deq basis for decision vol 1 -- murphy oil air permit v5 - october 22, 2009

8/14/2019 DEQ Basis for Decision Vol 1 -- Murphy Oil Air Permit V5 - October 22, 2009

1/39

BOBBY JINDALGOVERNOR

HAROLD LEGGETT, PH.D.SECRETARY

~tate of 1LouisianaDEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

October 22, 2009RE: Notification of final permit actionPermit No. 2500-0000l-V5

Murphy Oil U.S.A, Inc., Meraux Refinery, Meraux, St. Bernard Parish, LouisianaAgency Interest (AI) No. 1238

Dear Sir or Madam:Thank you for your interest in the referenced matter. The Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality (LDEQ) has received and considered all public comments submittedregarding this permit action. Please be advised that the referenced action was approved onOctober 15,2009. .A copy of the Basis for Decision and Public Comments Response Summary are attached;these documents address significant public comments regarding this permit action. The finalpermit and related documents are available for review at the LDEQ's Public Records Center,Room 127, 602 North 5th Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Viewing hours are from 8:00a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday - Friday (except holidays).The documents are also available for review by accessing LDEQ's Electronic DocumentManagement System (EDMS), the electronic repository of official records that have beencreated or received by LDEQ. Persons may search and retrieve documents stored in EDMSvia the LDEQ's web application at http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/2604/Default.aspx.If you would like to obtain copies of these documents, you may request them from LDEQRecords Management by mail at P.O. Box 4303, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4303 or by phoneat (225) 219-3168. Your request will be processed pursuant to LDEQ's procedures forpublic record requests, LAC 33:1.2301, et seq., and a copy fee will be charged.Pursuant to La. RS. 30:2050.21, an aggrieved person may appeal devolutively a final permitaction only to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the parish of East Baton Rouge. Apetition for review must be filed in the district court within thirty days after notice of theaction has been given.If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Syed Quadri of the Office of EnvironmentalServices, Air Permits Division, at (225) 219-3123.Sincerely,

e"el ..O.~1A-Bryan D. JohnstonAdministratorAttachments

Post Office Box 4313 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-4313 Phone 225-219-3181 Fax 225-219-3309www.deq.louisiana.gov


2/39

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYOFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESBASIS FOR DECISION

PART 70 OPERATING PERMIT NO. 2500-00001-V5MERAUX REFINERY

AGENCY INTEREST NO. 1238MURPHY OIL USA INC.

MERAUX, ST. BERNARD PARISH, LOUISIANA

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), Office of Environmental Services(OES), issues to Murphy Oil USA Inc. ("Murphy" or "company") a Part 70 (Title V) OperatingPermit, Permit No. 2500-00001-V5, for the const~uction and operation of the BenFree Unit at itsMeraux Refinery ("refinery" or "facility") located in Meraux, S1.Bernard Parish, Louisiana.For the Meraux Refinery, the LDEQ finds that as a part of the "IT Requirements,") adverseenvironmental impacts have been minimized or avoided to the maximum extent possible. SaveOurselves v. La. Envtl. Control Commission, 452 So. 2d 1152, 1157 (La. 1984). To make thisdetermination, the LDEQ finds that the permit for Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 's Meraux Refinerycomplied with all applicable federal and state statutes and regulations and has otherwise minimizedor avoided the environmental impacts to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, the LDEQfinds that Meraux Refinery met the alternative projects, alternative sites, and mitigation measuresrequirements of Save Ourselves. Id. at 1157.In making this determination, the LDEQ finds that the submitted information complied with allapplicable federal and state statutes and regulations and have otherwise minimized or avoided theenvironmental impacts to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, the LDEQ finds that Murphymet the alternative projects, alternative sites, and mitigation measures requirements of SaveOurselves. Id. at 1157.After the LDEQ determined that adverse environmental impacts of the permit had been minimizedor avoided to the maximum extent possible, it balanced social and economic factors withenvironmental impacts. Notably, the Louisiana constitution does not establish environmentalIThe "IT Requirements" or "IT Questions" are five requirements [see Save Ourselves v. Envtl. Control Comm'n,452 So. 2d at 1152, 1157 (La. 1984)] that both the permit applicant and the LDEQ consider during certain permitapplication processes. Although the five requirements have been expressed as three requirements (see RubiconInc., 670 So. 2d at 475, 483 (La. App. 1 eir 1996), rehearing denied), the requirements remain basically the samewhether stated as five or as three. The "IT Requirements" must satisfy the issues of whether:1) the potential and real adverse environmental effects of the proposed project have been avoided to the

maximum extent possible;2) a cost benefit analysis of the environment impact costs balanced against the social and economic benefits of

the project demonstrate that the latter outweighs the former;3) there are alternative projects or alternative sites or mitigating measures, which would offer more protection

to the environment than the proposed project without unduly curtailing non environmental benefits to theextent applicable.


3/39

Basis for DecisionMurphy Oil USA, Inc., Meraux Refinery

AII238,PER20090002Page 2 of 16

protection as an exclusive goal, but instead, requires a balancing process in which environmentalcosts and benefits must be given full and careful consideration along with economic, social, andother factors. Id. Accordingly, the LDEQ finds that the social and economic benefits of theproposed permit will outweigh greatly its adverse environmental impacts.The details of the LDEQ's reasoning are s~t forth below:2

FINDINGS OF FACT1. BACKGROUND

A. Description of FacilityMurphy owns and operates a petroleum refinery in Meraux, Louisiana. Murphyproduces propane, motor gasoline, kerosene, diesel, No. 6 fuel oil, and othermiscellaneous petroleum products. The refinery consists of the following processesand operations: Crude Distillation Unit, Rose Unit, Hydrofluoric Acid AlkylationUnit, Hydrobon Unit, Platformer Unit, Amine Unit, Sulfur Recovery Units, DistillateHydrotreating Unit, C3/C4 Splitter Unit, Middle Distillate Hydrotreating Unit, MeroxProcess, Sour Water Stripper Process, Liquid Petroleum Gas Recovery Unit, FluidCatalytic Cracking Units, Wastewater Treatment System, and Steam Generation Unit.The petroleum refining process separates crude oil into different fractions based upontheir respective boiling point ranges. Light hydrocarbon fractions may undergocatalytic reforming to rearrange short chain hydrocarbon streams for use in gasolineblending. Heavier fractions may undergo catalytic cracking to break up the largehydrocarbon compounds into useful gasoline blending components. Various processstreams are also treated to remove sulfur before further processing takes place.Petroleum refinery operations typically include auxiliary systems such as hydrogenproduction, wastewater treating, and steam production.

B. Proposed Permit ActionMurphy proposes to construct and operate a BenFree Unit (BFU) in order to complywith the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's. (EPA's) Mobile Source AirToxics (MSAT) Phase 2 Rule promulgated on February 26, 2007. This rule willlimit the benzene con~ent of the gasoline produced to an annual average of 0.62percent by volume. The BFU will saturate benzene-rich reformate intocyclohexane-rich gasoline. Reformate from the Catalytic Reformer (PlatformerUnit) will enter the Reformate Splitter, which will be fired by a reboiler. TheSplitter will separate reformate into two streams. The heavy reformate (toluene and

2Any finding of fact more appropriately designated as a conclusion of law shall be considered also a conclusion oflaw; and any conclusion of law more appropriately designated as a finding of fact shall be considered also as afinding of fact.


4/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page 3 of 16

heavier) will be piped to gasoline storage tanks, while the light reform ate will berouted to the reactor. Benzene in the light reform ate will be selectively saturatedwhen the light reformate is mjxed with hydrogen on a fixed catalyst bed in theReactor. Fjnally, the BenFree product will be blended wjth gasoline in storagetanks.The BFU will receive feed djrectly from the Platformer Uillt and will operate onlywhen the Platformer is jn operatjon. The BFU is qn addition to the Platformer Unitand wjll not result in any debottlenecking of any other units at the facility. Also,there will not be any pure benzene streams in the unjt or in any storage tanks. Theoffgas from the BFU will be routed to the fuel gas system. In an emergency orduring maintenance activities, emissions from the BFU will be controlled byrouting the vent to the existing North Flare via the Area 6 Flare Knockout Drum.The BFU will comply with 40 CFR 60, Subpart QQQ arid 40 CFR 61, Subpart FF.The BFU Reboiler will comply with 40 CFR 60, Subpart J (or Subpart Ja should thestay be lifted); this source will be equipped with ultra-low NOx burners and itsemissions shall be reported under an existing cap for heaters and boilers, EmissionPoint CAP-Heaters. Murphy shall incorporate the fugitives associated with theBFU into the Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) program under 40 CFR 60,Subpart GGGa (which refers to Subpart VVa). The BFU's turnaround emissionsshall also be included in the overall faciljty turnaround emissions.In addition to permitting the BFU Unit, Murphy proposes to modify the permit asshown below:1. Update the Crude, Middle Distillate, Heavy Oil, and Slop Oil Tank caps,

which will result in a reduction of VOC emissjons due to the replacement,reconstruction, or reinstatement of tanks approved in previous permits (250000001-V3 and V4);

