application is incomplete. ADEM’s
completeness determination was erroneous, and ADEM has not prohibited the public access to
the Title I construction and modification permits that apply to these the tanks.

requirements of SIP-approved permits, but may not simply eliminate their independent existence and
enforceability. Id.”)
31
Id.
32
This is despite indicating that the all 17 tanks are either subject to SIP requirements, and erroneously concluding
that NSPS regulations. SOB at 2-3.
33
Comparing ADEM’s draft SOB with that issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia for another Plains Marketing
Terminal and tank operation clearly demonstrates the stark difference and what is missing from ADEM’s, for
example, the Commonwealth’s SOB includes the following: (A) detailed information about the Title I NSR permits
(permit date and type), permitted process covered, and permitting agency notations; (B) the compliance status of the
source (this issue was identified in GASP’s October 2020 comments; (C) a table summarizing all the emission units,
a description of each unit, the pollution control device, the pollutants controlled and the applicable permit date; (D)
actual emissions reporting data. See, e.g., Commonwealth of Virginia, Statement of Legal and Factual Basis, Plains
Marketing L.P., Yorktown, Permit No. TRO-60116 (Oct. 12, 2017) (copy enclosed). Additionally,
34
Under the CAA, the SIP and NSR programs generally ensure attainment of the national ambient air quality
standards and the six criteria pollutants. CAA §§ 160–169, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470–7479 (prevention of significant
deterioration); CAA §§ 171–193, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7501–7515 (nonattainment NSR); CAA § 110(a)(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. §
7410(a)(2)(C) (minor NSR); while CAA contains separate provisions for regulating and permitting HAP emissions.
35
Objection to Title V Permit No. O2164, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, Philtex Plant (August 6, 2010) at ¶
7; Shell Deer Park Order at 11–15) (“Shell Park”), available at
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/air/Announcements/epa-chevron-2164.pdf; see also In the
Matter of Pasadena Refining System, Pasadena Refinery, Harris, Texas at 12-16 Petition No. VI-2016-20 (May 19,
2018), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
05/documents/pasadena_refinery_response2018.pdf. (“Pasadena Refinery”)
36
SOB at 3.

15
 Fifth, there were 14 tanks that were constructed when ADEM was the permitting
authority and yet ADEM provides no information regarding its review and approval to construct
the 14 tanks. Nor does ADEM provide information about what permitting authority authorized
construction of the truck and marine loading operations and other emitting activities. There is no
information in ADEM’s eFile that shows the owner/operator of the tanks and loading operations
was issued permits to construct these stationary source emitting units.

Sixth, the SOB explains that the facility was modified and that primary and secondary
seals were updated. The SOB does not explain under what authority ADEM relies on to approve
these modifications, 37 nor does ADEM explain and provide a basis for its proposed approval.

ADEM’s renotice of this permit must provide the public access to the Title I permits and
then include the requirements from the Title I construction and modification permits that were
issued for the entire facility. The public must have an opportunity to review and comment on the
underlying permits as a part of the Title V renewal process. 38 Without an opportunity to review
the Title I permits upon which the applicable requirements are based, the public has been
“deprived of the opportunity to meaningfully participate during the permitting process” 39
because the public has not been able to see if the draft Title V permit includes the applicable
requirements found in the 2005 SIP permit.

E. ADEM Does Not Provide a Reasoned Basis for Its Assertions Regarding
Applicability of NSPS Subpart Kb

Permitting authorities must provide a reasoned basis to address NSPS applicability at a

40
source. ADEM’s SOB fails to demonstrate that the appropriate NSPS regulations were applied
to the tanks (i.e., ADEM’s brief explanations that nothing triggered applicability of the NSPS
Subpart Kb to 13 of storage tanks did not provide such a basis). 41

For example:

• ADEM proposes to conclude the three internal floating roofs (IFR) installed in
January 1979, as retrofits and instead of the required vapor recovered unit for Tank

37
SOB at 2 (“The type of primary and secondary seals associated with Tank Nos. 1101, 1102, 1104, 1108, 1110,
and 1112 were updated to reflect the type of seals listed in the renewal application. Plains replaced the primary and
secondary seals on Tank No. 1111.”)
38
By withholding the Title I permits from the public, ADEM has successfully prohibited the public from
commenting on this issue, which contradicts the Part 70 requirements.
39
Hanford at 28; see also In the Matter of Orange Recycling and Ethanol Production Facility, Pencor-Masada
Oxynol, LLC, Petition No. 11-2000-07, Order on Petition No. II-2000-07 (May 2, 2001) (applying the concept of
meaningful public participation). (“2011 Pencor-Masada”)
40
In the Matter of Cash Creek Generation, LLC. Henderson, Kentucky at 11, Petition Nos. IV-2008-1 & IV-2008-2
(Dec. 15, 2009), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
08/documents/cashcreek_response2008.pdf. (“2009 Cash Creek”)
41
On August 5, 1976, EPA initially delegated the authority for implementation and enforcement of the NESHAP
and NSPS programs to the State of Alabama. On October 7, 1988, Alabama requested a delegation of authority for
implementation and enforcement of the following recently promulgated or revised NSPS categories found in 40
CFR Part 60, which included Subpart Kb. 54 Fed. Reg. 5078, 5078-5079 (Feb. 1, 1989)

16
 Nos. 62061, 62062, and 62063 [EU Nos. 009-011], met the modification exemption
in 40 CFR §60.14(e)(5), and three IFRs did not trigger 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart
Ka applicability.

ADEM provides no references or documents that support these conclusions, nor are
there any documents in eFile for this time period, the earliest document in eFile is
dated May 13, 2005. See Figure 7, below.

Figure 7. ADEM eFile Screenshot Showing Oldest Document Available for Plains
Marketing.

We note the following concerns with ADEM’s additional pithy statements regarding NSPS
applicability:

• ADEM suggests that “Tank Nos. 1101, 1104, 1105, 1106, and 1116 [EU Nos. 002,
003, 004, 001, and 008] were retrofitted with IFRs in 1974, after June 11, 1973, and
prior to May 19, 1978, the applicability dates for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart K. Because
the installations of floating roofs were not coupled with requests to store products
with higher volatility in each tank that would cause an increase in emissions, they
were not considered modifications that would trigger applicability to Subpart K.” 42

ADEM provides nothing to support this statement: no references to documents that

support these conclusions, nor are there any documents in eFile for this time period.
The earliest document in eFile is dated May 13, 2005. See Figure 7, above. ADEM

42
SOB at 4.

17
 does not explain what was stored in the tanks at the time, no provide any
documentation of what was stored afterwards. It is unclear how ADEM knows that
the tanks were retrofitted in 1974. It is also unclear how ADEM knows there the
owners and operators of the tanks have not done anything since 1974 to trigger NSPS
requirements.

• ADEM’s SOB also indicates that “Tank Nos. 1110, 1111, and 1112 [EU Nos. 005-
007] are not subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart K based on the installation date of
each tank. At the time of construction these tanks were equipped with IFRs and have
not been modified/reconstructed since.” 43

ADEM provides nothing to support this statement: ADEM provides no references to

documents that support these conclusions, nor are there any documents in eFile for
this time period, the earliest document in eFile is dated May 13, 2005. It is also
unclear how ADEM knows there the owners and operators of the tanks have not done
anything since 1961, 1962, 1962 to trigger NSPS requirements.

• ADEM notes that “Tank Nos. 1114 and 1115 [EU Nos. 016 and 017] are fixed roof
storage tanks that were constructed in 1965 and have not been modified/reconstructed
since. Therefore, these tanks are not subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart K.” 44

ADEM provides nothing to support this statement: ADEM provides no references to

documents that support these conclusions, nor are there any documents in eFile for
this time period, the earliest document in eFile is dated May 13, 2005. It is also
unclear how ADEM knows there the owners and operators of the tanks have not done
anything since 1965 to trigger NSPS requirements.

ADEM has further failed to explain why the four tanks that triggered NSPS requirements
after initial installation [EU Nos. 009-011] have not since triggered NSPS requirements since
1979. ADEM provides no references to documents that support these conclusions, nor are there
any documents in eFile for this time period, the earliest document in eFile is dated May 13, 2005.
It is also unclear how ADEM knows the owners and operators of the tanks have not done
anything since 1979 to trigger NSPS requirements.

Thus, there is no way for the public to assess whether ADEM appropriately, or
inappropriately, applies the NSPS requirements to the 14 tanks. ADEM’s proposed action not
only lacks reasoning to support its conclusion, ADEM’s record lack facts about the tanks in order
for the public to meaningfully comment on whether the relevant regulatory provisions apply. If
ADEM lacks information to repropose and provide a reasoned basis for proposed determinations,
then it must request that Plains Marketing supplement its application.

