November 2011

ILTA terminal members have reported that inspectors from EPA and state and local environmental agencies are increasingly interested in taking photographs that are unrelated to any specific violation or noteworthy observation at a facility.  During the ILTA EH&S Committee meeting, members discussed company policies for dealing with government inspectors who want to take photographs at terminals.  In July 2006, EPA released a document entitled, "Digital Camera Guidance for Civil Inspections and Investigations."  This non-binding guidance only addresses photographs taken during an inspection for the purpose of supporting documented observations.  ILTA recommends that companies develop specific procedures for responding to photography requests from inspectors.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently published a Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to improve air quality by reducing emissions that contribute to ozone or fine particle pollution across state lines.  The 27 states subject to the rule were found to have contributed 1 percent or more of an observed pollutant in the ambient air at monitoring station in a downward state projected to be in or near non-attainment of EPA’s ozone standards during.  The first compliance phase requires reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides at power plants by January 1, 2012.  For more information, click here.

As reported in the August edition of ILTA News, the Chemical Safety Board has released an 11-minute video and is developing a formal classroom lesson plan to teach students about hazards at unprotected oil sites.  Since 1983, there have been 26 accidents caused by an ignition source at unmanned oil and gas well sites.  These accidents have resulted in 44 fatalities and 27 injuries, all to teens and young adults. 

July 2011

Industry Brief Supporting Appeal of EPA’s E15 Decision

EPA’s E15 "partial waivers" are both legally and factually deficient. They are legally deficient because they exceed the Administrator’s authority under the CAA. Section 211(f)(4) permits a waiver only if the Administrator determines that a new fuel or fuel additive "will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system" in a vehicle or engine "to achieve compliance" with emission standards for which that vehicle or engine was certified. Yet the Administrator issued unprecedented "partial waivers" covering only certain engines and vehicles, and not others. "Any" means any. It does not mean some, or part. EPA’s decision fails at Chevron step one.

Even if the statute were not perfectly clear, moreover, the Administrator’s construction of it was not reasonable. EPA’s construction was instead gymnastical: the Agency borrowed liberally but selectively from other CAA provisions, ignored inconsistencies with other aspects of its emissions regulation regime, and patched over the prospect of misfueling with unproven administrative controls. This cannot withstand analysis under Chevron step two, assuming the analysis gets that far.

The E15 "partial waiver" decisions also are unsupported by the administrative record. EPA has – until now – hewed to a rigorous and exacting standard when assessing a waiver applicant’s compliance with the statutory standards. Not in this case, however. Here, when Growth failed to adequately support its Application, EPA stepped in to supply data lacking in the Application itself. Even these government-generated data were woefully insufficient to support EPA’s "partial waiver" decisions. EPA had previously announced that it would require a suite of rigorous tests before issuing a waiver, but it contented itself with far fewer, and narrower, tests, choosing to rely instead on "engineering judgment."

DOE’s limited testing data showed vehicle and engine failures in the very model years for which EPA was seeking to approve E15, but the Agency used statistical sleight of hand in an attempt to argue those failures away. EPA acknowledged the prospect of increased emissions from E15 in the approved vehicle model years, but dismissed those negative effects based on unsupported assurances that vehicle compliance margins could accommodate some emissions increases. EPA understood that certain vehicles were more susceptible to failure from use of E15 than others, but it did not test some of the vehicles prone to failures. EPA also explained away predicted violations of evaporative standards due to E15 by speculating that these violations would be "offset" by other hypothetical emissions decreases. And EPA dismissed the prospect of serious misfueling problems stemming from the "partial waiver" by relying on stopgap conditions and a misfueling rule to be issued at a later date.

All of these shortcuts and infirm data led to two "partial waiver" decisions that were ill-considered, unwarranted, and unlawful. They should be vacated.

Click here to read the full industry brief.

June 2011

On May 26, ILTA hosted a Webinar entitled "Inspecting Railcars for FRA Compliance."  Michael Mashburn, Assistant Manager of Liquid Operations for Colonial Terminals, conducted the session which incorporated numerous visual images and examples to illustrate both satisfactory and unsatisfactory conditions.  Mr. Mashburn’s presentation slides are available, here.  During the month of June, this slide presentation, enhanced with the speaker’s notes, will be made available on the ILTA Members Only Website as ILTA Terminal Operations Series (TOS) No. 22.  Registrants for the webinar will be contacted again once the TOS is available.

ILTA presented the 2011 ILTA Safety Awards on Tuesday, June 8, during the 31st Annual Operating Conference in Houston, TX.  Twelve terminal member companies were recognized for their exceptional safety performance. 

5-Year Safety Milestone Award Recipient:

• Asphalt Operating Services

• Flint Hills Resources, LP

• JIT Chemical Corporation

2011 Platinum Safety Award Recipient:

• Hess Corporation

2011 Safety Excellence Award Recipients.

• Asphalt Operating Services

• CITGO Petroleum Corporation

• Flint Hills Resources, LP

• International Raw Materials

• JIT Chemical Corporation

• Murphy Oil Corporation

• NuStar Energy, L.P.

• Petro-Diamond Terminal Company

• Sunoco Logistics Partners, L.P.

• U.S. Venture, Inc.

2011 Safety Improvement Award Recipient:

• Westway Terminals

Forty-three companies participated in ILTA’s 2011 Safety Survey and Recognition Program, a 13 percent increase from 2010.  For additional information on the safety survey or award program, contact Katie Vassalli at kvassalli@ilta.org.

May 2011