.o.1rÉo

slrto

3"al'L

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

,

TYJ
APR

z0

REGION 2
290 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866

201 '

Mr. Donald Spencer
Regional Air Pollution Control Engineer
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 4
1 130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 123 06-20 1 4

RE: Draft title V Operating permit Modification for Global Companies LLCAlbany Terminal, located in Albany, New york
Permit ID #: 4-0101-00112/00029
Dea¡ Mr. Spencer:
The u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 offrce has reviewed the New york
state Department of Environmental conservation, Region 4 (NySDEC)'s draft title v
operating permit modification (drafr permit) for Global Companies LLC_Albany
Terminal (Global or facility) issued for public comment on January 29, 2Ol4,the
permitting record for this draft permit, and additional information,-which was provided
by
your staff. Global is a stationary bulk petroleum storage and transfer terminal.ïhe
prop_ose-d modification
þroject) comprises of (l) reconfiguration of the existing Kenwood
rail facility to allow for the off-loading ofheated petroleum products; (2) convJrsion of
Tank 33 which, cunently stores distillate fuel, to volatile petioleum pròáuct (crude oil..
gasoline, ethanol) storage; (3) installation ofseven new bõilers thatwiu be uìilized
to ilear
viscous petroleum products; and (4) conversion ofrank I lg from volatile petroleum
products to distillate fuel storage.

EPA has the following comments on the d¡aft permit. we provide these comments to
help ensure that the facility meets the federal clean Air Act (cAA) requirements, that the
permit will provide necessary information so that the basis of the permìt decision is
transparent and readily accessiblé to the public, and the permit record provides adequate
support for the permit decision.

1,

Background-Ambient Air Quality ánd Major Source Status

currently, the area in which Global is located is designated as meeting the National
Amtient Air Quality Standards QTIAAQS), which are promulgated tolrotect public
health, for all criteria pollutants except for ozone. ozone is not emitteä directiy from
stationary sourcesl ozone is formed by the precursor pollutants, nitrogen oxidãs (No*),

and volatile organic compounds (voc), Thus, Nonattainment New s-ource Revièw "'
regulations, in ozone nonattainment areas, apply to new major stationary sources
(major source) of NO*. or VOC and to existing major sources of NO* or VOC making

Olsnl

lntemot AddresE (URL) . htþ;//www,epa.gov
Rccyclrd/R.cycllbl. . P.lntåd wllh vagot blr Oll Bå..d lnkr on Rlcycled PrÞrr (Mtn¡mlm 5oy. po¡tconlu¡rêr contcnt)

 major modifications for these pollutants, NNSR permitting is intended to allow
construction of new or modified sources of air pollution in these æeas while still making
progress towa¡d cleaner air, and attaining the NAAQS. Whenever a new major soürce or
à major modification at an existing major source is constructed, the source must apply for
and obtain a NNSR permit that meets regulatory requirements including: (1) installation
of the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER); (2) obtaining offsets, and (3) opportunity
for public involvement.

EPA approved New York's NNSR and PSDr regulations contained in 6 NYCRR, Pa¡t
231 (NYSDEC NNSR and PSD regulations) æ consistent with the requirements of 40
CFR 51.165, and 40 CFR 52.21, respectively. Under NYSDEC NNNSR regulations,
facilities with a potential to emit (PTE) of 50 tons pet year (tpy) of VOC, and 100 py of
NOx, which are located in marginal, modeiate ozone nonatt¿inment areas, or ozone.
transport regions, are classified as major source relative to NNSR regulations.
Based on the permitting record, Global has a PTE of VOC of 147 tpy, which is geater
than the NYSDEC NNSR applicable tlueshold of 50 tpy. Thus, Global is a n¡rjor source
for ozone relative to NNSR regulations. EPA notes that, we could not identiff any

information in the permitting record, draft permit or draft permit review report regarding
the facility PTE of NO* emissions.
Furthermore, from ou¡ review, as of NYSDEC NNSR and PSD regulations, Global is a
listed source category, "Petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage capacity
exceeding 300,000 barrcls". As such, the major source level is 100 tpy of a regulated
pollutant (unless more stringent levels are required by State regulations)', and fugitive
emissionsi æe considered in determining whether the sou¡ce is a major source and
whether a modification to an existing sou¡ce is a major modification. For example, a PTE
of 100 tpy of NO* would make Global a major source relative to, both, PSD and NNSR
regulations.

2,

Nonattainment New Source Regulations Applicability Analysis for the Proposed
Modification Conducted by the Facility

As discussed above, Global is a major NNSR source, and, therefore, the proposed project
represents a modifrcation to an existing major source. From our review of the permitting
record (Project Summary tâble)4, NYSDEC has determined that, since, the increase in
actual emissions (project emissiôn potential) of the proposed modification of 39,59 þy of
t

40 CFR 52.21 appli€s to new major stationary,sourc€s or major modification at existing major sourccs in

attainm€nt afeas.
2

For example, based on NYSDEC NNS& the major facility th€shold for ozone nonattaiDment a¡eas could
be as low as 25 çy ofVOC or NO".
3 ao crn s t.tos1a¡ (1) (ix),"Fugitive emissions means those emissions which could not ¡easonably pass
th¡ough a stack, chim¡ey, vent o¡ other functionally equivalent opening."
' See Project Summary table in Attachment I of this letter.

 voc is less than the applicable
modification does not constitute
to LAER, and offsets,

significant project th¡eshold of 40 þy, the proposed
a major modification, and, thus, it would not te subject
.

we note that, for a modification with a project emission potential (calculated using
projected actual emissions), which is less than the applicable signiircant project
th¡eshold, the NYSDEC NNSR regulations, only requires that the facility maintains
records related to the proposed modification. The draft permit contains such requirements
for the proposed modification. However, as discussed below, thus far, it is unclàar to us
whether the NNSR applicability analysis for this proposed moäification was conducted in
accordance with the provisions of the NYSDEC NNSR regulations.

a.