43
Id. The tanks were constructed in 1961, 1962 and 1962.
44
Id.

18
 F. ADEM Lacks Authority to Make the Applicability Determinations Regarding
NSPS Subpart Kb

Furthermore, ADEM has not met EPA’s delegation requirements for implementing the
NSPS. As EPA has explained:

… EPA does not delegate to state or local agencies the authority to make decisions that
are likely to be nationally significant, or alter the stringency of the underlying standards.
As additional assurance of national consistency, state and local agencies must send to the
EPA Region's Air Enforcement program a copy of any written decisions made pursuant
to the following delegated authorities:

o Applicability determinations that state a source is not subject to a rule or

requirement;
o Approvals or determination of construction, reconstruction or modification;
o Minor or intermediate site-specific changes to test methods or monitoring
requirements; or
o Site-specific changes or waivers of performance testing requirements. 45, 46

45
EPA Delegation of Clean Air Act Authority, Specific Authorities Retained by EPA, available at
https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/delegation-clean-air-act-authority. (emphasis added) (copy enclosed)
46
Id. Furthermore, EPA explicitly provides that certain provisions of the NSPS are not delegated: these provisions in
40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart A include the following, and to the extent ADEM’s draft renewal permit attempts to
implement these provisions on its own, the permit must be revised as this authority is not delegated by EPA to
ADEM: 60.8(b) (“Performance tests shall be conducted and data reduced in accordance with the test methods and
procedures contained in each applicable subpart unless the Administrator (1) specifies or approves, in specific cases,
the use of a reference method with minor changes in methodology, (2) approves the use of an equivalent method, (3)
approves the use of an alternative method the results of which he has determined to be adequate for indicating
whether a specific source is in compliance, (4) waives the requirement for performance tests because the owner or
operator of a source has demonstrated by other means to the Administrator's satisfaction that the affected facility is
in compliance with the standard, or (5) approves shorter sampling times and smaller sample volumes when
necessitated by process variables or other factors. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to abrogate the
Administrator's authority to require testing under section 114 of the Act.”); 60.11(b) (“Compliance with opacity
standards in this part shall be determined by conducting observations in accordance with Method 9 in appendix A of
this part, any alternative method that is approved by the Administrator, or as provided in paragraph (e)(5) of this
section. For purposes of determining initial compliance, the minimum total time of observations shall be 3 hours (30
6-minute averages) for the performance test or other set of observations (meaning those fugitive-type emission
sources subject only to an opacity standard).”); 60.11(e); 60.13(a), (“ For the purposes of this section, all continuous
monitoring systems required under applicable subparts shall be subject to the provisions of this section upon
promulgation of performance specifications for continuous monitoring systems under appendix B to this part and, if
the continuous monitoring system is used to demonstrate compliance with emission limits on a continuous basis,
appendix F to this part, unless otherwise specified in an applicable subpart or by the Administrator. Appendix F is
applicable December 4, 1987.”); 60.13(d)(2), (“Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, the following
procedures must be followed for a COMS. Minimum procedures must include an automated method for producing a
simulated zero opacity condition and an upscale opacity condition using a certified neutral density filter or other
related technique to produce a known obstruction of the light beam. Such procedures must provide a system check
of all active analyzer internal optics with power or curvature, all active electronic circuitry including the light source
and photodetector assembly, and electronic or electro-mechanical systems and hardware and or software used during
normal measurement operation.”); 60.13(g), and When the effluents from a single affected facility or two or more
affected facilities subject to the same emission standards are combined before being released to the atmosphere, the
owner or operator may install applicable continuous monitoring systems on each effluent or on the combined
effluent. When the affected facilities are not subject to the same emission standards, separate continuous monitoring

19
 ADEM’s SOB neither explain that it provided EPA Region IV’s Air Enforcement office
with copies of the above determinations at the time the determinations were made nor that it
provided EPA with the determinations prior to proposing to approve this draft permit renewal.
Without such documentation we assume that-contrary to EPA’s requirement that the permitting
authority provide a copy of its applicability determinations that a source is not subject to a NSPS
rule or requirement-ADEM has failed to do so. 47

Therefore, to justify that each of the 17 tanks did not trigger the NSPS requirements
ADEM must provide written notification to EPA, and provide an opportunity for EPA to review
and respond. Given that nearly 60 years have elapsed since the first tanks were installed, and that
similar tanks in other states are subject to newer requirements, further demonstrates the need for
ADEM to fully supported its proposed applicability determinations to EPA and the public. As a
part of the EPA notification and when ADEM renotices this permit to the public, it must provide
a detailed reasoned explanation for its proposed determinations, which includes supporting
evidence, mere overarching concussions are not adequate.

G. ADEM’s Draft Renewal Permit Lacks a Determination of the Source

The definition of the source being permitted is an important initial question for both NSR
and Title V permitting. Whether various emission units should be considered as a single source is
informed by the regulatory definitions of “major source” and “stationary source.” 48 A permitting
authority must take into account the emissions from all parts of a source when determining the
applicable requirements and conditions for operation of that source. Fundamental to this process
is the determination of which emission units are actually part of that “single source.” 49 Where a
permitting authority has EPA-approved Title V and Title I permit programs it is the
responsibility of the permitting agency to “ensure that source determinations are made consistent

systems shall be installed on each effluent. When the effluent from one affected facility is released to the atmosphere
through more than one point, the owner or operator shall install an applicable continuous monitoring system on each
separate effluent unless the installation of fewer systems is approved by the Administrator. When more than one
continuous monitoring system is used to measure the emissions from one affected facility (e.g., multiple breechings,
multiple outlets), the owner or operator shall report the results as required from each continuous monitoring system;
and 60.13(i).
47
Moreover, with more than 280 documents in the file for this permit, it is unreasonable for ADEM to suggest that
the public should download and review all the documents to see if ADEM provided written notice to EPA as is
required. The file names are comprised ot or contain acronyms, abbreviations and/or other ADEM form names (e.g.,
that mean nothing to people that do not work at ADEM). Further, there are documents in the file for Plains
Marketing have absolutely nothing to do with this facility. As ADEM is aware, its eFile system does not provide for
searching by terms, no doubt because of the documents we have reviewed, nearly all of them have not been
processed by optical character recognition and thus are not searchable.
48
See generally In the Matter of Williams Four Corners LLC, Sims Mesa CDP Compressor Station, at 6 (July 29,
2011), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/simsmesa_response2010.pdf.
49
In the Matter of Seneca Energy II, LLC Seneca, New York, Petition No. II-2012-01, at 6 (June 29, 2015), available
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/seneca_response2012.pdf. (“2015 Seneca
Energy”)

20
with minimum program requirements.” 50 EPA often provides guidance to permitting authorities
on this analysis. 51

Regulatory definitions of “major source” and “stationary source” clarify which emission
units are part of a single source. For facilities to constitute a single stationary source under the
PSD, nonattainment NSR, and the Title V programs of the Clean Air Act, all three of the
following criteria must be satisfied: 52

[A]ny stationary source (or any group of stationary sources that are located on one or
more contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under common control of the same
person [or persons under common control)] belonging to a single major industrial
grouping and that are described in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition. For the purposes
of defining "major source," a stationary source or group of stationary sources shall be
considered part of a single industrial grouping if all of the pollutant emitting activities at
such source or group of sources on contiguous or adjacent properties belong to the same
Major Group (i.e., all have the same two digit code) as described in the Standard
Industrial Classification Manual, 1987. 53

Paragraph (1) referred to in this definition pertains to major source classification based on
potential emissions of hazardous air pollutants; paragraph (2) pertains to major source
classification based on potential emissions of any air pollutant in amounts of 100 tons per year or
more; and paragraph (3) provides that “[n]o source shall be considered a major source for the
purposes of this Chapter due solely to the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions.” 54 Federal and
state regulations define a "stationary source" as "any building, structure, facility or installation
that emits or may emit a regulated . . . pollutant." 55 Both sets of regulations further define a
"building structure, facility or installation" (and therefore a single "source") according to a three-
part test. Under this test, a single source includes "all of the pollutant-emitting activities" that:

(a) belong to the same industrial grouping according to the federal government's
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system,
(b) are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, and
(c) are under the control of the same person (or persons under common control). 56

50
Id. at 8.
51
See, U.S. EPA New Source Review Permitting, Single Source Determination, available at
https://www.epa.gov/nsr/single-source-determination.
52
See 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.2, 71.2, 51.165(a)(1)(i) and (ii), 51.166(b)(5) and (6), and 52.21(b)(5) and (6).
53
ALA. ADMIN. CODE r. 335-3-16-.01(1)(q).
54
Id.
55
40 C.F.R. § 52.2l(b)(5), (6); ALA. ADMIN. CODE r. 335-3-15-.04(2)(e).
56
40 C.F.R. § 52.2l(b)(6) (emphasis added); ALA. ADMIN. CODE r. 335-3-15-.04(2)(f). The purpose of the
“common control” test in defining a major stationary source for permitting purposes is to ensure that sources do not
evade major source status (and its more stringent requirements) by artificially sub-dividing sources.

21
 Conducting a source determination and ensuring its accuracy is a prerequisite to
adequately demonstrating that a Title V permit assures compliance with PSD, Title V and Title
III 57 requirements.

ADEM’s SOB provides a list of sources of air pollutants, which it titles “Facility
Operations.” 58 ADEM explains that “[i]nsignificant emission sources at this facility include
electric petroleum pumps and organic liquid storage tanks with a storage capacity of less than or
equal to 1,000 gallons.” 59 Providing a list and noting that it proposes that some sources are
insignificant, without an identification of all the pollutant-emitting activities that meet the above
regulatory requirements-is simply not a determination of the source.

ADEM’s SOB explains that the Marine Terminal has 17 tanks and has the capability of
receiving crude oil, petroleum liquids, and ethanol. 60 While the SOB explains that the crude oil
petroleum liquids, and ethanol are moved to and from the Marine Terminal via the pipeline
system, ships, barges, and tank trucks, the SOB does not address the regulatory source
determination requirements and assess whether the pipeline and associated equipment are part of
the source.