2. Consolidate the Gasoline and Naphtha CAPs into one Gasoline/Naphtha CAP;3. Update fugitive emissions associated with tank changes and the BFU Project;4. Update the facility turnaround emissions to include the BFU project and theNO.2 Amine Unit;5. Cancel the rerouting of the Oily Water Stripper vent stream to the fuel gas

system. The Oily Water Stripper vent stream shall continue to be routed tothe North Flare, Emission Point 20-72;6. Incorporate Boiler B-7 as a permanent source in order to meet the steam

demand at the facility;7. Update Refinery Turnaround Emissions, Emission Point TRND, based on the

planned turnarounds for the duration of this permit term, whjch expjres onNovember 20,2012; and8. Update the "Specific Requirements" and "Inventories" sections of the permh,

as approprjate.Emissions increases due to the BFU Project (Reboiler, Fugitives, Cooling Tower, North


5/39



Flare, Storage, BFU Turnaround, Startup/Shutdown, etc.), evaluated on an "actual topotential" basis, in tons per year (TPY), are shown in the following table:

Post-ProjectBaseline Actual PotentialFU ProjectmissionsmissionsncreaseSD De Minimis.30.34.045.108.956.850.526.27.7505.488.733.25006.092.986.890

Emissions increases due to the project are below Prevention of Significant Deterioration(PSD) significance levels; therefore, further PSD review (i.e., netting) is not required.Permitted emissions from the Meraux Refinery, in TPY, are as follows:

PollutantPMJOS02NOxCOVOC

Before206.40684.491220.061960.70600.30

After206.86725.021224.912018.47637.52

Change*+ 0.46

+ 40.53+4.85+ 57.77+ 37.22

* Includes emISSIOns increases associated with the BFU Project and the addition ofrefinery turnaround and startup/shutdown emissions (5 years) not associated with theBFU Project. Turnaround and startup/shutdown emissions, in the past, used to beauthorized under variances. Including such emissions in the permit will greatly assistsin air quality planning by clearly identifying, quantifying, and limiting them wherenecessary. Turnaround and startup/shutdown emissions are not subject to PSD review,as they are existing and not in any way associated with a physical change or change inthe method of operation. A specific condition has been added to this permit to limitturnaround and startup/shutdown emissions, Emission Point TRND.

II. PUBLIC COMMENT

Request for public comment and notice of a public hearing on the proposed permit waspublished in The Advocate, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and in The St. Bernard Voice, Arabi,Louisiana on May 29, 2009. The public notice was also mailed and e-mailed to personsincluded in the LDEQ mailing list on May 28,2009. The public hearing was held on July7, 2009, at the Nunez Community College Auditorium, 3710 Paris Road, Chalmette,Louisiana. A second public notice was published in The Advocate, Baton Rouge,Louisiana; and in The St. Bernard Voice, Arabi, Louisiana on July 17,2009, to extend the

-- -- ---- ----


6/39


AI l238,PER20090002Page 5 of 16

comment period to August 6, 2009,' in response to a request received bye-mail and at thehearing. The comment period and public hearing afforded the public an opportunity toprovide comments on the proposed Part 70 (Title V) Operating Permit Number 250000001-V5.The LDEQ received written and oral comments on the proposed permit at the hearing onJuly 7, 2009; during the first comment period ending on July 9, 2009; and during thesecond comment period ending on August 6, 2009.

III. PUBLIC COMMENTS RESPONSE SUMMARYA "Public Comment Response Summary" was prepared for all significant comments and isattached and made a part of this Basis for Decision.

IV. ALTERNATIVE SITES: Are there alternative sites which would offer moreprotection to the environment than the proposed facility site without unduly curtailingnon-environmental benefits?While the LDEQ recognizes that the concepts of alternative sites, alternative projects, andmitigative measures are closely interrelated and overlap, each concept is addressedseparately in this document for purposes of emphasis and clarity. However, the LDEQstresses the interrelation of the three; for example, the choice of a particular site couldinvolve mitigative factors and possibly alternative project considerations; likewise, selectionof an alternative project could invoke mitigative factors and impact site selection.Apparently, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal has also recognized thisinterrelationship and now considers the three requirements as one. Matter of Rubicon, Inc.,95-0108 (La. App. I Cir. 2/14/96), 670 So. 2d 475, 483.Therefore, because of this interrelationship, the LDEQ adopts any and all of its findings onall of the three factors under each of the specific designated areas -- alternative sites (SectionIV), alternative projects (Section V), and mitigative measures (Section VI). Additionally,the assessment and findings set forth below in Section VII (Avoidance of AdverseEnvironmental Effects) also interrelate and have been considered relative to these facts.Portions of the existing Meraux Refinery were built and operated by Sinclair Oil in the1920's. Murphy has owned and operated the facility since 1962. Gasoline fuel is one ofthe products of the refinery. The proposed BenFree Unit is required to lower the benzenecontent of gasoline to meet the U.S. EPA's Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Phase 2 Rulepromulgated on February 26,2007. This rule will limit the benzene content of the gasolineproduced at the refinery to an annual average of 0.62 percent by volume.Because the Meraux Refinery is an existing facility, a traditional alternative site analysis isnot appropriate. Consideration of an alternate site would involve the construction of anew facility, possibly on a "greenfield" site, which would by its nature involve an"alternate projects" analysis. Moreover, the BenFree Unit can only be constructed in


7/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page 6 of 16

close proximity to the Platformer Unit. There are no known offsite facilities whichwould accept the platformate for treatment. Also, such activity would result in greaterexposure to the public due to unnecessary transportation hazards.Nevertheless, in considering the permit applications, the LDEQ reviewed the existingoperations and compliance record.The Meraux Refinery has a compliance history at the present location. The followingenforcement actions remain open:

WE-CN-08-0410 August 27, 2008AE-CN-08-0122 August 29, 2008

DateApril 9, 2006

December 22,2008AE-CN-08-0294 January 9,2009

Tracking No.MM-CN-02-00 15

Action TypeConsolidated Compliance Order & Notice ofPotential PenaltyConsolidated Compliance Order & Notice ofPotential PenaltyConsolidated Compliance Order & Notice ofPotential PenaltyAmended Consolidated Compliance Order & Notice AE-CN-08-0122Aof Potential PenaltyConsolidated Compliance Order & Notice ofPotential PenaltyThe refinery is working with LDEQ to resolve the issues addressed in the aforementioneddocuments.

CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the LDEQ fmds there are no alternative siteswhich would offer more protection to the environment than the proposed site withoutunduly curtailing non-environmental benefits.

v. ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS: Are there alternative projects which would offer moreprotection to the environment than the proposed facility without unduly curtailingnon-environmental benefits?The LDEQ finds that the proposed BenFree Unit (BFU) at the Meraux Refinery offersmore protection to the environment than any other possible alternative without undulycurtailing nonenvironmental benefits. Additionally, the LDEQ recognizes that selectionof the most environmentally sound project or existing facility usually also serves as amitigative measure because the two considerations overlap considerably.One alternative to the existing Meraux Refinery would be to construct on a "greenfield"(undeveloped) site. A greenfield site would produce significantly more adverseenvironmental impacts than the existing facility (e.g., put more land into industrialmanufacturing and use more resources for the construction of a new facility, includingthe construction of associated roadways, rail and dock access, gas and liquid pipelines,etc.). LDEQ accepts the fact that the costs of changing sites would be economically


8/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page 7 of 16

infeasible.

In addition, the Meraux Refinery exists as a heavy industrial site, and its location allowsMurphy to utilize existing access to transportation via highways, rail, and water withminimal potential for transportation incidents.Murphy will utilize the BFU to reduce benzene content in the produced gasoline asmandated by U.S. EPA requirements. Please refer to the details of the BFU in Section I.Bof this Basis for Decision. The BFU is a standard industrial process to reduce benzeneconcentrations in gasoline. In this process, the benzene in reformate is converted tocyclohexane.The proposed project offers Murphy the opportunity to use existing infrastructure andresources. As an existing facility, much of the equipment needed to service the proposedproject is currently in operation and readily available. An example of this is thePlatformer Unit, which is the source of feed to the BFU. This use is a significant factorwhen evaluating the project's efficient management of resources and its effect on theenvironment.CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the LDEQ finds there are no alternative projectswhich would offer more protection to the environment than that proposed without undulycurtailing non-environmental benefits.

VI. MITIGATING MEASURES: Are there mitigating measures which would offer moreprotection to the environment than the facility as proposed without unduly curtailingnon-environmental benefits?LDEQ accepts the fact that the facility is designed and must be operated to maximizeenvironmental protection and prevent adverse environmental impacts. The facilityutilizes state-of-the-art refining technology and is permitted to operate under stringentoperational guidelines and requirements.In addition to the requirements of LAC 33:III.Chapter 59 and 40 CFR 68 requirementsdiscussed in Section VILA of this Basis for Decision, the Meraux Refinery has in placenumerous protective measures to deal with emergency situations and an existing safety andquality control training program for its personnel.The proposed Part 70 (Title V) permit meets all applicable federal and state regulations.Emissions from the projects will be controlled as required by applicable regulations, such asLAC 33:III.Chapters 11, 13, 15, 21, 56, 59; New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)under 40 CFR 60; National Emission Standards under 40 CFR 61; and the MaximumAchievable Control Technology (MACT) requirements of LAC 33:III.Chapter 51 and theNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants under 40 CFR 63. The permitlimits have been determined to be acceptable and protective of the environment.