Proiect Emission Potential Calculation

Based on NYSDEC NNSR regulations, the project emission potential must consider onlv
the proposed emissions .inc¡eases' . However, as shown in the project Summary
appears that, in determining the project emission potential, the facility, contrary to thá
NYSDEC NNSR provisions, has also considered decreases in emissions associated with
the proposed modifìcation, not only emission increases. As shown in the project
slry"*l-t4b,!", the project emission potential of 39.59 tpy was determined by excludins
4.27
Yac from the proposed project emíssíons potential íncreases or+r.úoìpy voõ
^tpy
(43.83'tpy
minus 4.27 tpy equals 39.59 tpy).

tableJ

From the facility's NNSR applicability analysisT, ¡he 4.27 tpy represent decreases in VOC
emissions resulting from converting Tank I l8 from volatile petroleum products (e.g.,
gasoline) to distillate products.
EPA notes that, the project emission potential determined by considering only the
proposed emission increases, as required by the NYSDEC NNSR regulations, would be
43. 83 tpy VOC, which exceeds the significant project th¡eshold of 4b tpy. For a
modification with a project emission potential, which equals or exceed iúe applicable
significant project threshold, NYSDEc requires the facility to determine the iroposed
modifìcation net emission increase (which is the sum ofpioject emission potôntial,
increase and decreases in emissions in the contemporaneous periods, and àecreases from
the proposed modification). Modification with net emission increases that equal or

5

o

See 6-NYCRR.Part 231-4.1 (b) (40(D

As shown_in the applicability analysis, the project increases in actual emissions of43.g3
þy voc was
determined bæed on the diffsrence ben.veen the projected actual emissions of44.25 py and ihe baseline
actual emissions of0.39 çy.

Attacbment I of this letter
see.6_l.IYcRR Pa¡t 231-4. (b)(13),conte porlneous: "... the period beginning five years prior to the
scheduled commence constuction daþ ofthe new o¡ modified èmission iourcel and Ënding with the
scheduled commence operation date...

'

8

See

 exceed the applicable significant net emissions increase th¡esholde are subject to NNSR

regulations (i.e., LAER, offsets),

In conclusion, we recommend that the facility should provide a discussion to clarify the
calculation method that was used for determination ofthe project emission potential, and
revise the NNSR applicability analysis, including the determination of the project
emission potential, net emission increase. We note that, in the event, that the revised
NNSR applicability analysis would reveal that the project is subject to NNSR regulations
(i.e., LAER, offsets), NYSDEC would have to reopen the permit for public comment.

b.

Tank 33 Marine Loadine Operations of Crude Oil. and Boilers: Proiected
Actual Emissions or Potential to Emit

As indicated by the Project Summary table, the increases in actuâl VOC emissions for
Tank 33 (Emission Unit: I -Tanks, Process CRl, Tank 33 storing crude oil), mæine
loading operations of crude oil at dock (Emission Unit: 1-Rack 3, Process R3C), and for
Boilers (Emission Unit: I-BOLR l) were calculated based on the projected actual
emissions. However, from our conversation with you staff, it is our underst¿nding that the
py of VOC values listed in the "Projected Actual Emissions" column of the Project
Summary table represent the potential to emit ofthese emission sources, and not their
projected actual emissions.
Thus, clarifr whether the projected actual emissions or potential to emit was used for the
calculation of increases in actual emissions resulting from Tank 33 and marine loading
operations ofcrude oil activities. Additionally, in cæe the projected actual emissions
were used (and not potential. to emit), please provide supporting information,
assumptions, and calculations related to the projected actual emissions included in the
application for these emission sources. Furthermore, since the boilers, are new emission.
source, please clarify that VOC emission increases were bæed on their potential to emit.

c,

VOC Decreases in Actual Emission Tank i l8

As shown in the Project Summary table and applicability analysis (See Attachment I of
this letter), the facility has claimed 4.27 tpy of VOC as decreases in actual emission from
converting Tank 118 (which is part of the proposed modification) ftom gasoline to
distillate products. It seems thal the 4.27 tpy is the difference between the baseline actual
emissions (average over year 201 I and 2012) of 4.31 tpy and 0.037 tpy VOC, which
represents the new PTE of Tank 1 I 8.

However, from our review, it seems that the facility current title V permit does not
contain any limitations on Tank I l8 VOC emission, throughput (i.e., gallons of gasoline
9

For instance, the applicable significant net emission increase th¡eshold for Global proposed modifìcation
is 40 çy of VOC.

 sto¡ed per yea¡), oÌ monito,¡ing or recordkeeping
requirements for the voc emissions
or
for the throughput. Thus, the iac'ity
they
derived
the
baseline
actual VOC emissions for Ta¡rk I I é.

shourdi;;ililü*

d.

Proiected pueitive Actual Emissions

The facility should add¡ess

emissions,'whico;n;

o
o
3.