Transportation of petroleum products is done via ships, barges and tank trucks, and the
pipeline network. 61 Some of this network is owned/operated by Plains Marketing. For example,
the Company’s assets include: 430 miles of active pipelines that support its facilities assets; 62, 63
18,965 miles of active crude oil and NGL pipelines and gathering systems; 64 50 barges and 20
transport tugs; 65 and 2,485 trucks and trailers. 66 Despite these adjacent and interrelated pollutant
emitting activities, which must be considered in identifying the “source” subject covered by the
Title V, ADEM’s SOB did not include such an analysis. Additionally, as discussed above,
because ADEM provides no evidence of a 2005 permitting action to avoid PSD, and as discussed
below, the draft permit does not contain practically enforceable permit terms to create synthetic
minor limits. Thus, in addition to considering adjacent and interrelated activities under Title V’s

57
Under the Section 112 major source definition, all sources of hazardous air pollutants in a contiguous area and
under common control, whether the emissions are considered collectable or not, must be counted toward
determining whether a source is a major source. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(a)(1).
58
SOB at 1-2. Furthermore, the SOB does not provide a basis for its proposed conclusion that the listed sources are
“significant.”
59
SOB at 2. The SOB does not provide any details about these sources, nor provide a basis for suggesting they are
insignificant.
60
SOB at 1.
61
It is unclear if the Marine Terminal is connected either directly or indirectly to other pipelines.
62
Plains Marketing Assets, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-do/facilities (which also
include: 79 million barrels of crude oil storage capacity primarily at terminal and storage locations; 34 million
barrels of NGL storage capacity; 63 Bcf of natural gas storage working gas capacity; 25 Bcf of owned base gas; 7
natural gas processing plants; 1 condensate processing facility; 8 fractionation plants and 1 isomerization unit;
30 crude oil and NGL rail terminals; and 6 marine facilities). (copy enclosed)
63
U.S. EIA maintains crude oil pipeline information using publicly available data (Major crude oil pipelines in the
United States and selected crude oil pipelines in Canada. Layer includes interstate trunk lines and selected intrastate
lines but excludes gathering lines. Based on publicly available data from a variety of sources with varying scales and
levels of accuracy), available at https://www.eia.gov/maps/layer_info-m.php.
64
Plains Marketing Assets, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-do. (copy enclosed)
65
Id.
66
Id. (assets also include 148 million barrels of storage capacity and 8,000 crude oil and NGL railcars).

22
definition, ADEM must also consider and apply the PSD definitions and requirements in
determining what is the source.

H. Unlike Other Permits Issued by Other State Agencies, ADEM’s Permit Fails to
Include Requirements for Emissions from Wastewater (and Stormwater)
Runoff, Disposal and Tanks Used for Water

As discussed previously, the Title V permit issued by ADEM must include all emitting
units. Title V permits for similar terminal and tank storage facilities issued by the
Commonwealth of Virginia (for a Plains Marketing Terminal) and the State of New York include
requirements for emissions from wastewater. For example, at the Plains Marketing Yorktown
facility, there is a Wastewater Treatment Plant that uses tanks to store slop water, store treated
water from the Wastewater Treatment Process (WTP), store recovered-oil (slop oil), provide for
storage of decant oil/water, and store excess volume of treated water after filter backwashes from
the WTP. 67 VOC pollutant emissions reported for the Yorktown facility include emissions from
the slop oil and wastewater tanks, and well as emissions from the below grade sewer. 68 The
Commonwealth’s permit also includes CAA applicable requirements that apply to Wastewater
Treatment Plan, which include emission control requirements, emission limits, monitoring,
testing, notifications to the permitting authority, reports and recordkeeping. 69 Similarly, the State
of New York’s Title Permit for the Albany Terminal and tank operation also includes provisions
for “[e]missions associated with wastewater.” 70

ADEM’s draft Title V renewal permit does not explain how emissions from wastewater
and stormwater are regulated. The source included emissions from the two stormwater pumps in
its annual emission report, but those emissions appear to be from operation of the pumps and not
emissions from the stormwater. 71 Lacking any information, commenters assume that VOC and
HAP emissions from the wastewater are not quantified and included in the emission inventory.
Yet another example of the PTE estimate failing to include all emissions from the facility.
Moreover, as seen in the permits issued by the other states, these emissions are significant and
must be included. Finally, we are concerned that the wastewater may not be regulated by any
ADEM program, which is of significant concern given the terminal’s proximity to the ocean.

I. ADEM Did Not Calculate Potential to Emit to Determine Whether the Facility
Will be A Major Source

67
Commonwealth of Virginia, Statement of Legal and Factual Basis, Plains Marketing L.P., Yorktown, Permit No.
TRO-60116 at 10-21 (Oct. 12, 2017) (copy enclosed).
68
Commonwealth of Virginia, Statement of Legal and Factual Basis, Plains Marketing L.P., Yorktown, Permit No.
TRO-60116 at 13 (Oct. 12, 2017) (copy enclosed);
69
Id. at 19-20; see also Title V Operating Permit Registration No. 60116, issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia
to Plains Marketing L.P., Yorktown bulk petroleum liquids storage and distribution terminal at 26-29 (Oct. 12,
2017).
70
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Permit Review Report Permit ID: 4-0101-
00112/00029 Renewal Number: 2 Modification Number: 4 11/06/2012, Global Companies LLC. - Albany Terminal
at 3 (Nov, 6, 2012), available at https://www.dec.ny.gov/dardata/boss/afs/permits/prr_401010011200029_r2_4.pdf.
71
Plains Marketing 2019 Annual Emissions Report at 37.

23
 Part 70 requires that the permitting authority make a determination regarding
applicability of Part 70 as well as determine applicability of all the Act’s requirements. In order
to make these determinations credibly and accurately, as the other permitting agencies have done
for similar permits, the agencies calculate the PTE for all criteria and HAPs from all emitting
sources at the facility and clearly disclose this information to the public. 72 ADEM’s SOB
provides no supporting information for its conclusions and does not reference any information in
the record. ADEM does not provide calculations, stack test data, CEMs data, laboratory data or
any methodology to support its statement. 73 ADEM merely asserts that emissions from the Plains
Marketing Mobile Terminal are either over or below the thresholds without explaining how it
reaches its conclusion. Summarily characterizing the Plain Marketing Terminal as follows:

• [C]onsidered a major source under Title V regulations because the potential

emissions for volatile organic compounds (VOC) exceed the 100 TPY major source
threshold 74

• [N]ot considered a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) because the
potential emissions of each individual HAP would not exceed 10 TPY 75

• [Not considered a major source of HAPs because] the potential emissions of

combined HAP would not exceed 25 TPY 76

• [Because] facility operations are one of the 28 listed major source categories (total
petroleum storage capacity exceeds 300,000 barrels) … the applicable major source
threshold of concern is 100 TPY for criteria pollutants 77

• [C]onsidered a major source under PSD regulations because the potential emissions
for VOC exceed the 100 TPY major source threshold. 78

A permitting authority must provide a rational basis to support its determinations of the
following: determinations regarding the “potential to emit” of “emission units” and “major
sources;” develop provisions to limit a source’s potential to emit using “federally enforceable
requirements;” and determine applicability of the rest of the applicable requirements. The legal
requirement to provide evidence and references to explain the basis for an agency’s decision is

72
See, e.g., Commonwealth of Virginia, Statement of Legal and Factual Basis, Plains Marketing L.P., Yorktown,
Permit No. TRO-60116 (Oct. 12, 2017) (copy enclosed); New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation Permit Review Report Permit ID: 4-0101-00112/00029 Renewal Number: 2 Modification Number: 4
11/06/2012, Global Companies LLC. - Albany Terminal (Nov, 6, 2012), available at
https://www.dec.ny.gov/dardata/boss/afs/permits/prr_401010011200029_r2_4.pdf. (copy enclosed)
73
While we disagree with use of the TANKS methodology, the Title V permit application for the Plains Marketing
terminal in Virginia at least included recent laboratory analysis and used what appears to be real data to extrapolate
emissions – rather than relying on averages of other facilities as the Alabama-based Plains Marketing has done; see,
Plains Marketing to VDEQ, Section 1, at pdf 2 (Feb. 2, 2020). (copy enclosed)
74
SOB at 2.
75
SOB at 2.
76
SOB at 2.
77
Id.; ALA. ADMIN. CODE r. 335-3-14-.04(2)(a).
78
Id. (emphasis added)

24
not a discretionary act that ADEM can ignore and exclude in its SOB analysis. ADEM has not
provided what data set it used, whether it agreed or disagreed with what the applicant submitted,
what methods were used to develop the data it relies on for its determinations and how the data
meets the regulatory requirements. At this point all the public has to review is the thresholds for
whether a source is (or is not) subject to the requirements. The commenters have no ADEM
information and reasoning to evaluate, just its five arbitrary and capricious conclusions as
bulleted above. 79

The public entrusts ADEM to use its independent review authority to review and verify
the emission calculations presented in a permit application. Here Plains Marketing provided
potential emission calculations in Appendix B of its application, along with the information
provided in ADEM’s permit forms (at Appendix C) for a total of more than 160 pages. Yet,
ADEM provides no Excel workbooks or other calculation spreadsheets to show that it reviewed
and verified the information provided by the applicant. Commenters found no memos to the file
where ADEM provides a basis for its cursory conclusions.

Furthermore, as ADEM is well aware, the Act requires that a permitting authority collect
adequate fees to implement the Title V program requirements. ADEM’s lack of independent
review of the emission calculations provided by the applicant demonstrates that not only is
ADEM’s proposal to renew the permit not in compliance with the regulations because it does not
provide a reasoned explanation for its proposed conclusions regarding PTE of the air
pollutants, 80, 81 but of considerable concern to the EJ community impacted by emissions from
this source, contrary to the Act’s requirements that fees from the sources cover the costs of
implementing the permitting program, Alabama apparently lacks the resources and time to do its
job.

79
Moreover, given the sources, emitting units and pollutants missing from the renewal permit materials, particularly
in comparison to the other marine terminal and tank permits, ADEM’s proposed determinations are flawed. While
ADEM is not necessarily required to follow the analytical approach that EPA uses to implement the Part 70
regulations, if it wants to employ a different approach to assess PTE and applicable requirements is must provide an
explanation of and/or analysis regarding its approach. Such a justification is needed to insure that ADEM provides a
reasoned analysis that comports with the applicable legal criteria. See, e.g, 2009 Cash Creek.
80
As discussed earlier, renewal permits are subject to the same requirements as the initial permit.
81
ALA. ADMIN. CODE r. 335-3-14-.04(2)(d) “Potential to Emit” shall mean the maximum capacity of a stationary
source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on the
capacity of the source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of
operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design
if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is enforceable. Secondary emissions (see Paragraph
16.4.2(r)) do not count in determining the potential to emit of a stationary source; see also ALA. ADMIN. CODE r.
335-3-14-.04(2)(p) "Allowable Emissions" shall mean the emissions rate of a stationary source calculated using the
maximum rated capacity of the source (unless the source is subject to enforceable limits which restrict the operating
rate, or hours of operation, or both) and the most stringent of the following: (1) The applicable standards as set forth
in 40 CFR 60, 61, and 63; (2) The applicable State Implementation Plan emissions limitation, including those with a
future compliance date; or (3) The emissions rate specified as an enforceable permit condition, including those with
a future compliance date; ALA. ADMIN. CODE r. 335-3-14-.04(2)( (q) "Enforceable" shall mean all limitations
and conditions which are enforceable, including those requirements developed pursuant to 40 CFR 60, 61, and 63,
requirements within the State Implementation Plan and any permit requirements established pursuant to Chapters 14,
15, or 16 of these regulations.