9/39

24-hour guards;a seven (7) foot high fence;TV security cameras; andperimeter and process lighting.


AI1238,PER20090002Page 8 of 16

In addition, numerous protective measures are on-site to deal with emergency situations.The facility has a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan and anEmergency Response Plan. The site has also in place: emergency first aid facilities; a fire fighting brigade; a fire water supply system; a Halon fire protection system; portable fire extinguishers; and built-in sumps, dikes, and pumps to deal with spills and other secondary containmentmeasures.Also, the facility is protected from unauthorized infiltration by a security system consistingof:1.2.3.4.Murphy recruits qualified personnel and fully trains them in the operation of the facility. Allpersonnel are mandated to participate in training programs on safety and qualityassurance/quality control and site-specific written procedures prior to on-the-job training.CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the LDEQ finds there are no mitigatingmeasures which would offer more protection to the environment than the facility asproposed without unduly curtailing non-environmental benefits.

VII. AVOIDANCE OF ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Have the potentia]and rea] adverse environmental effects of the proposed facility been avoided to themaximum extent possible?As part of the permitting process, potential and real adverse environmental impacts ofpollutant emissions from the proposed new permitted sources are assessed by the LDEQprior to construction to ensure that they are minimized to the maximum extent possibleThe proposed permit will require that all emission sources be controlled through technologyto meet or exceed the requirements of applicable federal and state emissions regulations,such as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and MACT. Even thoughthe applicable requirements do not prevent sources from increasing emissions, they dofunction to protect public health and welfare, protect the areas of historic value, and ensureeconomic growth consistent with the preservation of existing clean air resources. Anyincrease in emissions will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of a health-based ortechnology-based standard, which is protective of human health and the environment.


10/39



As part of the permitting process, potential and real adverse environmental impacts ofpollutant emissions from the proposed sources are assessed to ensure that they areminimized. The following paragraphs describe the assessment by type of impact:A. Air Emissions

The emissions from this proposed project shall be controlled to meet or exceed therequirements of all applicable regulations and defined permit conditions. Emissions fromMeraux Refinery are based on conservative engineering design calculations,manufacturers' guarantees, and established, approved emission factors.Air emissions from operation of the refinery include particulate matter (pM 10), carbonmonoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile organiccompounds (VOCs). Existing emissions of these air pollutants are controlled pursuant tovarious control requirements, including Best Available Control Technology (BACT) asrequired by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, MaximumAchievable Control Technology (MACT) as required by the National Emission Standardsfor Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and LAC 33:III.Chapter 51, and New SourcePerformance Standards (NSPS). The Meraux Refinery is an existing facility and theproposed project will not emit any new or different pollutants to the atmosphere.Emissions associated with the proposed project were reviewed by the Air QualityAssessment Division to ensure compliance with the NAAQS and Louisiana Ambient AirStandard (AAS). LDEQ did not require the applicant to model emissions, as the BenFreeUnit does not result in a significant increase of any pollutant and can be considered as acontrol device for reducing benzene.Previous screening modeling performed indicates that emissions from the Meraux Refinerywill not cause or contribute to any NAAQS or AAS exceedances beyond the industrialproperty; therefore, emissions from the refinery will not cause any air quality impacts thatwill adversely affect human health or the environment in St. Bernard Parish. The previousscreen modeling results are as follows:

PollutantPM 10S02

NOxCOAmmonia

Time Period24 hr. avg.Annual24 hr. avg.3 hr. avg.Annual8 hr. avg.1 hr. avg.8 hr. avg.

Calculated MaximumGround Level Cone.(Ug/m3)

752532188515

260874750.2

Louisiana AmbientAir Standard or(NAAQS) (l-lg/m3)

(150)(80)(365)(1300)(100)

(10,000)(40,000)640


11/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page 10 of 16

Pollutantl,3-ButadieneBenzeneFormaldehydeHydrogen FluorideHydrogen Sulfiden-HexaneNaphthalenePAHTolueneXylene

Time PeriodAnnualAnnualAnnual8 hr avg.8 hr avg.8 hr avg.8 hr avg.Annual8 hr avg.8 hr avg.

Calculated MaximumGround Level Conc.Cgg/m3)0.35

9.60.00436.0050.5759.3199.70.03

1,211.61485.6

Louisiana AmbientAir Standard or(NAAQS) Cgg/m3)0.92

127.6961.90330

4,1901,1900.068,90010,300

The accidental air release prevention program is mandated by Section 112(r) of the CleanAir Act Amendments and codified in 40 CFR 68 (see also LAC 33:III.Chapter 59). Asdocumented in the permit application, as accepted by the LDEQ, Meraux Refinery hasdeveloped a Risk Management Plan (RMP) as required by the regulations.3 According tothe EPA, the purpose of the RMP is to "prevent accidental releases of substances that cancause serious harm to the public and the environment from short-term exposures and tomitigate the severity of releases that do occur.,,4 The RMP describes actions that thefacility must do to "prevent accidental releases of hazardous chemicals into theatmosphere and reduce their potential impact on the public and the environment."sThe Meraux Refinery has protective measures on-site to handle emergency situations.Murphy has an emergency response plan that is coordinated with the Local EmergencyPlanning Committee. The refinery complies with all state and federal regulations whichhave been promulgated specifically to address the accidental release and offsiteconsequences for toxic and/or flammable substances. These rules contain requirements forhazard assessment, release prevention, emergency response, and risk management. Thedesign of the proposed process and equipment will be subjected to a detailed Process HazardAnalysis to further reduce the likelihood of accidental airborne emissions.B. Wastewater Discharges and GroundwaterLPDES wastewater permit LA0003646 was issued to Murphy on September 28, 2004,with an effective date of October 1, 2004, and expiration date of September 30, 2009.This permit was last modified on October 12, 2005 (effective November 1, 2005) andauthorizes the permittee to discharge treated process wastewater and process area

3 See EDMS Document 40169977 (pgs. 38 & 51 of 435)4 EPA's General Risk Management Plan Program Guidance, April 2004http://yosemite.epa. gov/oswer/ceppoweb. nsf/vw Resources ByFilename/lntro final.pdf/$FileJI ntro final.pdf

5 Ibid.


12/39


13/39


AII238,PER20090002Page 12 of 16

To reduce the possibility of leakage of hazardous chemicals to the environment, Murphydesigned and selected compounds and systems to properly contain hazardous chemicals inaccordance with good engineering practices. Materials of construction will be compatiblewith process fluids to prevent failure from corrosion, stress cracking, or fatigue. Periodicinspections and preventative maintenance of all equipment will be performed to keep allprocess and safety systems in optimum operating condition.No wetlands will be impacted by the permit, as the refinery is an existing facility located inan industrial area.CONCLUSION: Accordingly, the LDEQ finds that Meraux Refinery has avoided to themaximum extent possible adverse environmental impacts without unduly curtailing nonenvironmental benefits.

VIII. COSTIBENEFIT ANALYSIS (BALANCING): Does a cost benefit analysis of theenvironmental impact costs balanced against the social and economic benefits of theproposed facility demonstrate that the latter outweighs the former?As previously stated, the BenFree Project is being undertaken to comply with the U.S.EPA's MSA T Rule, which requires reductions in certain hazardous air pollutants (herebenzene) from gasoline. The project by itself is a minor modification and mandated by U.S.EPA. Therefore, an Environmental Assessment Statement (BAS) was not required.However, LDEQ has evaluated the issue of cost/benefit analysis (balancing) with regardto the proposed permit. The details of LDEQ's consideration of this issue are providedbelow.A. Environmental Impact Costs

In developing the mandate, U.S. EPA determined that the social and economicbenefits to the public outweigh the cost of implementation borne by each refinery.In the preamble of the MSA T Rule, the U.S. EPA stateS that mobile sources are asignificant source of benzene exposure to the public. These exposures includeproximity of homes to major roadways, refueling of vehicles, and loading of portablefuel containers. The agency estimates that, through the implementation of this rule,public exposure to hydrocarbons, including benzene, l,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,acetaldehyde, acrolein, and naphthalene,will be reduced by 330,000 tons in 2030,including 61,000 tons of benzene. 7

7 72 FR 8430, February 26, 2007


14/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page 13 of 16

B. Social and Economic BenefitsThe BenFree Project is vital to the ongoing business of the Meraux Refinery, as thereduction on benzene content in gasoline is a regulatory mandate. On the other handthe economic impact of the refinery is as follows:8

$282 million in operating and maintenance expenses, including $58.2 million inlabor expenses (wages, benefits, taxes, etc.);$275 million in capital expenses;$3.88 million in property taxes;$1.5 million in sales and use taxes for the Louisiana Department of Revenue;and0.8 million in sales and use taxes for the St. Bernard Parish Government.