*ï?'i:ö::i åffitr Il;,:ï"0'.0

fugitive actuar

Identify the sou¡ces associated with the projected
fugitive actuar emissions.
Provide a discussion clarifring how the projected
fugitive actual emissions were
derived.

contemporaneous period-contemporaneous
increases and decreases

E-PA notes tåat, since the permitting
record does not contain information
rerated to the
contemporaneous inireases and decreases
at trre racility,
have requested such
information from Reeion 4 throret
Neverrheress. as we
unde¡stand from vour staff. tç frres
r*rt¡ørmarion
a¡e no longer wirh
Region 4, æ these files are wirh the cåntr;i'oñ.d.r.TrÌ,us,
we
reconunend
thãt the
facility shourd.add¡ess the folrowing i"ró*"ii"","gääing
the contemporaneous period,
and contemporaneous increases uni¿.rr.*.,
álùJa.iiirv,

l

r

i

L

#i'r;,20r4.

"-[i¡;; J"*lrrat;t

r

I

i
I

l

Define the contemporaneous period for the proposed
modification; the
period shall be defined as.equi'eJ
ty ãñïönn Ëiupart 231_4 (b)
filjftoo'*tous

I

:

P¡ovide detailed information ¡erated to the
voc emissions increases and dec¡eases.
including VOC fugitive emissio*, *f,i"t
fru*-oJ.'urr.a ut tf," faci.lity and that.
a¡e
contemporaneous with the proposed modification.
s".tr i"tå.."ti""'iül
not be limited to, the emission unit, process,
anã-ern'ill,on .o*"" number and the
date
of the occurrence of the increaseo, à..rr*á
y",
i, vóð
ä;i
ä:
contemporaneous inc¡eases and decreases
in emissiãns sho"rJá*ì".i"ä"äåi.ri"",
resulting from sou¡ces, which a¡e.*r*pt rrÀ*-pîtriiiing
unaer the NysDEc
regulations.

#ï:di:*

äirrià;r:ç;;;

we note that the Global title v air permit has
been modiñed fìve times since 20r
r. Thus,
we ¡ecommend that the description section
or trr" p..rii ue ¡evised to include
a
summary
of the changes addressed by eå"t onr oi tt
J

"ïtìåTiiäiilo¿i¡"ution"

I

l

 4.

Erempt Combustion Sources'Emission Estimates

From ou¡ review of the permining record, there are at least eight combustion sou¡ces
consisting of em"rg.n.y generators, stationary or portable intemal combustion engines,
The facility
and fumices, whici aré eiempt from permitting under NYSDEC regulations.
sorüces:
should add¡eis the following information regarding the exempt combustion

.

clarify whether the emissions resulting from
determination of the PTE for the facility.

e

Provide an estimate of these sources potential to emit (þy) of NOx, VOC' CO'
PM, PMro, PMz.s, SQ, and Greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions'

5.

Fugitive Emissions Sources

a.

Emittinq Sowces (ProcessesÌ-Described in the draft þermit

these sources were included in the

as sou¡'ces

of fugitive

emissions

we recommend that the facility should demonstrate that the facility PTE of I 47 tpy of.
VOC and 23.75 tpy of hazædous air pollutants (HAP) includes the fugitive VOC and
HAP emissions (ipy) resulting from the emitting sources (i.e', processes), whic! æe described in tfre àiáft permit ás sou¡ces of fugitive emissions. Such demonstration shall
include: (l) an estimaie of the PTE of VOC and HAP from each process; (2) emission
factors, assumptions, and methodology used to derive the PTE; and (3) briefly identify
the activities leading to the fugitive emissions occunences,
Additionally, we recommend that NYSDEC should revise the draft permit,. to make sure
that it incluâes the following information for each process: (l) Type of fugitive pollutants
resulting from each process; (2) Method for monitoring the annual fugitive emissions.
(é.g., by calculations), including the emission factors, and assumptions
from eaõh process
-by
the facility; (3) Recordkeeping and reporting requirements; (4) Specific
to be used
mitigation measures and work practices designated to prevent and minimize the
occùence of fugitive emissions ensure; and (5) Detection measures and control plan.

b.

Sources of Fueitive Dust Emissions

We recommend that the facility should (1) Identiff the fugitive dust emissions sou¡ces at
the facilig; (2) Estimate the PTE of PM, PM1e, and PMz s; and (3) indicate the emission
factors, assunptions, and methodology used to derive the PTE, for each source'

Additionally, we recommend that NYSDEC should revise the draft permitty: (1)
identifying the sowces of fugitive dust emissions; (2) including the type ofirgitive
pollutants resulting ftom each sou¡ce; (3) Indicating the monitoring method for the
'annual
fugitive emissions (e.g., by calculations), including the emission factors, and

 assumptions to be used bv
, (4) recordkeeping and reporting requirements;
and (5) specific mitigation measu¡es
^g:j]ir,
and work practices'oesignated to prevent
.
and
minimize the occunence of firgitive .mir.ionì .i'-.Çä¿
".^..

t

¿ult .ont

6.

oi

;ü"'