25
 J. The Public Cannot Read ADEM’s Mind Regarding What It Relies on to Assess
PTE

Perhaps ADEM relies on the summary of facility-wide potential emissions that Plains
Marketing included in its permit application, and appears below at Figure 8. If ADEM did rely
on the information presented in Figure 8, it must explain that to the public in its SOB so that the
public can find and review information found in the application or elsewhere. The public cannot
read ADEM’s mind on what information it relies on for its proposed determinations.

Figure 8. Plains Marketing Summary of Facility-Wide Potential Emissions. 82

K. ADEM Failed to Disclose the PTE of Criteria Pollutants and HAPs

It is alarming that ADEM did not disclose in the documents it made available to the
public impacted by this draft renewal permit that the Plains Marketing Mobile Terminal
operations have the potential to emit more than 400 tpy of VOCs. Indeed, the commenters
discovered this information buried in the permit application, which is only available if one
navigates ADEM’s complex eFile system. The impacted EJ community should not have to dig to
find this number, it should be clearly presented by ADEM. Commenters are left with the
impression that ADEM has intentionally hiding this value from the public. This is of serious
concern not only because of the amount of VOCs, but also because there are numerous other
facilities that also emit significant levels of air pollutants that impact the surrounding EJ
community and the public has a right to expect disclosure and transparency by the permitting
authority.

Furthermore, the permit application is not easily available to the public, ADEM’s public
notice does not include a link, nor does the SOB. In order to find the application, a member of
the public, here an EJ community, must search the eFile, figure out which file contains the
application, download the application and then read and review the application to find
information. While the application contains a Table of Contents, the electronic file ADEM
provides is not searchable, which provides yet another a hurdle to public accessibility review.
We encourage ADEM to include a link to the permit application and other referenced
documents. We have done this throughout these comments, which clearly demonstrates the ease

82
Permit Application at 3-4.

26
with which is can – and should – be done. Finally, ADEM should upload documents to its eFile
that are fully optimized for searching, it is erroneous for it to assume that the public has access to
expensive software and has the time to optimize each electronic file so that it can be searched. 83

L. ADEM’s Statement of Basis and Draft Permit Fail to Include Alternative

Operating Scenarios

A Title V permit can be written to pre-approve an alternative operating scenario that may
occur at the facility in the Title V operating permit. The draft permit allows the Mobile Marine
Terminal to move different types of petroleum and/or use different processes and emitting units
to move the products, and the permit allows that crude oil and ethanol may flow into the terminal
or from the terminal. As recognized by other permitting agencies that issue Title V permits to
similar marine terminals and tanks, under these circumstances it is necessary to include pre-
approved alternative operating scenario permit terms as provided by 40 CFR § 70.6(a)(9). 84
Different petroleum products stored and moved through different parts of the facility will emit
different amounts of criteria pollutants and HAPs, thus the need to consider and provide permit
terms for the various ways in which the terminal operates. ADEM failed to consider these
variables. 85 The permit application and SOB lack information about the Mobile Terminal
operations, and thus the public cannot provide detailed comments on this issue.

Additionally, while there is nothing in the application (or cited to by ADEM) that
indicates Plains Marketing requested authority to use the tanks to store and transfer gasoline.
Nevertheless, the draft renewal permit allows for storage of gasoline. 86 These provisos must be
removed from the draft permit. Plains Marketing’s application clearly stated that the Mobile
Terminal capability does not include gasoline from ships, barges, trucks or pipelines. 87

ADEM must request the same type of information submitted by other marine and land
operated terminal owners and develop operating scenarios-with associated permit terms for
emission controls, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting-that are then included in the Title V
permit, that represent the different operating scenarios and renotice the permit so that the public
has an opportunity to review and provide comments.

M. The Permit Must Identify and Include Provisos for VOC Emissions from Paint

Owners and operators periodically paint and apply sealants and coatings to the interior
and exterior of the storage tanks and other equipment at the facility. ADEM’s SOB and permit

83
Moreover, but not providing optimized access to its files, ADEM is restricting access to those that need
accommodations to access, review and understand the contents.
84
See, e.g., Title V Operating Permit Registration No. 60116, issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia to Plains
Marketing L.P., Yorktown bulk petroleum liquids storage and distribution terminal (Oct. 12, 2017); Commonwealth
of Virginia, Statement of Legal and Factual Basis, Plains Marketing L.P., Yorktown, Permit No. TRO-60116 (Oct.
12, 2017). Furthermore, the permit application submitted by Plains Marketing to the Commonwealth includes the
various alternative operating scenarios under which the company anticipates it will operate.
85
The applicant did not include any alternative operating scenarios in the Title V Application or request any specific
operational flexibility conditions.
86
Draft Permit at 12-13. (Tank 1106, Provisos 2.(b); 4.(b), (c), (d); 5.(b), (c))
87
Permit Application at 6, 9, 11, 12, 16,

27
fail to take emissions from this activities into account. These materials are known to contain
VOC and HAP emissions, which when used, are emitted into the ambient air and impact the
surrounding EJ community. ADEM must obtain this missing information from the applicant,
review and verify its accuracy, include its analysis and proposed permit provisos when it
renotices this permit. Such additions are necessary because paints are known to contain VOCs,
and as proposed the draft renewal permit does not contain adequate provisions for the source to
escape major source status. Furthermore, in the event ADEM were to renotice a permit that did
contain practically enforceable provisos limiting the PTE of VOCs, the permit would need to
include all sources that emit VOCs, including the painting activities.

ADEM can look to a permit recently issued that includes monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for paint activities at a facility that includes large storage tanks. 88
Highlights of these provisions include that the Permittee shall:

• Record operating data related to painting including but not limited to container size,
number of containers, paint or thinner type, and VOC content, on a monthly basis.

• Monitor which includes:

• Provide a paint specification sheet from the vendor for validating the content of the
VOC that is contained in or created by all materials used in or at the unit;
• Assume that the unit emits all of the VOC that is contained in or created by any raw
material used in or at the unit, if it cannot otherwise be accounted for in the process;
and
• Where the vendor of a material, which is used in or at the unit, publishes a range of
pollutant content from such material, the owner or operator must use the highest
value of the range to calculate the VOC emissions unless the EPA determines there is
site-specific data or a site-specific monitoring program to support another content
within the range.

• Calculate the VOC emissions from painting performed at the source monthly by
summing the amount of VOC contained within the paints and thinners that are consumed.
In lieu of using consumed paint, the Permittee may use the total amount of paint and/or
thinner containers issued by the warehouse and all other paint and/or thinner distribution
locations at the source to calculate VOC emissions from painting performed
at the source assuming all emissions occur upon a container’s issuance in that month.

III. Plains Marketing’s Permit Application Is Deficient

A. Plains Marketing’s Permit Application Failed to Include the Title I Permits

In an application for a Title V operating permit, a responsible official must certify to the
truth, accuracy, and completeness of all information referenced, 40 C.F.R. § 70.5(d), must
identify all requirements that apply to the facility, 40 C.F.R. § 70.5(c)(4), and must certify that
the source is in compliance with all applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act. 40 C.F.R. §

88
EPA Limetree Permit at 32-22.

28
70.5(c)(9). 89 The applicant also has an ongoing duty to correct information in the application
and to supplement its application in light of requirements that become applicable. 40 C.F.R. §
70.5(b). Under 40 C.F.R. § 70.5(c), a permit application may not omit information “needed to
determine the applicability of, or to impose, any applicable requirement.”

Contrary to the Title V requirements, the application submitted by Plains Marketing did
not identify any “term or condition of any preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations
approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I, including parts C or D, of the Act.” 90
The permit applicant is required to identify the terms and conditions in its SIP permits because
they are applicable requirements that apply to emissions units in a part 70 source. 91

Plains Marketing neither included the Title I permit information in its application, nor did
ADEM’s review of the application identify that this information was missing. Plains Marketing’s
permit application was deficient. 92 In contrast, Plains Marketing’s Title V application submitted
to the Commonwealth of Virginia included a list of the historical Title I permits that had been
issued to the Yorktown Terminal. 93 Furthermore, correspondence between Plains Marketing and
the Commonwealth for its Virginia-based terminal demonstrate that the Plains Marketing
appreciates the necessity for submitting a complete application and asked the Commonwealth to
determine that its application was complete. 94 There is no such correspondence in ADEM’s
Administrative Record.

B. Plains Marketing’s Emission Estimates Are Not Thorough, Used Methods No

Longer Recommended by EPA and are Not Reliable

The analysis presented in Plains Marketing's application does not satisfy its obligation to
provide the amount of criteria pollutants and HAPs that would be emitted from the facility and
the applicable emissions limitations. Plains Marketing wants ADEM and the impacted
community to believe that its emissions will be will be below “major source” levels. However,
there are many factors that suggest that Plains Marketing has seriously underestimated
emissions.

1. Plains Marketing Used Unauthorized and Improper Methodology to Estimate

Tank Emissions

Plains Marketing used the unauthorized EPA TANKS 4.09d method to estimate
emissions from the 17 storage tanks, 95 which it summarized as seen in Figure 9.