This tax revenue to the state and local government will continue only as long asMurphy remains a viable business. There will be no increased costs to thecommunity as a result of the BenFree Project. As determined by U.s. EPA, thereduced emissions from mobile sources will outweigh any potential negative impactsat or around the refinery.CONCLUSION: Based on the reasoning above, the LDEQ finds that the social andeconomic benefits outweigh the environmental impact costs.

IX. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONSEPA's Office of Civil Rights in the Michigan Select Steel Title VI Complaint (EPA File No.5R-98-R5, The Office of Civil Rights dated October 30, 1998) determined as follows in"Allegation Regarding Air Quality Impacts," pages 25 and 26:

The environmental laws that EPA and the states administer do not prohibitpollution outright; rather, they treat some level of pollution as "acceptable"when pollution sources are regulated under individual, facility-specific,permits recognizing society's demand for such things as power plants, wastetreatment systems, and manufacturing facilities. In effect, Congress-and,by extension, society-has made a judgment that some level of pollution andpossible associated risk should be tolerated for the good of all, in order forAmericans to enjoy the benefits of a modem society-to have heat in ourhomes, and the products we use to clean dishes or manufacture our wares.The expectation and belief of the regulators is that, assuming the facilitiescomply with their permit limits and terms; the allowed pollution levels areacceptable and low enough to be protective of the environment and humanhealth.

8See EDMS Document 40169977 (pg. 272 of 435)


15/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page14ofl6

EPA and the states have promulgated a wide series of regulations toeffectuate these protections. Some of these regulations are based onassessment of public health risks associated with certain levels of pollutionin the ambient environment. The National Ambient Air Quality Standardsestablished under the Clean Air Act (CAA) are an example of this kind ofhealth-based ambient standard setting. Air Quality that adheres to suchstandards is presumptively protective of public health. Other standards are"technology-based," requiring installation of pollution control equipmentthat has been determined to be appropriate in view of pollution reductiongoals. In the case of hazardous air pollutants under the CAA, EPA setstechnology-based standards for industrial sources of toxic air pollution, themaximum achievable control technology standards for industrial sources oftoxic air pollution. The maximum achievable control technology standardsunder the Clean Air Act are examples of this kind of technology-basedstandards; an assessment of the remaining or residual risk is undertaken andadditional controls implemented where needed. [Clean Air Act I112(f)(2)(A)(1) states "... If standards promulgated pursuant to subsection(d) and applicable to a category or subcategory of sources emitting apollutant (or pollutants) classifies as a known, probable, or possible humancarcinogen, do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual mostexposed to emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to lessthan one in a million, the Administrator shall promulgate standards underthis subsection for such category." 42 USe. 74l2(f)(2)(A)(1).)Title VI and EPA's implementing regulations set out a requirementindependent of the environmental statutes that all recipients of EPA financialassistance ensure that they implement their environmental programs in amanner that does not have discriminatory effect based on' race, color, ornational origin. If recipients of EPA funding are found to have implementedtheir EPA-delegated or authorized federal environmental programs in amanner which distributes the otherwise acceptable residual pollution or othereffects in ways that result in a harmful concentration of those effects in racialor ethnic communities, then a finding of an adverse disparate impact onthose communities within the meaning of Title VI may, depending on thecircumstance may be appropriate. .Importantly, to be actionable under Title VI, an impact must be both"adverse" and "disparate." The determination of whether the distribution ofeffects from regulated sources to racial or ethnic communities is "adverse"within the meaning of Title VI will necessarily turn on the facts andcircumstances of each case and nature of the environmental regulationdesigned to afford protection. As the United States Supreme Court stated inthe case of Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1995), the inquiry forfederal agencies under Title VI is to identify the sort of disparate impactsupon racial or ethnic groups which constitute "sufficiently significant social


16/39


AII238,PER20090002Page 15 of 16

problems, and [are] readily enough remediable, to warrant altering thepractices of the federal grantees that had produced those impacts." Id at 29394.The complaint in this case raises air quality concerns regarding severalNAAQS-covered pollutants, as well as several other pollutants. With respectto the NAAQS-covered pollutants, EPA believes that where, as here, an airquality concern is raised regarding a pollutant regulated pursuant to anambient, health-based standard, and where the area in question is incompliance with, and will continue after the operation of the challengedfacility to comply with, that standard, the air quality in the surroundingcommunity is presumptively protective and emissions of that pollutantshould not be viewed as "adverse" within the meaning of Title VI. Byestablishing an ambient, public health threshold, standards like the NAAQScontemplate multiple source contributions and establish it protective limit oncumulative emissions that should ordinarily prevent an adverse air qualityimpact.With respect to the pollutants of concern that are not covered by theNAAQS, Title VI calls for an examination of whether those pollutants havebecome so concentrated in a racial or ethnic community that the addition of anew source will pose a harm to that community. If there is no "adverse"impact for anyone living in the vicinity of the facility, it is unnecessary toreach the question of whether the impacts are "disparate."

[Reference: Letter from Ann E. Goode, Director ofEPA's Office of Civil Rights to FatherPhil Schmitter and Sister Joanne Chiaverni, Co-Directors, St. Francis Prayer Center, G-2381East Carpenter Road, Flint Michigan 48909-7973].Also note that the United States Supreme Court held in Alexander v. Sandoval (532 U.S.(2001) [No. 99-1908, decided April 24, 2001] that there is no private cause of action toenforce Section 602 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, as amended,42 U.S.C. 2000d et. seq.LDEQ accepts the EPA's assessment and reasoning. Emissions associated with theproposed project, as limited by the terms and conditions of the permit, were reviewed bythe Air Quality Assessment Division to ensure compliance with the NAAQS and LouisianaAAS for toxic air pollutants. Further, previous screening modeling shows emissions fromfacility are not expected to impact air quality so as to cause or contribute exceedances ofthe primary or secondary NAAQS or the Louisiana AAS. Accordingly, there will be no"adverse" and "disparate" impact in the surrounding area.


17/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page 16 of 16

x. CONCLUSION

The LDEQ, Office of Environmental Services, Air Permits Division has conducted a reviewofthe information submitted and has determined that the Part 70 (Title V) Operating Permitshould be issued to Murphy Oil USA, Inc. for the construction and operation of theBenFree Unit at its Meraux Refinery.The permit will require that the Meraux Refinery's operations meet or exceed therequirements of all applicable regulations and defined permit conditions. The estimatedemissions from the project are based on conservative engineering design calculations,manufacturers' guarantees, and established, approved emission factors. The applicationdetails the emission calculations and state and federal regulatory requirements for the airemISSIon sources.Emissions from the Meraux Refinery, including the proposed project, will not cause orcontribute to any NAAQS and Louisiana AAS exceedances beyond the industrial property;therefore, emissions from the refinery will not cause any air quality impacts that willadversely affect human health or the environment in St. Bernard Parish.The local economy benefits from the continued operations of the existing refinery. Theproposed modification to the existing refinery will help to sustain the existing positiveaspects, such as providing personal income for the refinery's permanent and contractemployees; increasing the tax revenues for St. Bernard Parish, surrounding parishes, theState of Louisiana, and the federal government; and facilitating the purchase of goods andservices by the refinery and its employees from other businesses. These benefits are major,significant, and tangible. They outweigh the environmental impact costs of operation of theMeraux Refinery.Based on a careful review and evaluation of the entire administrative record, which includesthe permit application and Emission Inventory Questionnaires (EIQs) submitted February25, 2009, the proposed permit, and all public comments, the Louisiana Deparhnent ofEnvironmental Quality, Office of Environmental Services fmds that the Meraux Refinery'sproposed Part 70 permit will comply with all applicable federal and state statutes andregulations and will comply with the requirements of Save Ourselves v. La. Envtl. ControlCommission, 452 So. 2d 1152, 1157 (La. 1984). Particularly, the LDEQ fmds that theproposed permit has minimized or avoided potential and real adverse environmental impactsto the maximum extent possible and that social and economic benefits of the proposedfacility outweigh adverse environmental impacts. Id.

0Aj~he~l~er NolanAssistant SecretaryOffice of Environmental Services

15~~//1tElDate


18/39

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYOFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESPUBLIC COMMENTS RESPONSE SUMMARYPART 70 OPERATING PERMIT 2500-00001-V5

MERAUX REFINERYAGENCY INTEREST NO. 1238MURPHY OIL USA, INC.