Vapor Combustion Units-NOx, CO, pM, pM¡¡, pM2¡,
SO2, and GHG Emissions

From ou¡ review ofthe oermìtting record, current
an<' draft permit, it is uncleæ
whether
No", co, pM, pM,o, pMz.s, íoz,
wrrictr
are
resulting
fiom
the
(l) combustion of the vapor emisrion.
ttiuiiesult
prtrot"um products) bv the
.,,"
vapor combustion units (vCU)ued by the
facitity; *à fzl ,¡. .å.u"lrìä"-"iäi,
auxiliary frrel required for the vcu, rn o.¿o to
r,iriJiìimbustíon have been considered
in estimaring the pr' of this fac'ity. Thus, ihe
i*iìäy .t *r¿
the following:
"¿dress
P¡ovide a discussion clæifting whether the
NO,, CO, pM, pMro, pMz.s, SOz,
and
GHG emissions resulting frorñ th. uupor .orUuitioi'units
(Êom combustion of vaoor
emissions and auxiliarv firer), truu" u".n
*tiÀ.tìrg

*ic'õ'.ri.ìiåïs,
Åiäî"

the

¡
¡

"onri¿.i.i'i"

ttääiff;il:'

P¡ovide estimates of pr' for each_of the above-mentioned
po'utants, as well as the
emission factors, assumprio¡s, and method"l";i;r;ì"
derive rhe pTE. EpA
recommends that, at least, the emission fu.to.riio,
ñõ, ar,¿ CO emùsiol-.e*tt¡nn
from the cqmbustion of vapor emisrion. sttouiJ
ue
as milrigrams per lite-r
of product treated ( mg/l), and, if possible, ,ã
"ì-pr.rr.aby the
U. ã"*rìlt*¿
VCU
manufacturer(i. e., John Zinc).

Additionally, in the event that any of the gæoline
vapor collection and control
systems at
Global are employing combustion fo, tf,.".ont
àioiriä ä

rhe

No", co;ÞM: Þi4;;'i;ü;

7.

Storage Tanks Enissions

;¡õ;;

il-cHä #,::ï","#li:i1f :iH[îîJ,::"'"

we note that, while, the drafr permit rists at least
I l storage tanks, it appeæs that
the draft
permit conrains no conditions limiting the
t"*r; .rni*i"iï. ttpy vöðää
tty tgsl tþustrput (i'e., galrons ofiroduct pe.
"l
vö. öinr.quentlv,
ít is uncrear to us.
whether the rac'itv pr' or r4zrpv of vo c
HîË-i,i.l"äåä,,åö;ìä
HAPs emissions resulting from the storage tanJ<s.
we ¡e'cámmend that the faciritv should
substantiale the permitring record by incl-uding
¿"*oirätion
fIAPs emissions are accourìred for in^trt" ru" ity" rfËls,rìi
u ¿.,rron.trarion sha'
include: (1) an estimate of the.pTE of to¿taníHÅp'frJIi"ach
tank; and (2) emission
factors, assumptions, a¡rd methoAofogy u..aìo
ae.ir"

;ïlïiï''

l

*iäiitlí"i

til th.-;*k;îiíiää"

ü.îr¡;

Additionally, we ¡ecommend that NysDEC should
¡evise the draft permit, by includine
either limitarions on the emissions rerutting f¡;;t;"
riålãË" r"*., or limit¿tions on thã
as well as the conespon&nt;;i";;;:'"cordkeeping
and reporting

l#lr$U**!

i

I
I
I

 8.

Facility PTE-UPdate

EPÀ recommends that, after addressing the issues mentioned in this letter, the facilþ
,f,*f¿ upáut", as necessary, ttre facility fTE ltpy) to: (1) incorporate-any additional VOC
ã. gap å*igions; and (2jadd any new regulated NSR pollutants, which may exceed the
applicable re gulatory thresholds.

9. Clarilic¡tion

on the Description of the Proposed Heated Petroleum Products

Act¡vities

facility should substantiate the permitting record by including the following:.(l ) a
Jescriftioi of tne pfoposed heated fetroleurnproducts activities that would identifr the
type and estimated añount of air põllutants resulting from each phase of the heating prãcess; (2) description of air políution control equipment designated for^controlling. the.

The

'urpor

the heatìng process; and (3) actual emissions data from operational
faóilities, which are èmploying similar heated petroleum products activities,
10.

táàÁ.a during

lype and Amount of Each Petroleum Product

The permitting record should be substantiate by including information regarding the
typ. un¿ tt"ouettput limit (gallons per yeæ ofproduct) for_each petroleum product

(l)

(gallons per

c-rrnently authorized under óurrent permit; and (2) type and throughput limit
yeæ ofiroduct) for each petroleum product, as contained in the draft permit'
eaaltionatty, we suggest that the information relàted to each product throughput limit'
which is auitrorizea ty ttre draft permit, should, also, be included in the Description
Section of the draft permit.
11.

Clarifications/Comments on the Draft Permit Conditions

a. øBdi!ists4-k4d-4'1
conditions 41 for Emission unit (EU): I-RACK 1+ruck loading rack, and EU: l-RACK
2-railcæ loading rack, and Conditìon 44 for EU: I-RACK l, Process (PR): RlG, fuck
loading rack of-gasoline and EU: I-RACK 2, PR: R2G-railcar loading of gasoline, of the
pqntrol
drafr pãrmit, lim-it the VOC emissions from the gasoline vapolcqllection qnd
qombust
the
svstems (which are designed to capture, condense, absorb, adsorb, or
ffiäããì"pott tesulting from these emission units/processes) to o ef lb¡991{s.91taooo
VOC/I,000
calculation,0.67
Ea1ons ofSäsoline (lb/1,000 gallons). Based on our
gallons would yield about 80 milligrams per liter of gasoline (mgll)'
However, we note that there are several conditions, elsewhere in the draft permit, which
limit the VOC emissions ¡esulting from the truck vapor recovery unit to 2 mg/l (and l0
mg/l in once instance) and, the rail vapor combustion unit VOC emissions to 10 mg/I.
Siice, both the 2 and l0 mg VOC/I limits, which are found in other draft permit

 conditions, prease, crarifr whether there
is an inconsistency
*' among the draft permit
conditions, and revise thå dr.ft pilìi;

;-ui.;öä;.

