Newsletter

Dear Commissioner LaTourette,

On behalf of its membership, the International Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA) is seeking clarification regarding the New Jersey Discharges of Petroleum and Other Hazardous Substances regulations.

Founded in 1974, ILTA represents 80 companies operating liquid terminals in all 50 states and in over 40 countries. Our members’ facilities provide critical links between all modes of transportation for liquid commodities, such as crude oil, petroleum products, chemicals, renewable fuels, fertilizer, vegetable oils and other food-grade materials that are central to the U.S. economy. Terminals provide essential logistics services that spur trade both within the United States and connect the U.S. economy with overseas markets. ILTA’s membership also includes about 400 companies that supply equipment and services to the terminal industry.

Regarding the regulation, the preamble states that there is no requirement to implement mitigation measures identified in the climate resiliency plan. N.J.A.C 7:1E-4.12b requires that major facilities identify measures to mitigate the impacts of climate change identified in the analysis required by the proposed rule, to identify those mitigation measures that are deemed to be feasible, and to develop an implementation schedule for those measures.

It looks like the Department is requiring that facilities conduct an assessment and establish an implementation schedule, while the preamble states that the proposed rule does not require the owner or operator to implement mitigation measures.

We are asking the Department to clarify the mitigation implementation requirements for the climate resiliency plan, and whether the plan needs to be certified by NJ Certified Professional Engineer. We would also like to know what format is required for the climate resiliency plan, and whether it needs to be integrated into DPCC/DCR or can be a standalone plan.

Please do not hesitate to reach out to me if you have any questions.

Respectfully,
Leakhena Swett
President
International Liquid Terminals Association

Dear Administrator Regan:

The International Liquid Terminals Association (“ILTA”) hereby petitions the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”), pursuant to Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”),1 to reconsider, initiate rulemaking and amend portions of its final rule entitled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline Distribution Technology Reviews and New Source Performance Standards Review for Bulk Gasoline Terminals, 89 Fed. Reg. 39304 (May 8, 2024)

On June 26, ILTA again met with EPA alongside API and AFPM at EPA’s Research Park, NC headquarters. The purpose was to discuss several issues the trade associations plan to address in their respective Petitions for Reconsideration for the final Air Permitting Rules.

On ILTA’s part, ILTA communicated its message that the terminal membership needs relief on LDAR (‘leak detection and repair’ program) for subpart XXa as soon as possible.  EPA appears to understand the issues though (as usual) they did not commit to specific action.  ILTA briefly explained why a regulatory interpretation letter is not enough to resolve the applicability issues, and why EPA must take action to make the rule text provide clear relief. 

From clothing to cookware, flame retardant per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals have become ubiquitous in our daily lives. For bulk liquid terminals specifically, PFAS compounds are used in aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) or film-forming fluoroprotein foams (FFFP) foams because of their exceptional ability to create a stable and effective firefighting foam, particularly for extinguishing liquid fuel fires, such as those involving gasoline, jet fuel, or oil.

Due to their near-indestructability and persistence in local environments where they are used, however, states and the federal government are increasingly focusing on the environmental and public health consequences from the use of PFAS-based products. In March 2024, the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee held a hearing on, “Examining PFAS as a Hazardous Substance.” One month later in April, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the first-ever national, legally enforceable drinking water standard to protect communities from exposure to harmful PFAS, while also finalizing a rule to designate two widely used PFAS – PFOA and PFOS – as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund.

June 28, 2024

Via Electronic Mail and Overnight Delivery

The Honorable Michael S. Regan
Office of the Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 1101A
William Jefferson Clinton Building North
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Regan.Michael@epa.gov

RE: Petition for Reconsideration Request for Administrative Stay
NSPS Subpart XXa – Modification of Equipment

Dear Administrator Regan:

The International Liquid Terminals Association (“ILTA”) hereby petitions the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”), pursuant to Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”),1 to reconsider and amend provisions of New Source Performance Standard (“NSPS”) Subpart XXa identified below, and to stay the applicability of the “collection of equipment” affected facility (40 CFR §60.500a(a)(2)) to the modification of existing facilities until the requested amendments to Subpart XXa have been adopted.

EPA adopted Subpart XXa as part of the final rule entitled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline Distribution Technology Reviews and New Source Performance Standards Review for Bulk Gasoline Terminals, 89 Fed. Reg. 39304 (May 8, 2024) (“Gasoline Distribution Rule”). ILTA is preparing and will be submitting to you a separate petition regarding a number of other provisions of the Gasoline Distribution Rule. ILTA has singled out this one issue regarding Subpart XXa because of the ease with which the issue may be resolved and the immediate and significant adverse consequences of classifying minor maintenance and improvement projects as “modifications” and triggering applicability for entire facilities, should the proposed amendments not be adopted.