MERAUX, ST. BERNARD PARISH, LOUISIANA

Request for public comment and notice of a public hearing on the proposed permit was publishedin The Advocate, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and in The Sf. Bernard Voice, Arabi, Louisiana onMay 29, 2009. The public notice was also mailed and e-mailed to persons included in the LDEQmailing list on May 28, 2009. The public hearing was held on July 7, 2009, at the NunezCommunity College Auditorium, 3710 Paris Road, Chalmette, Louisiana. A second publicnotice was published in The Advocate, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and in The St. Bernard Voice,Arabi, Louisiana on July 17, 2009, to extend the comment period to August 6, 2009, in responseto a request received bye-mail and at the hearing. The comment period and public hearingafforded the public an opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Part 70 (Title V)Operating Permit No. 2500-00001-V5.The permit application, proposed Part 70 Operating Permit, and Statement of Basis (SOB) wereavailable for review at the LDEQ, Public Records Center, Room 127, 602 North 5th Street, BatonRouge, LA. Viewing hours were from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (exceptholidays). The available information could also be accessed electronically on the ElectronicDocument Management System (EDMS) on the DEQ publie website at vvww.deg.louisiana.gov.The proposed air permit and the related SOB were also sent to the U.S. EPA Region 6.The LDEQ received written and oral comments on the proposed permit at the hearing on July 7,2009; during the first comment period ending on July 9, 2009; and during the second commentperiod ending on August 6, 2009.This document responds to pertinent statements (questions and/or comments) received regarding theimpact of emissions on air quality. The following public comments, together with the Office ofEnvironmental Services, Air Permits Division's responses, are relevant to the Part 70 (Title V)Operating Permit for Murphy Oil USA Ine.'s Meraux Refmery, located in Meraux, 81. BernardParish, Louisiana.Comments addressing the same issue have been grouped and summarized from the public hearingtranscript and written statements. Documents containing the commenters' complete statements


19/39

Response to Public CommentsMurphy Oil USA, Inc., Meraux Refinery

AII238,PER20090002Page 2 of39

are located in EDMS.1 The issues have been numbered in this document for reference.COMMENT NO.1

The proposed permit is a request to cancel the use of a pollution control device for the oilwater stripper (part of an earlier modification to their air permit in 2007), and instead seeksto use the flare as the pollution control device. This step is backwards towards clean air andshould no be allowed. Murphy Oil must be required to operate under the terms of theirexisting air permit modification agreed to when applied for.Murphy Oil has demonstrated they cannot control what they have now and should not beallowed to change a previous permit to use the flare as a pollution device.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTNO.1

There was no permit issued in 2007 for controlling emissions from the Oily Water Stripper (OWS).Murphy proposed in Part 70 Operating Permit No. 2500-00001-V4 to route the existing OilyWater Stripper vent stream, at that time being routed to the North Flare, Emission Point 20-72, tothe fuel gas system. Murphy has decided not to move forward with this project, and the OilyWater Stripper vent stream will continue to be routed to the North Flare. There is no change inthe current status of the OWS.2 The OWS is subject to the control requirements of 40 CFR 61,Subpart FF.COMMENT NO.2

Murphy Oil's proposed permit will also emit more toxic air pollutants int [sic] an area whichis already subjected to intolerable levels of different chemical odors. LA DEQ must requireMurphy to install the best available pollution control technology in order to protect thecommunity's air and not undermine protection of public health. Last week the smell was sobad on East Judge Perez Drive as you passed the refinery it burned your throat and nose.We recently moved away from Murphy Oil because the smell was so bad, at times, wecould not go outside. We noticed the smell was associated with the flaring. The disturbingnoise and vibrations for Murphy would rattle the windows in my home, the ground wouldvibrate, and I would hear cracking in the walls. The noise was so bad it sounded like welive inside an airport. Sometimes we couldn't even hear our TV and it would wake us up atnight. Now, at the new house there are still days when we are effected [sic] by the burntrubber and other obnoxious chemical smells from the refinery and I can still hear the noisewhen I am outside even living 8 blocks away.3

I EDMS stands for Electronic Document Management System, the LDEQ's electronic repository of official recordsthat have been created or received by LDEQ. Employees and members of the public can search and retrievedocuments stored in the EDMS via this web application. (See http://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/querydef.aspx).2 See EDMS Document 394269213 See EDMS Document 42220250


20/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page 3 of39

The air quality in the fence line neighborhood is so poor at times that residents shelterthemselves in place or hold their noses when they are on the roads that pass through theMurphy Oil facility.4

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO.2

Regarding public health, see LDEQ's Response to Comment No. 21.Regarding pollution control technology, the Part 70 (Title V) permit meets all applicable federal andstate regulations. Emissions from the projects will be controlled as required by applicableregulations, such as LAC 33:III.Chapters 11, 13, 15, 21, 56, 59; New Source Performance Standards(NSPS) under 40 CFR 60; National Emission Standards under 40 CFR 61; and the MaximumAchievable Control Technology (MACT) requirements of LAC 33 :III.Chapter 51 and the NationalEmission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants under 40 CFR 63. The permit limits have beendetermined to be acceptable and protective of the environment.Prior to the start of the St. Bernard Air Monitoring Project in May 2006, LDEQ received andinvestigated numerous odor complaints from citizens living in the Chalmette, Louisiana area. Atthe request of the local citizens and through negotiation with the Chalmette Refinery, anAdministrative Order on Consent was signed on May 24, 2005. Under the terms of the Order,the refinery installed fixed ambient monitors at three locations designed in accordance withdepartment directives as shown in Figure 1. Two of these sites, Chalmette High School andChalmette Vista, are in St. Bernard Parish and the third one, Algiers Entergy, is located acrossthe Mississippi River in Orleans Parish.The primary purpose of this project was to investigate what caused odors, if odor causingcompounds are air toxic and if their concentrations in the ambient air in the Chalmette area are incompliance with the state and federal ambient air quality standards. In addition, the DEQ wasfully to use its facilities to monitor for ozone and fine particulate matter PM25 and investigateother compounds such as benzene and 1, 3-butadiene that cause no odors at lowerconcentrations, but are of great health concern for long time exposure even in lowerconcentrati ons.

Odors can be caused by a single chemical compound or by a combination of compounds. Someodor causing chemicals such as hydrogen sulfide and carbon disulfide are air toxics andregulated either by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and/or by LDEQ. Otherodor-causing chemicals are not air toxic or not a health concern in moderate concentrations.Nearly all state and federal. air quality regulations are based on health impacts becausecompounds that pose known health risks are a more imminent concern to public welfare thanthose that are solely an odor issue. Although an odor may be offensive to a particular individual,4 See EDMS Document 42107180


21/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page 4 of39

it is more scientifically justifiable to establish limits based on the protection of public health thanto try to establish more subjective odor standards. People can have markedly differentperceptions about the magnitude and offensiveness of an odor. Although research is beingconducted nationally on developing techniques to measure odors, LDEQ does not believe currentmethods are precise.LDEQ investigates odor complaints received from the public and uses ambient air data collectedat the monitoring stations to make compliance determinations. Permit limits and upset releasesare also evaluated during these investigations.5LDEQ does not regulate noise, but understands that Murphy monitors the fenceline to demonstratecompliance with the S1. Bernard Parish ordinance requiring noises to be less than 65 decibel (db)between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Murphy sometimes detects a low frequency, low db noise in thetwo blocks immediately to the west of the refinery. The noise is due to cavitation, resulting fromthe installation of ultra-low NOx burners in Boilers B-5 and B-6 in December 2008. With the helpof the boiler manufacturer, Murphy conducted the recommended modifications as expeditiously aspossible, including the strengthening of the boiler ductwork and burner adjustments. Murphy ismonitoring the situation closely to avoid any noise problems to the maximmn extent possible.COMMENT NO.3

I am sending this letter about the Murphy Oil Reference AI# 1238 Permit 2500-0001-V5Activity PER2009002 how the refinery effects our quality of life the odor-fume, fire bigtrucks broken streets lighting. If and when we may have to evacuate6

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO.3Regarding odors, see LDEQ's Response to Comment NO.2. The issues of big trucks and brokenstreets are not under the jurisdiction ofLDEQ.COMMENT NO.4

I have been living in close proXImIty to the refinery since hurricane Katrina. Onnumerous occasions I have experienced foul odors, burning eyes and nostrils, catalyist[sic] fallout, large plumes of smoke and the noise being emitted. There are times whenone is a prisoner inside your own home. You carmot be outside enjoying your ownproperty because of the odors present. Forbid you if you have a window or door open. Ittrespasses into your home. It has been a nuisance for some time now. Now the gov. isrequiring the removal of these toxins at the refineries so they are not spewed out ofvehicles throughout the country. So now what happens is that it is concentrated to theareas surrounding the refinieries [sic] and released into the atmosphere increasing the

5 St. Bernard Air Monitoring Project Final Report, July 30, 20096 See EDMS Document 42209409


22/39


23/39


AII238,PER20090002Page 60f39

COMMENT NO.5I am again writing you about Murphy oil Meraux they are at it again with more ways topollute or [sic] air in our neighborhood!! Murphy Oil has applied for anothermodification to their air permits to construct a benzene saturation unit so the Merauxrefinery can adhere to new EPA mandates for lower benzene in gasoline products.However, the proposed permit seeks to cancel use of a pollution control device for theoily water stripper (part of an earlier modification to their air permit in 2007). This oilywater stripper vent stream is rich in H2S.Murphy seeks to use the flare instead. This is a step backwards towards clean air andshould not be allowed. Murphy Oil must operate under the 'terms of their existing airpermits agreed to when applied for, or reopen the permits!"IOMurphy has demonstrated they cannot control what they have now and should not beallowed to change a previous permit to use the flare as a pollution control device. IIOn a meeting we had with our niighborhood [sic] association, the parish and Carl Zornesfrom Murphy Mr Zornes told us and the parish officals [sic] that they already had apermit from the DEQ we caled [sic] the same day and they said they did not have one!We are wondering why don't the DEQ stop them from continuing from building at once!This is the second time Iam writing you and have not received a single word from you! Iwould really like to hear something from you this time!!! 12

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO.5Regarding the Oily Water Stripper vent stream, please see LDEQ's Response to Comment No.1.Murphy did not commence construction of any project addressed in Permit No. 2500-00001- V5prior to issuance of the permit. LDEQ responds to comments from the public at the time a finaldecision is made, not upon receipt of a public comment.