Additionalry, we note thatcondition_44 for
EU: r-RACK r, pR: RrG-truck roading
rack
of gasoline and EU: l-RACK 2, pn: nZC_rAf"æioäñg
of gusotine requires that tire
0.67 lbvo' /1,000 gallons limit to u,,no"lrorã
,liÈurort¡*rr,,. However, it seems
the drafr permit does not estabri.sh ho*
.u"".jr."iiå".¿ monitoring requirement rhat
shourd be carried out bv the facility. Thus,
"" *"ä.^*i"o.evising the draft permit, bv
including specifìc language, establishing
Ë1.* rãiìärr"g requirements for the
facility.
b. Condition 4-lÂtem 4-1.7

condition 4-lÆtem4-r,7. rimìts the gæoline/ethanol
throughput
loading rack, pR: RtE and nrc to rõ,iià,åî;'äñö;.,.ar for EU: l -RACK 1_truck
(gallons/yr), for those
times"'lhen the r/acuum Assist vrpi, i¿ri*,¡ä
iiî,,i*.
rs not operarionar. Howeve¡
we note that, this is the onlv time when
the draft pã"-ü rnrntion, a,,vacuum
Assist
Vapor Reducrion System". rnr", epÀìr."*.."ãr'åiäiïg
runguuge to the permit
defining the,.Vacuum Assist Vápor Reãu;i;;
iys Jå;,:'
Moreover, condition 4-r/rtem 4'1.7,also
states that the arurual throughput
rimit, ,.pas
catculated using a Truck Vapor Rer;*ry U;i-;;t;;^i";ïate
of I0 mg/t, a Rait
Combustion Unit emissíon rate of I0 m;1,
a;d; úîr"nr' Vopo, Combustion (JnítVaoor
emission rate of r0 mz/r)'H2we.ier, sin"cg
trrir ."iJitiä" esrablishes requirements
for the
truck loâding rack (and not ør tr,".áil ã.n'u.i""iåTå'¡"ärr.tr),
which is cont¡ofled bv a
Trück Vapor Recovery unit,.please .-pù;(Jãr."trä
tI. .on¿ition uccordingly) why
this condirion ¡erers also to'Raìr v"pà, c"ìlüäi)"it;;;;;;::;;:'):::^:::ic:),y\!
rate of t 0 mg/t, and a
Marine vapor co^tütioi uni,
,äiíîî)"ó'ri;1.',:^"lton

,*ií""i

c,

,

Condirion 3-llltem 3-1.6

Condition 3-llrtem 3-1.6,tiT:î
rhroughput for EU: t_RACK2-pR:
lh..rTgliTl"rlTor
R2E and R2G_railca¡ loading rack,
tõ fSO,OOopõö e"il.i. lyr. ff," condition
stares rhat
the.annual throughput limit,',,.was calcul.ir¿
,r¡nSZ-'irrïf Vapor Recovery Unit
emíssion rate of 2 ms/t, a Rail vapor com;bu;;;ioi
ui¡ii^,¡rrø, rate of 10 mg/,, and a
Marine vapor combustion unit in¡ss¡oi rìti
ir rc *g/t:' However, since, this condition
establishes requirements for the.railcar loadiffi.t
i.ñi'"* for the truck or marine
loading racks), which is controlred bv
unit, prease explain (and
revise rhe condition accordingþ) *r,í "
t¡1, *iJíi".iËüi, .lr" to,,Truck vaooi
Recovery unit emission rakãiá *c/t,-å,;à'M;;i;','i;;;;c;ìinrri,"ïuïí\,^*,r,
rate of I0 mg/l.,,

ill\i";;òi'üi.,i""

d,

Condition 4-2/Item 4-2.6

condition 4'2llt em 4-2'6,limits the gasorine/ethanor
rhroughput
R3E and R3G- marine loading *"t tã +so,ôóó¡iöôäjio",i.¡y.. fo¡ Eu: 1-RACK3-pR:
The condition stares that

 the annual th¡oughput limit, ,"was calculated using a Truck Vapor Recovery Unit
(Jnit emission rate of l0 mg/¡, a
emission rate of7 ng/t, a Raìt Vapor Combuition
Marine Vaporbomlusfion Unil (Control: VCUML) emission rate of l0 mg/¡, and
aiother viarine Vapor Combusti,on Unit (Control: YCUM2) 14ith an emiss¡on rste of 3

mg/l,,, However, since, this condition establishes requirements for the marine loading
Marine
,uËk 1*d not foi the truck or railcar loading racks), which is controlled by the
vupoì co*ru.tion Units: VCUML and VCUM2, pleæe explain (and revise the condition
accordingly) why this condition refers also to "Truck vapor Recovery unit emission rate
(Jni! emission rate of 10 mg/l'"
of Z m7/ti ai¿ nâilcar Vapor Combustion

c.