89
57 Fed. Reg. 32250, 32274 (July 21, 1992).
90
40 C.F.R. §70.5(a)(1)(ii).
91
40 C.F.R. § 70.2.
92
See In re Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Petition No. V-2006-3, Order on Petition (Nov. 5, 2007); In re WE
Energies Oak Creek Power Plant, Order on Petition (June 12, 2009); In re Alliant Energy -WPL Edgewater
Generating Station, Petition No. V-2009-02, Order on Petition (Aug. 17, 2010); In the Matter of Cash Creek
Generation, LLC Henderson County, Petition No. IV-2010-4 (June 18, 2012).
93
Plains Marketing Title V Operating Permit Renewal Application submitted to the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VDEQ) for Registration No. 60116 (May 5, 2016) (copy enclosed).
94
Email from Plains Marketing to VDEQ (March 26, 2020) (copy enclosed).
95
Permit Application at 3-2.

29
Figure 9. Tank Sources Potential Emission Summary from Permit Application Using
TANK Program. 96

EPA’s website for the Tanks software is crystal clear in its statements that the software is
no longer supported by the agency. EPA’s statement, provided in bold red font explains that:

***The TANKS model was developed using a software that is now outdated. Because
of this, the model is not reliably functional on computers using certain operating
systems such as Windows Vista or Windows 7. We are anticipating that additional
problems will arise as PCs switch to the other operating systems. Therefore, we can no
longer provide assistance to users of TANKs 4.09d. The model will remain on the
website to be used at your discretion and at your own risk. We will continue to
recommend the use of the equations/algorithms specified in AP-42 Chapter 7 for
estimating VOC emissions from storage tanks. The equations specified in AP-42
Chapter 7 (https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch07/index.html) can be employed with
many current spreadsheet/software programs. 97

The TANKS model relies on software that is outdated and it does not reliably function on
operating systems. EPA no longer provides assistance to those that use the software and even
cautions that the current models available online of TANKS should be used at one’s discretion
and risk. Instead, EPA recommends the use of the methods specified in AP-42. The TANKS
software is known to have many errors, which include over and under estimations and lack of
optional features to tailor results to the tanks.

96
Id.
97
EPA Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emission Factors, Software and Tolls, TANKS Emissions Estimation
Software, TANKS Emissions Estimation Software, Version 4.09D, available at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/software/tanks/. (copy enclosed)

30
 It was unreasonable for the permit applicant to use a model to calculate PTE when the
model does not function reliably and produces emission outputs that EPA no longer
recommends. The emissions that TANKS produced are not credible. The permit applicant must
either collect actual emission data or explain why the equations/algorithms specified in AP-42
Chapter 7 for estimating VOC emissions from storage tanks can be used at the Plains Marketing
facility. Furthermore, the TANKS model assumed the floating cover was always floating and
therefore does not calculate loses during roof landings. 98 Because PTE and permit conditions
must account for all emissions, 99 including roof landings that occur, use of the TANKS model
omits emissions.

2. Plains Marketing’s Emissions Estimates from the Storage Tanks Failed to

Account for Emissions During Tank Cleaning

Plains Marketing’s tank emissions are also inaccurate because they failed to include tank
cleaning emissions. Large tanks containing crude oil form oil sludge sediments that form at the
bottom of the tank and reduce storage capacity and cause clogging. Owners and operators of the
tanks periodically clean, inspect and repair the tanks. The application materials do not describe
the permit applicant’s method(s) for removing the tank bottoms. For example are the sediments:

(1) Removed via mechanical or other means and disposed of;

(2) Transferred to another tank or location, and then the oil reclaimed and oil sold; or
(3) Processed in some other way to empty the tanks.

Furthermore, emissions from activities performed during tank cleaning and repair must
also be accounted for in the application and permit. For example, are chemicals used to clean the
tanks that result in emissions from air pollutants, and are paints and coatings applied to the
interior and exterior of the tanks and other equipment at the facility. The 2019 Emissions Report

98
See also, discussion of additional shortcomings with TANKS 4.09d, which include: “(1) Bulk temperature
calculations: – While calculating bulk temperature of non-heated tanks, the average annual ambient temperature of
tank location was used in the software. This technical breakdown might sound reasonable in words; however, the
underlying problem became apparent through calculation of monthly emissions. Variations of months and
temperatures resulted in underestimation or overestimation. This calculation also affects the surface temperature
calculation as it is derived from tanks bulk temperature; (2) The interpolation method pinned down 100F as the cut
off maximum temperature according to which vapor pressure of heated tanks was calculated. This is more than often
inaccurate because in a majority of cases the temperature in heated tanks exceeds 100F. Subsequently, inaccurate
emissions results were generated because temperatures above 100F were not considered; (3) With heated tanks,
Tanks 4.09d assumes full tank insulation which means that standing loss is always zero where in fact the tank roof
might not be fully insulated; as a result, you will not be counting for standing loss in those cases; (4) There was no
feature or option in Tanks 4.09d to flag whether stock used in floating roof tanks was heated or not. Once again, this
led to misleading emission results for floating tanks,” available at http://www.dreemsolutions.com/index.php/epa-
tanks-4-09d-shortcomings-and-alternatives/.
99
See, e.g., Memorandum from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator for Air And Radiation, to the
Regional Administrators, entitled "Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Scheduled
Maintenance, and Malfunctions" (February 15, 1983); Memorandum from John B. Rasnic, Director, Stationary
Source Compliance Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Linda M. Murphy,
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. EPA Region I (Jan. 28, 1993). These memos are
available at http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/nsr/nsrpg.htm; see also, In the Matter of Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Petition
No. V-2011-02, (Sept. 21, 2011), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/murphy_response2011.pdf.

31
submitted by Plains Marketing to ADEM, which apparently was used for assessing annual fees,
includes notations that show these cleaning and maintenance activities. For example,

• The 411,708 gallon tank that stores diesel fuel, a note indicates that “Tank 1114 was
clean and empty during 2019.” 100
• T-1114, for all 12 months of 2019, 12 separate notes indicate “CLEAN & MT.” 101

It is unclear whether tank 1114 was cleaned prior to or during 2019, regardless, emissions
from cleaning and maintenance activities at the tanks must be accounted for, included in
supplemental application materials, evaluated by ADEM and included in the renoticing of the
SOB and renewal permit for the public’s review. 102

3. Plains Marketing Used Faulty Methodology to Calculate HAP Emissions from

the Truck and Marine Loading Operations

Plains Marketing’s permit application explains that the HAP emissions from the truck
loading rack and marine loading docks were “calculated using were calculated using speciation
profiles for crude oil and diesel fuel from the TANKS program.” 103 It is unreasonable for Plains
Marketing to use speciation profiles from the TANKS program. As discussed above, the TANKS
program is no longer reliable. Furthermore, given the unique characteristics of HAP and VOC
emissions from crude oil and diesel fuel, ADEM must require that the facility conduct testing to
accurately characterize emissions from the crude and diesel fuel that is loaded at the truck rack
and marine docks. New York State recently required the Albany Terminal to provide justification
for the emission factor used to represent the crude oil that moves through that terminal, including
the “vapor pressure curve, lab test results and any other relevant information.” 104 The EJ
community should not be exposed to uncontrolled and unknown quantities of pollutants because
the permit applicant estimated emissions based on samples taken from crude oil at other
facilities. ADEM must require that Plains Marketing submit supplemental materials that
accurately characterize emissions from the actual products that move through the facility.

Additionally, the permit applicant’s representation that TANKS used a large number of
samples of crude oil to develop the crude oil profile and that it is “representative” of crude oil at
Plains Marketing is flawed. A large number of samples that are averaged together is simply an
average of lots of data. The crude oil that Plains Marketing stores in its tanks and moves through
the truck and docks may contain and emit HAPs that are greater than or less than the overall
average. The permit application must include accurate HAP speciation data so that the public can
assess whether the applicant’s and ADEM’s proposals are accurate and reliable.

100
Plains Marketing 2019 Emission Report at 4.
101
Id. at 25.
102
See, e.g., EPA Limetree Permit at 36
103
Permit Application at 3-3.
104
Global Industries Supplemental Application at 13.

32
 Plains Marketing further explains that the single greatest HAP emitted at the facility is
xylenes, at 6.19 tpy. 105 This is of significant concern to the commenters because public health
information for Xylenes reveals that they are: 106

[R]apidly absorbed by your lungs after you breathe air containing it. The amount of
xylene retained ranges from 50 to 75% of the amount of xylene that you inhale. Physical
exercise increases the amount of xylene absorbed by the lungs. 107 Short-term exposure of
people to high levels of xylene can cause irritation of the skin, eyes, nose, and throat;
difficulty in breathing; impaired function of the lungs; delayed response to a visual
stimulus; impaired memory; stomach discomfort; and possible changes in the liver and
kidneys. Both short- and long-term exposure to high concentrations of xylene can also
cause a number of effects on the nervous system, such as headaches, lack of muscle
coordination, dizziness, confusion, and changes in one’s sense of balance. Some people
exposed to very high levels of xylene for a short period of time have died. 108

As discussed in the previous Section, it was unreasonable for the permit applicant to use a
faulty and unreliable software package and ADEM must require that Plains Marketing
recalculate the emissions using reliable methods approved by EPA for use and supplement the
permit application. 109 ADEM must then redo its analysis and renotice the permit so that the
public has an opportunity to review and comment on PTE HAP emission information that is
accurate and reliable.

4. Plains Marketing Failed to Include All Fugitive Emissions

As ADEM’s SOB explains, “[t]his facility is located in an attainment area for all criteria
pollutants and the facility operations are one of the 28 listed [PSD] major source categories (total
petroleum storage capacity exceeds 300,000 barrels); therefore, the applicable major source
threshold of concern is 100 TPY for criteria pollutants.” 110 For PSD applicability purposes, the
facility is required to include fugitive emissions in determining whether the stationary source is a
major stationary source. 111 The Title V program also requires that fugitive emissions are
included in the application and permit in the same manner as stack emissions, regardless of
whether the source is one of the 28 listed PSD sources. 112

As discussed in GASP’s October 2020 comments, the draft renewal permit provisos for
fugitive dust are inadequate. Furthermore, the renewal permit is devoid of provisos for fugitive

105
Permit Application at 14.
106
The health effects of total xylenes is described in the Public Health Statement – Xylene-CAS#: 1330-20-7 (Aug.,
2007), issued by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, available at
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp71-c1-b.pdf. (“ATSDR”) (copy enclosed)
107
ATSDR at 3.
108
ATSDR at 4.
109
This is another basis that shows that ADEM’s determination that the permit application was complete was
erroneous. ADEM should not determine an application is complete if it provides emission data using inaccurate and
faulty methodology.
110
SOB at 2.
111
40 CFR § 51.166(b)(1)(i)(c)(iii).
112
40 C.F.R. § 70.3(d).