COMMENT NO.6On behalf of CCAM, Tulane Environmental Law Clinic requested LA DEQ provide theinformation on which Murphy Oil or LA DEQ based its emission calculation for theproposed permit modification. Without that information, it is difficult, if not impossible,

10 See EDMS Documents 42220250, 42395018, and 4255739111 See EDMS Document 4222025012 See EDMS Document 42557391


24/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page 7 of39

to comment on PSD review and BACT applicability without seeing the basis of theemissions calculations.l3

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO.6As stated above, the permit application, Statement of Basis, proposed permit, and associateddocuments were available for review at the local library and on DEQ's website. The calculationsfor the BenFree Unit and the PSD analysis are documented in Appendix D of the permitapplication (volume 2), dated February 2009.Estimated emission increases due to the BFU Project, based on baseline actual emissions topotential emissions in tons per year, are shown in the following table: 14

Baseline Actualost Projectmissions*missions.30.34.108.95.526.275.488.736.092.98 BFU ProjectIncreases**2.0426.859.7523.2536.89

PSDDeMinimis15404010040

Emissions increases due to the project are insignificant. Therefore, PSD review (netting) is notrequired.*Existing emISSIOns originate from the Cooling Tower and North Flare. For new sources,baseline actual emissions equal zero.**The "BFU Project Increases" represent increases without respect to decreases.The information in the application is sufficient to duplicate the calculations and document thenon-applicability of the PSD program.15 See also LDEQ's Response to Comment Nos. 19 and20.

COMMENT NO.7I write on behalf of our client, Concerned Citizens Around Murphy (CCAM), requestingthat Louisiana department of Environmental Quality extend the public comment period

13 See EDMS Document 4210718014 Includes EPNs 1-09,4-00,20-72,300-4, 300-6A, 300-3A, 250-8, T-5, 1-3A, 80-5A, 80-9, 80-10A, BFUturnaround emissions, and fugitives.

15 See EDMS Documents 40127062,40169977, and 42374352


25/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page 80f39

on the proposed modified Part 70/Title V air operation permit for Murphy Oil MerauxRefinery for at least 20 days. We request this extension because the neither the materialsassociated with the proposed permit, nor the application materials or any other publicallyavailable documents provide the information on which Murphy Oil or LDEQ based itsemission calculations for the modification-i.e., the BenFree Unit. Instead, the applicationmaterials state that Murphy Oil based the emission calculations "personal communicationemail[s]" and "personal communication phone conversation[s]" between Murphy Oilemployees and Murphy Oil's consultant between 2004 and sometime within the last year.One example (and there are many) is as follows: "The annual emissions rates for NOxand sax are based on an email from Lee Vail (Murphy) to Valerie Barth (Trinity) onFebruary 27.2007.,,16

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO.7The request for the extension of comment period was granted for 30 days instead of 20 days, asrequested.As for the comment regarding the "personal communication email[ s]" and "personalcommunication phone conversation[ s]," these references appear in the footnotes in Appendix D(calculation section) of the permit application. These footnotes were created to recordcorrespondence between Murphy and Trinity Consultants, the firm which assisted Murphy inpreparing its application. These footnotes were simply carried forward from previousapplications. The specific footnote referenced relates to the reduction of NOx and saxemissions from the NO.2 Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU); this project is not addressed inthe current modification (BenFree Project).See also LDEQ's Response to Comment No. 20.COMMENT NO.8

Throughout the recent past, hot boiler leaks have been a source of ear-splitting noise.Boiler No. 5 has been a source of exceedingly high noise levels and has caused entirehouses to shake, which has on some occasions cracked sheetrock. What alternatives hasMurphy examined to siting the new boiler NO.7 so that it does not cause further damageto our homes. 17

. RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO.8The hot boiler leaks referred in the comment concern Boilers NO.5 and NO.6, which weremodified with ultra-low NOx burners in an ongoing effort to reduce NOx emissions. The noiseproblem was analyzed, and it was determined that ducting vibration, burners, and forced draft

J6 See EDMS Document 4208873317 See EDMS Documents 40127062, 40169977, and 42374352


26/39


AJ 1238,PER20090002Page 9 of39

fans were the cause. Both Boilers NO.5 and No.6 were taken out of service and remedialactions have been undertaken to solve the problem.As for Boiler No.7, Murphy is not actually adding a new boiler, but permitting an existing boilerthat has in the past been used only when required to meet the steam demands of the facility.Boiler No.7, when needed, was operated under the terms and conditions of a yariance.However, LDEQ's position is that while a variance may be justified in emergencies, thismechanism is no longer appropriate to address operation of this source. With this modification,Murphy is adding Boiler No. 7 as a permanent source. This project is independent of theBenFree Project.Murphy investigated the complaints regarding vibration and "shake" and found that only twohouses had some very minor cracks that could not be directly associated to the vibrations or"shake" caused by the refinery. Murphy informs LDEQ that the residents were offeredassistance with repairs, but the offer was rejected by the residents.COMMENT NO.9

1. THE NETTING ANALYSIS FAILS TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWINGEMISSION SOURCES.A. Emergency Flaring Emissions.The netting calculations included routine releases to the North Flare from the newBenFree Unit. These vent releases occur about five times a year with each incidentlasting 30 minutes. Exh. 2, footnote 11. According to the permit engineer and ourunderstanding of the process, these venting emissions are part of the normal operation ofthe BenFree Unit. The netting calculations did not include emergency release emissionsdue to malfunctions at the BenFree Unit for any subject pollutant.Louisiana air regulations require Murphy Oil to include emergency flaring emissions inthe netting analysis for all regulated pollutants. The regulations specifically requireMurphy Oil to include emergency emissions for calculating both "Baseline Actualemission" and Projected Annual Emissions." See LAC 33:III.llI (definition for"Baseline Actual Emissions" and "Projected Annual Emissions" require inclusion ofauthorized emissions associated with start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions) (emphasisadded). See also, id. (definition of "Malfunction" - "any sudden and unavoidable failureof air pollution control equipment or process equipment or of process to operate in anormal or usual manner.,,).18The primary purpose of the flare is to handle "emergency" releases which are not plannedor anticipated for safety reasons, e.g., to relieve pressure inside vessels to prevent

18 See EDMS Document 42539789 (pg. 3)


27/39


AII238,PER20090002Page 100f39

explosion. These emergency releases occur when there are process and other types ofmalfunctions. The most severe emergency releases usually occur during power outages.The emissions from these events were not included in the netting analysis. LDEQ mustrequire Murphy Oil to supplement its Application with emergency release emissions dataand republish the draft permit for public comment with the updated information.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO.9

The reference to the definition of "baseline actual emissions" and "projected actual emissions" iserroneously stated as LAC 33:III.ll1. These terms are found in LAC 33:III.509.B. Bothdefinitions state that the rates "shall include fugitive emissions to the extent quantifiable, andauthorized emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions" (emphasis added).LDEQ does not permit or authorize emissions resulting from malfunctions. Such emissions mustbe reported as deviations and are subject to enforcement action.Further, because "emergency releases" are not permitted, excluding such emiSSIOns from anetting analysis is consistent with federal and state PSD regulations. When calculating baselineactual emissions, both federal and state rules require the average rate to be adjusted downward toexclude any non-compliant emissions that occurred while the source was operating above anyemission liinitation that was legally enforceable during the consecutive 24-month period.LDEQ has further discussed use of the word "malfunctions" in the definitions of "baseline actualemissions" and "projected actual emissions"in the Louisiana Guidance for Air PermittingActions. 19COMMENT NO. 10

B. Updated Facility-wide Turnaround Emissions and NO.2 Amine Unit Turnaround.The proposed permit covers the "reconciliation" of turnaround emissions for facility wideturnaround or startup/shutdown emissions, changing current one-year startup/shutdownemissions to a yearly estimate based on five year emission total. 2/09 Ap., pp. 2-3;Briefing Sheet, p. 9. In addition, the proposed permit includes No. 2 Amine Unitturnaround or startup/shutdown emissions. However, the netting analysis does notinclude these emissions because "the turnaround and startup/shutdown emissions are notsubject to New Source Review as they are existing emissions and no new modification istriggering an increase in the associated emissions. Air Permit Briefing Sheet, pp 9-10, p.9 note (**). There are three major problems with the treatment of these emissions.First, the increase in S02 emissions due to these reconciliation issues, 40.53 ton/yr,exceeds the PSD significance threshold for S02 by themselves. Thus, regardless of howLDEQ classifies them, the resulting increases are a significant PSD modification