Condition 4-4lftem 4-4'6

Condition 4-4lltem 4-4.6, limits the distillate oil throughput for the truck, ¡ailcar, marine,
only
and rail spur loading racks to 229,300,000 gallons/yr. However, we note that the
this
whether
clarify
Please
regulated pollutant áentioned by this condition.is HAPs.
condition ihould also mention VOC emissions as regulated pollutants'

f.

Condition 4-4lltem 4'5'6

Condition 4-4lltem 4-5.6, limits the crude oit throughput for EU: l-RACK3-PR: R3C
marine loading rack to 20,000,000 gallons /yr. The condition states that the annual
,,was caiculated ising a Truck Vapor Recovery 1lnit em_ission rate of 2
*"orgfrput lirñit,
ng/1,7 Rail Vap,or Combustion (Jnìt emission rqte of l0 n8/1, a Marine VaporCámbustion lJiit (Controt: VCUML) emissìon rate of l0 mg/¡, and another_Marine
l/apor Combustion  Jnit (Control: VCUM2) with an emìssion rate of 3 mg/I," Howe-ve4
(and not for the
since, this condition estáùlishes requirements for tho marine loading rack
truck or railcar loading racks), whiòh is connolled by the Marine vapor combustion .
Units: VCUML and VtUtr¡j, pleæe explain (and revise the condition accordingly) why
this condition refers also to "Truck Vapàr Recovery tJnit emission rate of 2 ng/l' and
Railcar Vapor Combustion Ilnit emission rate of l0 mg/l."

g.

Condition 4-4lltem 4-6'6

-truck
Condition 4-4llt em 4-6,6,limits the gasoline/ethanol throughput for EU: 1'RACK I
loading rack, PR: R1E and RIG to ó39,583,333 gallons /yr. The condition states that the
annual-throughput limit, "was calculated using a Truck Vapor Recovery Unit emission
rate of 2 mgi-1, à Roit Vopo, Combustion Unit emìssion rate of I0 mg/¡, a.Marine.Vapor
Conbustiln Unít (Coniot: IICUML) emissioniate of l0 ng/¡ and another Marine
vapor combustion unit (control: vcuM2) with an emission rate of 3 mg/l," Howevet'
iili.h"r r"quirements for the truck loading rack (and not fol 1å:
sirice, this conaitior,
"tt
iailcar or marine loading racks), wt ich is cont¡olled by the Truck Vapor Re-covery Unit,
please explain (and revise the óondition acco¡dingly) why this condition refers also to "
'Raitcar
Vapor èombustion unit emission rate of l0 mg/l, and a Maríne I/apot
Combustiin tJnit (Control: VCUML) emission rate of l0 ng/¡, and another-Marine
Vapor Combustion IJnìt (Control: \CUM2) with an emission rate of 3 mg/l;'

 h.

Condition 5-13Ætem 5-13.7

Condition 5-13/Item 5-l3.7limits the crude oil
th¡oughput for EU: l-RACK3-pR:
R3C
marine loading rack to 1,750,000,000 galrons /vi.
ih;ìãn¿ition stares that the annuar
throughput timit,"was carcurate!.usin;;
tip"iírt""ery {Jnit emission rate of 2
mg/,, a Rail Vapor Combusrion-tJ.nir e"mßsion r:"ti'Jiî^g/t,
a Marine Vapor
C o m b us t i o n. Un i t (C o n rr o I : tt C U
i o,, Iàl'"i i ó * g/t, a n d a n o
t h e r Ma r i n e
^ey_i 1svapor combustion {Jnit lcontror:lt _tl
icuuzii¡tliämiss¡on
rate of 3 mg/r;, However
since, rhis condition establishes requiremeír
roading rack land not for the
truck or railcæ roading racks), wtriòh is.ontrorr.i-ù1,'rrì
Marine vapor combustion
units: vcuML and vcuM2, prease exptain
lanJãvisãtne.con¿ition
accordingly) why
this condirion refers atso to,,Tiuck v"pà,
üä
r^¡rrø,
iãi;
Railcar Vapor Combustion Unit emisiion ra," o¡ íO

i;;ä

i;;,h;;ä",

üürii

i.

;i;;ci,'L;;"

ijt

Condition 107/ltem 107.2

The draft permit condition 191/I*r 107.2, states
that,,.This permít
RACKT+rucktoadingrack, pR: FTt: fr,¡iü;;iî;.ßsionswhite authorizes E(J; I_
toadingproducts.,,
However, the draft permit does not otherõis" rp.riry
il.,îiype of polrutants comprisins
the ñrgitive truck emissions, or provide a desc;ipti;;
;ilÉ;.rirfu.,
occr¡''ences of these ñrgitive emissions. rtut, pr.ur",
truir",tr" ¿iãni.*iï

îäåi"ãî'üi"'.

tï""

addressing these issues.
12.