33
VOC and HAP emissions. With the permit lacking provisions for VOC and HAP emission,
commenters note that ADEM’s SOB also fails to even mention fugitive emissions in any context.
Although Plains Marketing’s renewal application mentions and provides fugitive emission
estimates, the estimates are not credible.

Plains Marketing’s fugitive emission estimates for VOC and HAPs of 1.01 tpy and 0.04
tpy, respectfully, are not credible for the following reasons. First, rather than obtain data based
on its own operations, it uses standard emission factors. It asserts that the standard emission
factors used are representative of the Mobile Terminal, but provides no basis for its assertion that
a generic emission factor is representative of its operations. Its suggestion that the emission
factors it used were for “light liquid service” is further unsupported as it failed to explain why all
valves, pumps, and pressure relief valves are covered by that particular service category. 113

Plains Marketing’s fugitive emission inventory does not cover all fugitive sources of
emissions. As it explains its fugitive emission inventory “consist[s] of emissions that are due to
leaks associated with pumps, flanges, connectors, and other similar equipment.” 114 The coverage
for the terminal and tanks located in Mobile, Alabama is significantly less than the terminal and
tanks that Plains Marketing also owns and operates in Yorktown, Virginia. For its Virginia-based
terminal and tanks, Plains Marketing’s criteria pollutant actual emission inventory for the most
recently issued Title V permit appears below in Figure 10, which the Commonwealth included in
its SOB.

113
U.S. EPA, Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA-453/R-95-017, at 2-7 (Nov. 1995), available
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-
09/documents/protocol_for_equipment_leak_emission_estimates.pdf. (EPA’s protocol defines the three service
categories at Gas/vapor - material in a gaseous state at operating conditions; Light liquid - material in a liquid state
in which the sum of the concentration of individual constituents with a vapor pressure over 0.3 kilopascals (kPa) at
20 oC is greater than or equal to 20 weight percent; and Heavy liquid - not in gas/vapor service or light liquid
service.)
114
Permit Application at 13.

34
Figure 10. Plains Marketing Yorktown, Virginia Terminal and Tank Facility, Title V
Statement of Basis.

A comparison of the types of fugitive emissions included for the two terminal and tank
facilities differs, with the Yorktown facility’s list being more categories in its list.115 Finally,
appreciating that the Yorktown facility is larger and perhaps has a greater throughput, we
nevertheless point out the following:

• The Mobile facility represents that its potential emissions from fugitives are estimated
to be 1.01 tpy of VOC and 0.04 tpy of HAP.

• The Yorktown facility reported that its 2015 actual emissions from fugitives were
511.38 tpy for VOCs.

Finally, Global Industries’ supplemental application to New York explains that it is

“proposing to install a vacuum enhanced control system at its loading rack to ensure negative
pressure loading.” A change that it explains “will significantly reduce, if not eliminate,
fugitive emissions from rail loading.” 116 Further, its marine loading operations will similarly be
under a vac assist system, and therefore there will be no fugitive emissions. 117

5. Plains Marketing Erroneously Excluded Secondary Emission Sources

Plains Marketing omits of an entire category of emitting units: those that are responsible
for “secondary emissions.” Secondary emissions are defined as

[E]missions which would occur as a result of the construction or operation of a major

stationary source or major modification, but do not come from the major stationary

115
Additionally, New York’s analysis for the Albany Terminal includes yet additional sources of fugitives, for
example associated piping at the truck rack) and fugitive emissions from the truck rack. (2012 Permit Review
Report at 3)
116
Global Industries Supplemental Application at 9.
117
Id. at 13.

35
 source or major modification itself. For the purpose of this rule, secondary emissions
must be specific, well defined, quantifiable, and impact the same general area as the
stationary source or modification which causes the secondary emissions. Secondary
emissions may include, but are not limited to:

1. Emissions from ships or trains coming to or from the new or modified

stationary source; and

2. Emissions from any off-site support facility which would not otherwise be
constructed or increase its emissions as a result of the construction or
operation of the major stationary source or major modification. 118

The secondary emissions from the operation of ships and barges that load and unload at
the marine terminal, the emissions from the tank trucks that load and unload at the truck rack,
and emissions from the pipeline operations that are part of the source, must all be included in the
PTE of the source. 119

6. The Permit Application Does Not Include an Accurate Assessment and All
Pollutants from the Marine Tank Vessels and Trucks

The permit application and the SOB do not account for air pollutants that are displaced
from the holds of the marine tank vessels during the loading of crude oil. Loading crude oil onto
a marine vessel causes air in the vessel's tanks to be displaced. The displaced air contains VOC,
particulate and HAP vapors, that must be accounted for – and controlled - before the
displaced air is released into the atmosphere. These emissions from the tank vessels, as well as
tank trucks, will vary depending on what was in the marine tank vessels were carrying prior to
arrival at the Mobile Marine Terminal. As EPA’s emission methodology explains, emissions
from a clean cargo tank truck differs from one that is in service. 120 Similarly, emissions from
loading crude oil into different types of ships and barges depends on the condition of the tank:
uncleaned; ballasted; or cleaned; 121 and also take into consideration whether the condition of the
compartment before cargo discharge: fully loaded or lightered or previously short loaded. 122
Emission factors used by Plain Marketing must be specified to the facility and representative of

118
ALA. ADMIN. CODE r. 335-3-14-.04 (2)(r).
119
Emission estimates should be based on the number and type of marine vessels and trucks, which, without
restrictions could idle for periods of time at the marine and truck locations. Furthermore, because the draft renewal
permit lacks enforceable conditions restricting the public’s access to the ambient air at the marine loading and
unloading terminal, the emissions from the operation of the vessels must be taken into account. Alternatively,
ADEM could renotice the permit and include terms and conditions to ensure that Plains Marketing takes steps,
which are enforceable via the permit terms, to preclude public access from these areas. If ADEM elects this
approach, a plan could also be developed, that would be part of a renoticed renewal permit. Without such
enforceable requirements it is unreasonable for ADEM to exclude these emissions, which the public could be
impacted from. In the Matter of Hibbing Taconite Company, 2 E.A.D. 838 (EAB 1989).
120
U.S. EPA, AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 5: Petroleum Industry, Chapter 5.2 Transportation and
Marketing of Petroleum Liquids, Final Section at 5.2-5 (July 2008), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-
09/documents/5.2_transportation_and_marketing_of_petroleum_liquids.pdf
121
Id. at 5.2-9.
122
Id. at 5.2-10.

36
operations – or operating scenarios - to ensure accuracy and integrity in emission estimates as
well as compliance determinations. This information was not taken into account in estimating
emissions. 123 Additionally, neither the permit application nor ADEM’s proposed action identify
and quantify the particulate emissions from the ship holds as a category of emissions from the
marine terminal loading, which must also be assessed and included in the PTE calculations.

7. It Seems Highly Unlikely That Fugitive VOC and HAP Emissions from The
Terminal Were Exactly the Same for Every Month of 2019

The 2019 Plains Market LP – Mobile Terminal Air Emissions Report provides plant-wide
total emissions as well as breakdown of emissions across the source. For fugitives for HAPs and
VOCs, the Company reports that total emissions were exactly the same for each of the 12
months, see Figure 10, below. Because emissions from the tanks and marine dock varied over the
year, it seems highly unlikely that fugitive emissions would be identical for HAPs and VOC for
each of the 12 months, out to the fourth decimal place.

Figure 10. Facility-Wide Monthly Total Emissions. 124

123
Furthermore, the public lacks information regarding these details, which are necessary to calculate displaced
emissions, and they must be provided when ADEM renotices the permit so that the public can review, assess and
offer meaningful comments.
124
Plains Marketing 2019 Emission Report at 37.

37
IV. ADEM’s Draft Permit Does Not Comply with the Synthetic Minor Operating
Permit Requirements

A. The Draft Title V Permit Lacks the Terms Required by ADEM’s SIP for
Practical Enforceability.

ADEM’s rule requires that the permit conditions

[S]hall be permanent, quantifiable and otherwise enforceable as a practical matter.

Synthetic Minor Operating Permits which do not conform to the provision in this Chapter
and the requirements of EPA's underlying regulations may be deemed not "federally
enforceable" by EPA. 125

In order to determine whether the proposed terms and conditions that are included in the
draft Title V permit is “enforceable as a practical matter” to limit PTE and exempt the source
from PSD review, we apply the definition of PTE. The definition of PTE states that:

Any physical or operation limitation’ on the ability of a source to emit a pollutant shall be
considered in calculating the potential to emit if the limitation is federally enforceable. 126

“In describing what is meant by “physical or operational limitation,” the regulation

specifically refers to (1) air pollution control equipment, (2) restrictions on hours of operation,
and (3) restrictions on the amount of material combusted, stored, or processed. ... The definition
at no point suggests that the term “physical or operational limitation” extends to restrictions on
actual emissions.” 127

As EPA has explained

Importantly, only limits that meet certain enforceability criteria may be used to restrict a
facility's PTE. and the permit must include sufficient terms and conditions such that the
source cannot lawfully exceed the limit. See, e.g., Cash Creek Order at 15 (explaining
that an “emission limit can be relied upon to restrict a source's PTE only if it is legally
and practicably enforceable”); In the Matter of Orange Recycling and Ethanol
Production Facility. Pencor- Masada Oxynol, LLC, Petition No. 11-2001-05 (April 8.
2002) at 4-7 (2002 Pencor- Masada Order). One of the key concepts in evaluating the
enforceability of PTE limits is whether the limit is enforceable as a practical matter. See,
e.g., 2002 Pencor-Masada Order at 4- 7 (emphasizing the importance of practical
enforceability in the permit terms and conditions that limit PTE). Moreover, the concept

125
ALA. ADMIN. CODE r. 335-3-15-.04(1)(h).
126
40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(4), ALA. ADMIN. CODE r. 335-3-14-.04 (2)(d).
127
U.S. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 682 F.Supp. 1122, 1132 (1987), accord Cascade Kelly Holdings at 1105. After
the Court’s decision, and in subsequent years, EPA issued numerous that provided guidance, explanations, and
examples for federal, state and local air permitting agencies, all of which echoed the Louisiana-Pacific Court’s
decision. Enclosures include EPA’s statements.