19 Available at http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portaVtabid/64/Default.aspx


28/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page II of39

triggering PSD review.Second, these emissions are not "existing" as they are projections of future emissionsover the term of the Title V permit. A portion of them, for example, include startup,shutdown, and turnaround emissions from the new BenFree Unit.Third, as discussed above, Louisiana air regulations require Murphy Oil to includestartup, shutdown, and turnaround emissions in the potential to emit for purposes ofdetermining NSR applicability. The fact that Murphy Oil has not included theseemissions in prior NSR analyses for this facility is contrary to the law.2o

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 10Permit No. 2500-00001-V2, dated November 20, 2007, included startup and shutdownemissions. As referenced in the proposed permit,21 these emissions were based on an arumalperiod (i.e., 12 calendar months). With this modification, LDEQ proposes to permit these sameemissions as a five year total to give the facility some flexibility in performing turnaroundsdictated by consumer demand, production, and operational flexibility. The overall emissionspermitted for startup/shutdown, Emission Point TRND, represent a five year total. See the"Specific Requirements" section in the proposed permit under EQT0095. The PSD analysisconsiders maximum emissions allowed for on an annual basis.Murphy did determine that startup/shutdown emissions from the existing NO.2 Amine Unit wereinadvertently omitted from previous estimat~s. However, the contribution from the NO.2 AmineUnit turnaround (startup/shutdown) emissions to the overall facility startup/shutdown emissionsis negligible on an annual basis as shown below:22

PollutantPMIONOxCOVOC

Startup/Shutdown Emissions(tons/5 years)


29/39



The startup/shutdown emissions for the BenFree Unit were included in the netting analysis.23COMMENT NO. 11

D?4 Boiler 7The Applicant submitted an addendum to the 2/09 Application, requesting that emissionsfrom a temporary boiler formerly used during planned maintenance activities bepermitted and included in the Title V operating permit as Boiler B-7. As some portion ofthe increase will service the new BenFree Unit, LDEQ must require the netting analysisto include that portion of these emissions?5

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 11

See LDEQ's Response to Comment No.8. Boiler NO.7 does not and will not service the newBenFree Unit. Moreover, the BenFree Reboiler does not require any steam because it is firedwith refinery fuel gas. Therefore, LDEQ did not include any portion of the emissions from theboiler in the PSD analysis associated with the BenFree Project.COMMENT NO. 12

E. Hydrogen GenerationThe Project includes a new 27,000 BPD BenFree Unit. This unit, licensed technology ofAxens, will use hydrogen and a fixed bed catalyst to convert Platform ate benzene intocyclohexane. The Application incorrectly suggests that it will use hydrogen as a fuel inthe reboiler (Ap., p. 4) and fails to recognize that hydrogen is one of the inputs to theprocess itself. The netting analysis did include increases in cooling tower emissions fromincreases in cooling water, another input to the BenFree Unit. Ap., p. 2 and Exh. 3.Hydrogen production generates emissions of NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and VOC thatMurphy Oil did not include in netting analysis. However, Murphy Oil must includeemissions that result from the hydrogen production if: 1. the entity that produces thehydrogen shares a boundary with Murphy Oil, 2. shares -common control, or 3. if theentity the produces the hydrogen sends more than 50 percent of the hydrogen it producesto Murphy Oil. Concerned Citizens Around Murphy asks LDEQ to investigate all threeof these issues and provide answers in its response to comments.Furthermore, the Application does not contain any of the BenFree process informationrequired to estimate the amount of hydrogen that would be required, or the increase in

23 See EDMS Document 41458096, Appendix D - Calculations, Emission Point North Flare (20-72), footnote II24 Note that there is no Item "C" in the Comments Document.25 See EDMS Document 42539789


30/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page 13 of39

emISSIons from this increase in hydrogen production. Concerned Citizens AroundMurphy also asks LDEQ to provide determine the amount of hydrogen required andincreased emissions from the hydrogen production.26

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 12It is correct that the BenFree unit is a licensed technology ofAxens. The hydrogen used by theBenFree Unit will conservatively be 8.4 MM standard cubic feet (scf) per day. Hydrogen will beimported from Air Products, which does not share a boundary with Murphy and is a whollyseparate entity. Thus, the two sites are not under common control. Further, Murphy does notimport more than 50 percent of Air Products' hydrogen production. Also, the Air Products NewOrleans facility producing the hydrogen is located in the Almonaster Industrial District inOrleans Parish, not in St. Bernard Parish. For the location, see Agency Interest No. 2062, EDMSDocument 39396270, page ] 8. Therefore, the emissions due to the increased utilization ofhydrogen for the BenFree Unit were not and should not be included in the netting analysisassociated with the BenFree Project.COMMENT NO. 13

II. THE PROJECT TRIGGERS NSR REVIEW FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE ANDVOLITILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.

A. Murphy Oil Underestimated Sulfur Dioxide Emissions.Murphy Oil's netting analysis concluded that the project would increase emissions ofsulfur dioxide ("S02") by 26.85 ton/yr, which is less than the PSD significance thresholdof 40 ton/yr. Briefing Sheet, p. 9 (LDEQ-EDMS Doc. 4]456805, p. 13 of 786). S02emission sources include: (l) the reboiler in the BenFree Unit; (2) the North Flare towhich the BenFree Unit vents; and (3) Boiler B-7. Ap., Appx. D.As a preliminary matter, Murphy Oil improperly excluded emissions from Boiler B-7 inits netting calculations, which we explain in section II below.In addition, Murphy Oil incorrectly based S02 emissions calculations solely on the H2Scontent of combusted gas. 7/7/09 Quadri Email; Ap., p. 1 (fuel gas monitored by H2SCEMS), Appx. D, Emission Calculations, North Flare, footnote 7 (H2S content is 159ppmv); Ap., Appx. F, 10/8/08 Bourgeois Letter (requiring only monitoring of H2S inflare vent gases). Because H2S is not the only sulfur compound found in refinery fuelgas, Murphy Oil has significantly underestimated the S02 emissions.The combustion process converts essentially 100% of the sulfur in a fuel gas to S02.Thus, Murphy Oil should have calculated the S02 emissions from fuel sulfur content

26 See EDMS Document 42539789


31/39



based on total sulfur in the fuel, not just H2S. Additional sulfur compounds includemercaptans and oxidized sulfur compounds, such as thiophenes and carbonyl sulfide.These other compounds make up most of th~ sulfur that is present in refinery fuel gas,generally well over half of the total sulfur. Thus, assuming that LDEQ is correct as tohow Murphy Oil calculated the S02 emissions factor, the netting analysis hassignificantly underestimated S02 emissions. Nearly all of the S02 emissions from theproject arise from burning refinery fuel gas in either the reboiler, Boiler B-7 (erroneouslyexcluded), or the North Flare. The unaccounted for sulfur in the refinery fuel gas is atleast double the claimed S02 emissions, pushing the project's S02 emissions over thePSD significance threshold, thus triggering NSR review for S02. The reported S02increase is 26.85 ton/yr. Adopting the reasonable and conservative assumption that totalsulfur is double LDEQ's calculation based on only H2S, S02 emissions rise to 53.7ton/yr, which exceeds the 40 ton/yr significance threshold.


Regarding Boiler No.7, see LDEQ's Response to Comment Nos. 8 and 11.Murphy complies with the requirements of 40 CFR 60, Subpart J - Standards of Performance forPetroleum Refineries. 40 CFR 60.104 - Standards for Sulfur Oxides requires the refinery tolimit the H2S content of fuel gas burned in fuel gas combustion devices. The facility maintainsthe H2S concentration in the refinery fuel gas at 0.10 gr/dscf27 or less as required by 40 CFR60. 104(a) (1) and monitors H2S continuously as required by 40 CFR 60. 105(a)(4).The emissions calculations were conducted using the maximum H2S limit of 0.10 gr/dscf. Theresultant emission factor for S02, again based on the NSPS limit for H2S, is 0.0296 lb/MM BTU,derived as follows:

(0.10 gr H2S/dscf)*(l Ib/7000 gr)*(l scf/909.1 BTU)*(l0/\6) = 0.0157 lb H2S/MM BTUConverting to S02: 0.0157 * (64/34) = 0.0296 lb S02/MM BTU

The BTU value of the refinery fuel gas is stated in the Appendix D - Emissions Calculation ofthe Application.