Nert Generation Monitoring at Global

EPA.is requesting that NYSDEC comider incorporating .,Next
Generation,, or ,,Next
Gen" monitoring into the revised titre v p.r.it.'ñ"*ið.n
monitoring incrudes the

following aspects:

o

AdvancedMonitoringTechnologies

o
o
o
r
¡
¡
¡

Use of an Infrared camera to detect volatile organic
compounds
Use of in-plant sensor networks
Use of Diffusioi Tube Sampling to detect air
toxics compounds

Fence line monitoring using traditional fixed or portable
monitoring equipment for
VOCs and air toxics compounds
Use of 3'o Parry auditors to perform periodic monitoring
Use of Electronic Reporting
Use of T¡ansparency to provide for public access
to monitoring data and reports
prepared by the facility.

l1

 we look forwa¡d to working with you to address all of our comments. If you have any
ouestions or wish to discuss specific issues regarding this letter, please contact me at
On'-nl+,or have yourstaffcontact Ms. Viorica Peüiman at (212) 637'4021'
ùor questions tólut.d to liem No. 12 "Next Generation Monitoring at Global" of this
lettea please contact Mr. Gaetano LaVigna, Acting chief, Air compliance B¡anch at

þn¡

212) 637-4069.

Permitting Section
Air Programs Branch
Enclosures: Attachment I

cc:

Robert Stanton (e-mail)
Director, Bureau of Stätionary Source
Division of Air Resburces, NYSDEC
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233'3258

Christopher Lalone (e-mail)
Chief, Permitting and ComPliance
NYSDEC, Bureau of Stationary Sources
Division of Air Resources
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233
Donald Welsted (e-mail)
NYSDEC, Division of Ai¡ Resources
estcott Road
1 130 North
12306-201 4
NY
Schenectady,

\

t2

 ¿ttae¡¡acro_t

Permittins Record Documenr
Revised Application-Global
companies LLC-Albany Terrninal,
dated November g,2013
Section of Document: Nonattainment
New Source Review Applicability
Analysis
Project Summary

o
.
o

Projected Actual Emissions
t-or Boilers
Tank I 18: Baseline Actual Emission,
and Emission Creclit Reductions

 16 Computer Drive West
Albany, NY 12205
Phonei 518.453.2203

envtro

Faxi 518.453.2204
www.envirospeceng com

November 8, 2013

Donald Welsted
NYS DEC Region 4
Division of Air Resources
1 130 North Westcott Road
SchenectadY, NY 1 2306-201 4

Re:

Global Compânies LLC - Albanv' NY TglTl!91
Title V Facility Permit No 4-0101-001 12100029

Dear Mr. Welsted;

onbehalfofGlobalcompaniesLLC(Global),Enviro-specEngineering,PL.LCissubmittingthe
Módification at the Global Companies
attached revised apptication iãi Sigàif¡.ániritt" V Pèrmit
New York rhis. application was
"
Atbany,
cnurch street,
Ãì;;;;i;;;r.ì dËrm¡nar) rå.rt"ã åi sob;minal
currently operãtes under Title V Facilitv Permit
;rbÁiitèo June 1i , 2ïìã. iil

"i¡gi.äry
No. 4-01 01 -001 1 2100029'

Asstatedintheoriginalapplication,Globalisre-questingtoexpandcrudgoilstorag.ecapabilities
(crude, residual fuel and bio-fuels) The
at the Terminal to include neãteäpåtiorerm prod'ucts
i)iéôoirtiguratioÀ of an existing intermodal rail yard to allow
modification inctudes tnr""
"ËÁiñtr
of Tank 33, which currently stores distillate
offtoading of heated p"tror"r'i'Ëiåàu"í., ãjion"u"tt¡on
oit, to votatite petroteum

pr.i;;i;ì;;;;,

äã-e)

¡nstattation of boilers to heat products contained

in rail cars and storage tanks.
for heated rail cars at the existìng
The project involves installing additional offloading stations
Vãio. r-n" additional offload positions.would be located
Canadian pacific Raitroad
yaiá
between the Albany Terminal and the existing rail
on tand teased from cp *ithi;
the offloading stations, approximate
offtoading tracks. A pro¡".t ölãnìr''å*ì.g th9 locations,of
locationJof boilers and Tank 33 is included for your reterence'

(c"Fiiä;";
k;il;ã

the emissions from the crude oil that is
Emissions from heated petroleum products are lower than
(PTE) will continue to be based
ãrïiã,ìtrv p"r.¡tt"ã át fl.ìã irãiñtv; tnåietore, the potentiat to emit
TANKS 4.og Reports are included with
on crude oit to afiow the r.'äìtiår'iir" gi"ãiesittexioitity.
this application.

 Tank 33 Mod¡ficat¡on
Globa¡ Albany Term¡nal

November 20.13

page 2

A total of seven (7) natural-gas-fired
boilers will be installed io heat
the additional products, as
needed, with two (2) boiters'rated
4 MMbüÄ;n" ir¡ ooir"r r"Ëà
rated at r3 MMbtu/hr. This-varies "t
;ätüM;i;rt f;* rour (4)
rr.r il.r"îöirårîp'pìication submitted
additionar boirer is being proposed.
in June ¡n that an
The t"tàiñ/nì'út,jiñ,. ¡as increased
ortgtnar apptication. Four
by 6 MMbtu/hi rrom the
t¿).lrJL" ú¡iárJäJä_ã,iåiirom permirtins pó,
o ñVönÄ,zo 1_3.2(1)(ù,
rË
å?näiËå,,*,^r'. r,rmoiun4 are nTieìempt
19
YMbt;;h,
trom
i:ffiä,ïJ:iJfl: låî'

lî::
pe'ro,,aîc"räi*tiì;:i"ffi
,'.f#.å:1í:îI$fi

,îlü.?Så"å"iiliï#,',l*il:;":"