38
 of “federal enforceability” has also been interpreted to encompass a requirement for
practical enforceability. 128

The proposed permit provisos for the Truck Loading Operations, which ADEM
represents are what is used to allow the source to escape major source status. The six provisos
are below.

Figure 11. Emission Unit No. 018 (Volatile Organic Materials Truck Loading Operations)
Unit Specific Provisos. 129

Proviso Authority Cited

Product Throughput Limitation: 2,284,170 gallons of crude oil during ADEM Admin. Code r.
any consecutive 12-month period. 335-3-14-.04 (SMS)
1. Applicability ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-
(a) The truck loading operation is subject to the applicable 3-16-.03
requirements of ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-16-.03, “Major Source
Operating Permits.” ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-
(b) This truck loading operation is subject to the applicable 3-6-.03 and ADEM Admin.
requirements of ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-6-.03 “Loading and Code r. 335-3-6-.09
Storage of VOC” and ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-6-.09, “Pumps and
Compressors.” ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-
(c) This truck loading operation is subject to a synthetic minor 3-14-.04
source emission limit to restrict its potential to emit below the
applicability threshold established at ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-14-
.04, Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Areas [Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)].
2. Emission Standards ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-
(a) All pumps employed in the handling of volatile organic 3-6-.09
compounds shall retain mechanical seals. ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-
(b) The permittee shall achieve 95% submerged fill while loading 3-6-.03
all products with a true vapor pressure ≥1.5 psia. This shall be achieved ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-
either with a submerged fill pipe or equivalent method. 3-14-.04
(c) The permittee shall not load more than 2,284,170 gallons of
crude oil at this truck loading operation during any consecutive 12-
month period.
3. Compliance and Performance Test Methods and Procedures N/A
There are no unit specific compliance or performance test methods or
procedures applicable to the truck loading operations.
4. Emission Monitoring
Within 15 days of the end of each calendar month, the permittee shall
calculate the crude oil throughput for the truck loading operation for the
previous calendar month and previous consecutive 12-month period and
shall determine compliance with the throughput limitation for the
previous consecutive 12-month period.

128
In the Matter Yuhuang Chemical Inc., Petition No. VI-2015-03, at 14 (Aug. 31, 2016), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/yuhuang_response2015_0.pdf. (“2016 Yuhuang
Chemical”)
129
Draft Renewal Permit at 23-25.

39
 5. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-
(a) The permittee shall maintain records of the crude oil 3-16-.05(c)
throughput on a monthly and 12-month rolling total basis. These
records shall be in a permanent form suitable for inspection and shall be
retained for a period of five years from the date of generation of each
record.
(b) The permittee shall submit a Semiannual Monitoring Report, as ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-
required by General Permit Proviso No. 21(a), no later than 60 days 3-16-.05(c)
after the end of each quarterly reporting period (January 1st – June 30th
and July 1st – December 31th). As part of this report, the permittee
shall:
(i) Submit a certification that all pumps employed in the handling
of volatile organic compounds retained mechanical seals.
(ii) Submit a certification that 95% submerged fill was achieved
while loading all products with a true vapor pressure ≥ 1.5 psia.
(iii) Submit a summary of the crude oil throughput for the truck
loading operation to include the monthly and
12- month rolling totals.

The draft renewal permit contains a product throughput limitation for the truck loading
operations of 2,284,170 gallons of crude oil during any consecutive 12-month period. In order
for the gallon emission limit to be enforceable as a practical matter, the permit must clearly
specify how emissions will be measured or determined for purposes of demonstrating
compliance with the limit. 130 The permit does not describe how the gallons loaded by the
operations either into or out of the trucks are monitored and measured. The permit merely
indicates that “the permittee shall calculate the crude oil throughput.” The permit does not
explain what methods, metering systems or other devices the permittee is required to use. There
are no requirements for the facility to install, maintain and use metering systems to track and
monitor the number of gallons of crude oil. Thus, the permit fails to include monitoring
provisions that are clear and specific. 131 Next, we look at the recordkeeping requirements. The
permit does require that the permittee maintain records, however, the permit does not specify the
method used to monitor the gallons. Therefore, maintaining records of whatever method the
permittee decides to use, does not meet the requirement for practical enforceability. Finally,
commenters note that the permit requires that only a “summary of the crude oil throughput for
the truck loading operation to include the monthly and 12-month rolling totals” be submitted to
ADEM twice a year. The permit fails to provide adequate specificity regarding what information
is required. The permit unclear what must be included in a summary. Thus, the summary of the
crude oil throughput will not include clear and specific information about what is monitored for
the public to review. The result is that there is no information on throughput that will “enable
regulators and citizens to determine whether the limit has been exceeded and-if so-to take
appropriate enforcement action.” 132

130
See, e.g., In the Matter of Hu Honua Bioenergy Facility, Petition No. IX-2011-1, at 10 (Feb. 7, 2014), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/hu_honua_decision2011.pdf.
131
Nucor at 46.
132
2002 Pencor-Masada Order at 7.

40
 Further, to effectively restrict a facility's PTE under the relevant major stationary source
threshold, a permit's emission limits must apply at all times to all actual emissions, and
all actual emissions must be considered in determining compliance with the respective
limits. 133 The throughput limitation only appears in draft renewal permit for one of the emission
units - the truck loading operations. VOCs are also emitted from the marine terminal loading
operations, the tanks, fugitive sources, and as discussed earlier in these comments, the other
sources that need to be included in the permit. Because the draft renewal permit does not apply a
throughput limitation to all actual emissions, the permit is in inadequate to restrict the facility’s
PTE under the major source threshold of 100 tpy VOCs.

Examples of operating scenarios that demonstrate the one permit proviso is inadequate to
allow the source to escape major source permitting include:

• Product is unloaded via marine vessels, stored in the tanks, and then reloaded into
marine vessels.

• Product is unloaded via marine vessels, stored in the tanks, and leaves the facility via
pipelines.

• Product enters at the facility via pipelines, stored in tanks, and leaves the facility via
the marine terminal operations.

The permit allows for multiple ways for product to flow into and out of the facility
without ever passing through the truck loading facility. Therefore, the draft permit’s proviso that
only covers the truck loading operations does not cover all actual emissions from the facility and
does not effectively restrict PTE of VOCs.

Additionally, the emission limitation must apply at all times, and for this draft renewal
permit is does not. The annual emissions report form used by Plains Marketing for reporting
VOCs from the 17 tanks from “floating roof landing losses” shows that the Company only
reports landings for “product change outs.” The form explains that “maintenance related
activities are not included” and further that “[l]anding losses related to maintenance or upsets
are not counted against permit limit.” 134 See Figure 12, below.

133
See, e.g., Hu Honua Order at 10-11; 2009 Cash Creek at 15; In re Kentucky Syngas Order, Petition No. IV-2010-
9 at 29-30(June 22, 2012), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
08/documents/kentuckysyngas_response2010.pdf
134
2019 Annual Emission Report at pdf 27.

41
Figure 12. Excerpt from 2019 Air Emissions Report for Plains Marketing LP – Mobile
Terminal.

ADEM’s permit must not exempt VOC emissions for certain activities – roof landings for
maintenance or upsets - for purposes of demonstrating whether the facility’s actual emissions are
in compliance with a synthetic minor limit.

B. The Plains Marketing Terminal Will Be a Major Source of VOCs

ADEM’s SOB suggests that a 2005 permitting action successfully limits throughput at
one emission point so that the facility avoids the 100 tpy VOC threshold. As discussed above,
ADEM’s SOB explains that it is the emission limits on truck loading that allow the facility to
escape major source permitting. The SOB fails to quantify how the permit provisions that apply
to the truck loading operations reduce and cap VOC emissions at a level less than 100 tpy.
Comments are provided no calculations and methodology to review, verify and offer comments
Therefore, the public has been denied the opportunity to meaningfully ****not been provided
with the calculations and methods ADEM relies on for its proposed determination that the draft
permit proviso limiting throughput at the truck loading operation to a gallon per year number
meets the requirements for practical enforceability.

Plains Marketing estimates emissions from the truck loading operations are 131.61 tpy VOCs. 135
The public has no way to know if ADEM assumes that the draft Title V permit proviso limits
VOCs from truck loading to 90 tpy, 80 tpy, or some other amount. Furthermore, the facility’s
PTE for VOCs includes other emission units (e.g., tanks 61.02 tpy, marine loading 239.27 tpy,
engines 4.61 tpy, and fugitives 1.01 tpy). Therefore, even if the draft renewal permit proviso for
truck loading were practically enforceable, which it is not, limiting emissions from that operation
alone would not be adequate because of the PTE for the other emission units. The renewal permit

135
Permit Application at 3-4. Commenters disagree that this is a credible number and here and throughout, we
provide information from the permit application for purposes of discussion.

42
does not contain practically enforceable provisos for the other equipment with VOC emissions
that limit emissions.