The conservative H2S limit of 160 ppmv takes into account the other sulfur compounds'contribution to the formation of S02. The reported S02 emissions increase of 26.85 tons/yr dueto the inclusion of Ben Free Unit is quantifiable and justified.Use of the 160 ppmv factor for H2S in estimating S02 emissions is conservative in Murphy Oil'scase as the average H2S emissions monitored by Murphy Oil have been less than 40 ppmv overthe past year. EPA data contained in the rulemaking record for the NSPS Ja rule indicated that

27 Converts to ~ 160 ppm


32/39



sulfur compounds are expected to exist in the fuel gas of refineries that do not have coker units atonly a fraction of the concentrations of H2S. In a response to comment on that issue, EPA stated:

"Our data indicate that non-H2S sulfur compounds are only a very small fractionof the total sulfur content of fuel gas streams produced by units other than thecoking unit. The commenter provided no data to support that other gas streamscontain appreciable concentrations of non-H2S sulfur compoUnds. Based on thedata available, we cannot justify the expense of replacing all existing monitors,and we can only estimate the costs and emission reductions of reducing TRS fromfuel gas generated by coking units. Weare interested in determining the totalamount of sulfur emissions from fuel gas combustion devices and are consideringthe best way to obtain accurate measurements outside of these NSPS.,,28

As the Murphy Oil refinery does not have a coker, the non-H2S sulfur compounds are expectedto be only a fraction of the total sulfur content of the fuel gas streams and would make nomaterial difference to the S02 estimated emissions.As explained in the Appendix E of the application,29 Murphy monitors H2S content in the NorthFlare gases via gas chromatograph on weekdays and supplements that data with Drager tubesampling on weekends. Murphy calculates S02 emissions at the North Flare, Emission Point 2072, using the H2S content results and the flue gas flow metering system.COMMENT NO. 14

B. Netting Analysis Underestimates Volatile Organic Compound Emissions.The netting analysis concluded that the project would increase emissions of volatileorganic compounds ("VOCs") by 37.22 ton/yr, which is just 2.78 ton/yr shy of the PSDsignificance threshold of 40 ton/yr. Briefing Sheet, p. 9 (LDEQ-EDMS Doc. 41456805,p. 13 of 786). As demonstrated below, the netting analysis underestimated flaringemissions and excluded several sources ofVOC emissions.

J. Routine Flaring Emissions

The netting analysis includes emissions from routine flaring. Routine flaring emissionsinclude emissions from burning flare pilot gas, flare sweep gas (for purging the flaresystem), and BenFree vent gases. Murphy Oil calculated the increase in flaring VOCemissions due to the project (0.44 ton/yr) as the difference between projected future

28 Response to comments at 27, Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries, Background Information forFinal Standards, Summary of Public Comments and Responses, April 2008. See also MEMORANDUM TO:Petroleum Refinery NSPS Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011, FROM: Bob Lucas, EPA/SPPD, DATE:November 18, 2008, SUBJECT: Documentation of Revised Flare Recovery and Fuel Gas System ImpactEstimates.

29 See EDMS Document 41458096


33/39


AI1238,PER20090002Page 160[39

flaring emissions (13.860 ton/yr) and baseline flaring emissions (13.420 ton/yr). SeeApplication, Appendix C, Table 1, attached here as Exh. 3. This small increase, 0.44ton/yr, is gross underestimate. The estimated increase in routine flaring emissions iswrong because Murphy calculated its projected future flaring emissions using anemission factor that does not apply to flaring of refinery fuel gases. When the projectfuture emissions are estimated using the more accurate Ideal Gas Law, the resultingincrease in emission is to exceed the PSD significance threshold of 40 ton/yr.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT NO. 14VOC emissions were calculated using the emission factor set forth in AP-42, Section 13.5 Industrial Flares. AP-42 emissions factors have been utilized to develop emissions estimates inthe past, and the same emission factors were utilized for flares in the Consent Decrees issued byU.S. EPA to the major refineries across the United States.Regarding use of the Ideal Gas Law, LDEQ does not dispute that such is a viable method forcalculating emissions. However, what the commenter fails to consider is that if potential andprojected actual emissions are calculated using the Ideal Gas Law, then baseline actual emissionsshould also be calculated using the Ideal Gas Law.See also LDEQ's Response to Comment No. 15.COMMENT NO. 15

(a) Murphy Oil Used Wrong Emission Factor Used to Calculate Project FlaringEmissions.Murphy Oil based its baseline emissions on permitted emissions, since actual emissionsexceeded permitted limits, i.e., actual emissions violated existing permit limits. Exh. 3,footnote 3. This is correct - a permit applicant cannot avoid significance levels byclaiming credit emissions that violate legal limits. However, Murphy Oil calculated theprojected future flaring emissions from an emission factor that does not apply to flaresthat bum refinery fuel gas streams.

Murphy Oil estimated projected future flaring VOC emissions using the AP-42 emissionfactor for flares of 0.16 Ib/Moto and an assumed maximum heat input of 20.0 Motolhr.Ap. Appx. D, Emissions Calculations, North Flare, Footnote 11 (Exh.2).3 This emissionfactor underestimates routine flaring VOC emissions because it does not take intoaccount the specific fuel that Murphy Oil will bum. EPA developed the flare AP-42emission factor from tests in which a mixture of propylene and propane was burned.31The gases sent to the North Flare are not similar to this mixture.

30 See EDMS Document 42539789, footnote 531 See EDMS Document 42539789, footnote 6


34/39


AI 1238, PER20090002Page 17of39

The Application indicates that the fuels that Murphy Oil will burn in the North Flare arenatural gas (15.2 Moto/hr) and vent gases (4.8 Moto/hr). Ap. EIQ, North Flare. Naturalgas is nearly 100% methane and contains very little propylene and propane. TheApplication does not disclose the composition of vent gas beyond indicating that it ismostly refinery fuel gas. Exh. 2. However, composition data for other refinery fuelgases indicates that it also contains very little propylene and propane.Thus, the fuel mixture burned by the North Flare are not similar to a mixture of propyleneand propane, the mixture assumed by the AP-42 emission factor used in the nettingcalculations. VOC emissions from burning a fuel gas depend upon the composition ofthe gas, specifically, the molecular weight of the gas. Thus, the AP-42 emission factorrelied on in the Application is not accurate for routine flaring emissions.(b) Revised Projected Future Flaring EmissionsA more accurate and direct method of calculating VOC emissions is the Ideal Gas Law.The Ideal Gas Law is a fundamental statement of the relationship among the pressure,temperature, volume, and number of molecules in a mole of gas. It is one of the mostcommonly used methods to estimate VOC emissions from flares. The TexasCommission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), for example, has published New SourceReview emission calculation procedures to determine VOC emissions from flaring. TheTCEQ guidance is widely used in the refinery industry to calculate VOC emissions fromflaring.Using the Ideal Gas Law consistent with TCEQ's guidance and the preponderance ofevidence, VOC emissions are calculated from the molecular weight of the flared gas andthe flare VOC destruction efficiency. The VOC destruction efficiency is the percent ofthe VOCs in the gases sent to the flare that is burned to CO2 and water. The standarddestruction efficiency used in flaring calculations is 98%. The molecular weight forrefinery fuel gases typically ranges from 15 to 30 lb/lb-moI. A molecular weight of 16corresponds to pure methane and the midpoint of this range corresponds to a typicalrefinery fuel gas such as that vented to the North Flare.The resulting calculations in indicate that future VOC emissions are 55.11 ton/yr for pilotand purge gases and 24.72 ton/yr for vent gases. The total VOC emissions fromprojected future flaring are thus 79.83 ton/yr ton/yr [sic). The resulting increase in VOCemissions due to the modifications, from 13.42 ton/yr (Exh. 1) to 79.83 ton/yr, is 66.4tons/yr. This increase is sufficient by itself to cause the project net increase in emissionsto exceed the PSD significance threshold of 40 ton/yr. Thus, the project triggers NSRreview for VOCs.The above calculations assume that flare destruction efficiency never goes below 98percent on average for the lifetime of the project. But this is will not be the result under


35/39



actual conditions. If flare combustion efficiency drops to 95 percent on average, MurphyOil will emit 5 percent of VOCs in the flared gases, and VOC emissions will be 2.5 timeshigher that at 98 percent efficiency. Destruction efficiency will, more likely than not, gofar lower, causing VOC emissions to increase drastically.For example, the VOC destruction efficiency drops significantly when crosswinds aregreater than 5 mph. The average annual wind speed in the vicinity of the MerauxRefinery is 8.2 mph. As significant crosswinds, i.e., greater than 5 mph, are usuallypresent in this area, LDEQ must account for these wind effects in estimating flaringemissions. Further, as Murphy Oil reduces Btu content of the flare gas, it will alsoreduce its combustion efficiency. Recent studies have suggested that lower Btu flaresmay have efficiencies as low as 65 percent. The Btu content of refinery fuel gases sent tothe North Flare can vary widely. Thus, our estimate of the increase in emissions fromroutine flaring is very conservative. Actual emissions could be substantially higher.


See LDEQ's Response to Comment No. 14. Regarding flare efficiencies, the TCEQ guidancereferenced by the commenter contemplates "applying 98 percent destruction efficiency forbutane+ and hydrogen, and 99 percent destruction efficiency for propylene, propane, ethylene,and ammonia."Only a small portion of the VOC increase is due to flaring emissions (~ 0.5 TPY). Thus, if aflare efficiency of 98% was assumed, uncontrolled emissions would be 25 TPY (0.5 TPY / 0.02).Even if one applied a control efficiency of 90%, VOC increases due to flaring would be only 2.5TPY (25 TPY* 0.10), and the total VOC increase would still be below 40 TPY.The commenter's argument is off point for