rar berow the major source
li:":lfil.,iijäïll?ü11g::mi.sion.i,.ä,.n'ir,eîäi",.
po,utants _ particutate
"," maìiãi, Ä¡tiióãüli¡ies,

o"¡¿"s,

sutfur

"ñi-.aio.;;;:,;:::,"r_rerared

ååiJ,:ff.ïit"iî:?tl?J,""x'"oP3lyLrbe

convertins rank 33 from distiilate
service ro voratire

ffig:#".,*ruH,:lr¡".i;#åiîfiïf{lî}i3*;t[.'ift
the convers¡on or rank 33
18 w¡l

f**1ïi.'fgl*i:,

1
o"lir¡tåã-tä-ai.t¡llate servìcã ä.
.rank
reducins it's crude oir marine
*åiiãJ lñlih.¡l¡,v
roaoing rliouõÁüii.r'ñ iäso
Mr,¡gáio;-r;;;;ì;äöóïMgrr
vear Heated petroreum oroducts wiribe r*Ë;õüü;#..
p.r.
trre er-istiÅj ciuiä àìriñåîg'nput
a resutt, no throughput modificarions
."p,
oãvJ"ïiriräðïi,=gar reuuction are
necessary.

,,

;{xi{'':,':yi':iii]',î3ffiî4;ÉtîiË{':ilî:ärï:îi.1ly::{iËüiï':"on;.I'r',n
maintenance act¡vities ,,i¡tnin
ror rank
tnË
ø.,ìrii";;1n'-i #äi"i,l,iil$,"Hi,i"tjï,i[ty

change, Gtobal is proposins
to add the fo'owing undertined
tansuase to

[;i,#;i?:

"The fotowing ro"r:.r..r5].14,.
TKr 15, TK031, and rNK32 have
the frexibirity to be utirized
as crude oir tanks. However,
at any one t¡r" Jrrvì*o of these
sources can Ée utit¡zeo to
:f:i:i,iå?å::fî,gl'g'ygg "iL ír,ã',ãr.,i"s Two tanks wì, either be in disti,are or

;;;;;*

i;;d

'i,;''i;"

The current em¡ssion
or-potentiar ro Emit (prE) at
the facirity incorporates the
_prof¡re
scenâriorr''ã i..iì¡tvä.'å,ä;'iÅ[

:ft"sïffi:

.,0 to,."räin uíiii.,in-iñË,ilÌ,."*

,r,r:rk-33 w¡' now be considered
![[!r' : unit 1-TANKS, Process
Emission source'r(æà,i,ilt neeo
cR1,
to be added to rtem ¿_l dlf

¡]+if!,"1,iüiüiËåffi1"sn¡¡ïï';J;::"ï

\{t
l6 oomputer

Dr¡ve

West, Atbany, Ny 12205. phone:
S18.453.2203 . F.ax: 518.453.2204
A Woman Owned Business Enterptise (WBE)

 November 2013
Page 3

Tãnk 33 Modification
Global Albany Terminal

on the
increase in emissions has beeri summarized
The facilitv PTE has been updated and the
piping
modificet¡ons
increasãs resutting from
revised pioiect Emission Sr.rãrVif,''"åi. Emission
i!üÌåiil ìäãir''ãngl;ìith" r""'íinal are arso included'

find attached the following items:
ln support of this application, please

r Proiect Emission Summary
. UPáated Emission Unit Matrix
o FacilitY Potential to Emit (PTE) Official
. Certifiôation by a Responsible forms for the modificaiion
; Ãä;;i Title'V faciliiy application
¡ PE Certification form
. TANKS 4.09 Report
r .Site Plan
chânoesfromapreviousminormodificationwhichpermittedbutaneblendingoperationsarealso
Únit Matrix and the Application Forms'

;;tå""ïoriiËfti;.ù;

shouldVouhaveanyquestionspleasefeelfreetocontactmeatSlS-453-2203orTomKeefeof
cro¡ãi óompan¡es [Lc at 781'398-4132'
SincerelY,

Nicole Brower, PE
Senior Engineer
EnvirosPeó Engineering PLLc

Cc:

fom Keefe - Global companies LLC

Ron KennY - Operations Manager
Charles Furman - Terminal Manager

16 Computâr Drive West

A

Phone: 518 453 2203 ' Fax: 518 453'2204
' Albany, NY 12205 '
(WBE)
Womon Ov)ned Business Enteryrise

 Global - Alban): 'l cn¡¡i¡ral

Oclobcr 20   3

Project Summary

Env¡rospec Eng¡neer¡ng, PLLC

.

16 Computer Drive West o Albâny,
Ny 12205

Phone: S18.453.2203

.

Êax: 518.453.2204

3 www.envirospecen&com

 October 2013
Global - AlbanY Terminal

Tank 118 Conversion from Gasoline Service to Distillate Service
Emission Reduction Credit Calculation

Baseline Period:

Emiss¡ons ltDvl

Year
2011

3.83

20L2

4.79

Averaq€

4.31

Potent¡al to Emit (PTE) Determl

PTE (lbrvrl
74

PTE ltonrvr)
0.037

Baseline Actual Emissions - PTE

Emission Credit =
Emission Credit =

4.31

Em¡ssion Cred¡t =

4.27 tpy

tpy -

0.037 tPY

o
NY 12205
Envirospec Eng¡neering, ,PLLC . l-6 Computer Drive West Albany'

Phone: 518.453.2203

.

Fax: 518.689'4800

r

www'envirospeceng'com