Conclusion

The ADEM must either deny the request from Plains Marketing to renew the Title V
permit, or in accordance with its regulations: (1) request and obtain the missing information
identified in our comments from the permit applicant; (2) revise the draft permit and supporting
analysis; and (3) provide for another round of public notice, comment and public hearing.

Sincerely,

Sara L. Laumann
Principal
Laumann Legal, LLC.
3800 Buchtel Blvd. S., #100236
Denver, CO 80210
sara@laumannlegal.com
(303) 619-4373
Counsel for GASP, Inc.

Michael Hansen
Executive Director
GASP, Inc.
2320 Highland Ave. S., Suite 270
Birmingham, AL 35205
(205)701-4270
michael@gaspgroup.org

s/Ramsey Sprague
President
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
Mobile Alabama NAACP Unit #5044 Environmental and Climate Justice Committee

s/Carol Adams-Davis
Vice Chair
Sierra Club Mobile Bay Group

Enclosures

43
 Enclosures

Comments submitted by GASP, Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition (“MEJAC”),

Clean Healthy Educated Safe Sustainable Africatown (“CHESS”) and the Deep South Center for
Environmental Justice to Ronald W. Gore, Chief, ADEM-Air Division regarding the Draft
Renewal Permit No. 503-3013, for the Plains Marketing, L.P.-Mobile Terminal at Magazine
Point (Oct. 30, 2020) (File name: Gasp et al Comment on Plains Marketing 2020 T5 Renewal).

Plains Marketing
Plains Marketing, Facilities, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-
do/facilities (File name: Plains_ Facilities _ Plains All American Pipeline).
Plains Marketing, Transportation, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-
do/transportation (File name: Plains_Transportation _ Plains All American Pipeline).
Plains Marketing, What We Do, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-do
(File name: Plains_What We Do _ Plains All American Pipeline).
Plains Marketing L.P., Yorktown, Virginia
Title V Operating Permit Registration No. 60116, issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia to
Plains Marketing L.P., Yorktown bulk petroleum liquids storage and distribution terminal (Oct.
12, 2017) (File name: VI_60116 - FOP_T5Renewal - 20171012_50539947).
Commonwealth of Virginia, Statement of Legal and Factual Basis, Plains Marketing L.P.,
Yorktown, Permit No. TRO-60116 (Oct. 12, 2017) (File name: VI_60116 - SOB_T5Renewal -
20171012_44971270).
Plains Marketing Title V Operating Permit Renewal Application submitted to the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) for Registration No. 60116 (May 5, 2016) (File
name: VI_60116 - Application - 20160506_53270952).
Email from Plains Marketing to VDEQ (March 26, 2020) (requesting a completeness
determination) (copy enclosed) (File name: VI_Email Requesting to Continue with Application
for Minor Amendment_52523023).
Plains Marketing to VDEQ, Section 1, Emission Estimates, including laboratory data (Feb. 2,
2020) (File name: VI_60116 - Application - EE-Pt2a - 20200213_53103657).
Global Companies LLC. - Albany Terminal
Title V Air Permit, Global Companies LLC. - Albany Terminal, Issued by NYDEC Permit ID: 4-
0101-00112/00029 (March 3, 2011), available at
https://www.dec.ny.gov/dardata/boss/afs/permits/401010011200029_r2_4.pdf (File name:
NY_Global_401010011200029_r2_4).
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Permit Review Report Permit ID:
4-0101-00112/00029 Renewal Number: 2 Modification Number: 4 11/06/2012, Global
44
Companies LLC. - Albany Terminal (Nov, 6, 2012), available at
https://www.dec.ny.gov/dardata/boss/afs/permits/prr_401010011200029_r2_4.pdf (File name:
NY_Globalprr_401010011200029_r2_4).
Title V Permit Modification submitted by Envirospace Engineering, PLLC, on behalf of Global
Companies LLC. - Albany Terminal (Terminal), to New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSEC), Title V Facility Permit No. 4-0101-00112/00029 (March
18, 2020) (File name: NY_Globalalbanymodapp).
State Environmental Quality Review Environmental Assessment Form Supplement, Global
Albany Terminal, DEC Permit Application #4-0101-00070/02003 (March 2020) (air impacts,
climate change analysis) (File name: NY_Globalalbanyseqr).
Global Companies, LLC., to NYSEC, Response to Request for Additional Information (RFAI),
Air Title V Application, DEC #4-0101-00112/00029 (July 7, 2020), available at
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/globalalbanysupplmntl.pdf (File name:
NY_Globalalbanysupplmntl).
Limetree Bay Terminal (and tanks), LLC.
Air Permit Application, Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC., St. Croix, USVI, Marine Loading
Project, Revision (Nov. 2017) (copy enclosed) (File name: EPA-R02-OAR-2019-0551-
0236_content_permitappli).
Final EPA Plantwide Applicability Limit Permit for Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC and Limetree
Bay Refining, LLC, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-12/documents/limetree-final_pal_permit.pdf
(Dec. 2, 2020) ((File name: EPA-HQ-limetree-final_pal_permit).
U.S. EPA Region 2 Office, Response to Comments On the Clean Air Act Plantwide
Applicability Limit Permit for the Limetree Bay Terminal and Limetree Bay Refining St. Croix,
U.S. Virgin Islands (Nov. 2020), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-
12/documents/response_to_comments-limetree_pal_permit.pdf (File name: EPA-R02-
response_to_comments-limetree_pal_permit).
Email exchange between Umesh Sholakia, US EPA, and Catherine Elizee (LB Terminals) (Feb.
12-13, 2019, Feb. 20, 2019 – March 11, 2019), available at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R02-OAR-2019-0551 (File names: EPA-R02-OAR-
2019-0551-0022_content_tank emission calcs; EPA-R02-OAR-2019-0551-
0016_content_emission calc terminal).
U.S. EIA
U.S. EIA, Alabama State Profile and Energy Estimates, available at
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=AL (File name: Alabama Profile).

45
U.S. EPA

U.S. EPA, Air Emissions Factors and Quantification, TANKS Emissions Estimation Software,
Version 4.09D, available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software/tanks/index.html (File
name: EPA_TANKS).

U.S. EPA, AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 5: Petroleum Industry, Introduction to
Petroleum Industry, Chapter 5.0, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-
09/documents/chaptrer_5_petroleum.pdf (File name: EPA_AP42_5_petroleum).

U.S. EPA, AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 5: Petroleum Industry, Chapter 5.2
Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids, Final Section (July 2008), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-
09/documents/5.2_transportation_and_marketing_of_petroleum_liquids.pdf (File name:
EPA_AP42_5.2_transportation_and_marketing_of_petroleum_liquids_2008).

U.S. EPA, AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 7: Liquid Storage Tanks: Introduction to
Liquid Storage Tanks, available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-
quantification/ap-42-fifth-edition-volume-i-chapter-7-liquid-storage-0 (File name: EPA-
AP42_7_intro).

U.S. EPA, AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 7: Liquid Storage Tanks (June 2020),
available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-fifth-edition-
volume-i-chapter-7-liquid-storage-0 (File name: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-
quantification/ap-42-fifth-edition-volume-i-chapter-7-liquid-storage-0).

U.S. EPA, AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 7: Liquid Storage Tanks, Public Comments
(Feb. 2019) and Response to Comments (Nov. 2019), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-11/documents/chapter_7_comments_2019.pdf
(File name EPA_AP42_chapter_7_comments_2019); and
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-
11/documents/ap42_chapter7_response_to_comments_11_20_19.pdf (File name:
EPA_AP42_chapter7_response_to_comments_11_20_19).

U.S. EPA, Delegation of Clean Air Act Authority, available at https://www.epa.gov/caa-

permitting/delegation-clean-air-act-authority (File name: EPA_Delegation of Clean Air Act
Authority _ Permitting Under the Clean Air Act _ US EPA).

U.S. EPA, EJ Screen Report, available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen (File name:

EPA_EJSCREENRpt_PlainsMarketingMobileTerminal).

46
U.S. EPA, Air Emissions Factors and Quantification, AP-42 Frequent Questions, available at
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-frequent-questions (File
name: EPA_AP-42 Frequent Questions _ Air Emissions Factors and Quantification).

U.S. EPA Letter from Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section, to Richard Hyde, Director, Air
Permits Division, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, “Review of maintenance, start-
up, shutdown activities by Region 6 of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality draft
model permit” at pdf 5 (May 21, 2008), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/tceqssm.pdf.

U.S. EPA, Letter from J. Seitz, EPA, to R. Hodanbosi and C. Lagges, STAPPA/ALAPCO (May
20, 1999), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
08/documents/hodan7.pdf (File name: EPA_SeitztoHodan1999).

U.S. EPA, Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA-453/R-95-017 (Nov. 1995),
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-
09/documents/protocol_for_equipment_leak_emission_estimates.pdf (File name:
EPA_protocol_for_equipment_leak_emission_estimates).
U.S. EPA Statements on Limiting PTE
EPA Memorandum from Michael S. Alushin, Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, to John S. Seitz, Director Stationary Source Compliance
Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Procedures for EPA to Address Deficient
New Source Permits Under the Clean Air Act (July 15, 1988), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/defcient.pdf (File name:
EPA_Alushin 1988).

EPA Memorandum from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS and Robert I. Van Heuvelen, Director, ORE,
“Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under Section 112 and
Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act)” (Jan. 25, 1995), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/limit-pte-rpt.pdf (File name: EPA_Seitz
1995).

EPA Memorandum from Terrell F. Hunt, Associate Enforcement Counsel, OECA, and John Seitz,
Director, OAQPS, “Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting” (June 13,
1989), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/lmitpotl.pdf (File
name: EPA_Hunt 1989).

EPA Memorandum with Subject: “Interim Policy on Federal Enforceability Requirement for
Limitations on Potential to Emit” (1996) (emphasis added) (Policy on Federal Enforceability),
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/pottoemi.pdf (File name:
EPA_pottoemi 1996).

47
Other
ATSDR, Public Health Statement, Xylene, available at
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp71-c1-b.pdf (Aug. 2007) (File name:
ATSDR_XYLENES).

48