1

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: January 20, 2011

TO: Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

FROM: Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.

SUBJECT: Summary of the December 15, 2010 Meeting with API Regarding CPMS Issues 

in Petition to Reconsider on RICE NESHAP

INTRODUCTION

The American Petroleum Institute (API) requested this meeting with EPA to discuss the 

petition for reconsideration submitted by API on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). The 

most recent amendments to the NESHAP for stationary RICE were published in the Federal 

Register on August 20, 2010 (75 FR 51570). 

ATTENDEES

Michael Horowitz, EPA Jeff Adams, BP

Bob Wayland, EPA John Admire, DCP Midstream

Melanie King, EPA (by phone) Bill Grygar, Anadarko

Tanya Parise, EC/R (by phone) Rebecca Rentz, Bracewell & Giuliani (by phone)

Michael McBride, Van Ness Feldman Mike Wasson, Exterran (by phone)

Andrea Feldman, Van Ness Feldman Tom Monahan, ExxonMobil (by phone)

Bill Wehrum, Hunton & Williams Jeff Panek, IES (by phone)

John Wagner, API Clay Freeberg, Chevron (by phone)

Matt Todd, API

SUMMARY OF MEETING

API submitted a petition for reconsideration on October 19, 2010 on the stationary RICE 

NESHAP (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0582). The petition included a request for reconsideration 

on the monitoring requirements that were included in the August 20, 2010 final rule. 

Specifically, API requested this meeting with EPA to discuss the continuous parametric 

monitoring system (CPMS) requirements that apply to existing stationary engines. API provided 

an agenda for the meeting of CPMS issues it wanted to discuss, which follows this meeting 

summary.

E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989
2

API indicated that it has concerns with the short and long-term impacts of the CPMS 

requirements for stationary engines, particularly with the short-term impacts because stationary

engines at major sources that were originally covered under the 2004 rule will have to comply

with these requirements in the near future. According to API, there is inadequate time to 

implement the CPMS requirements for major sources. API indicated that its long-term concerns 

are more related to existing stationary engines at area sources. API was eager to assess how to 

reach productive next steps to resolve the issues associated with the CPMS requirements.

According to API, 100 percent data capture is virtually impossible. API indicated that it 

is not aware of any other EPA regulation that requires total data capture. For instance, power 

failures and system reboots alone will make total capture of monitoring data impossible. 

According to API, the 100 percent data capture requirement is impractical and the organization 

disagrees with this requirement. Many EPA rules require 90 to 95 percent data capture and some 

require 70 percent data capture, according to API. Further, API asked if every 15-minute 

increment would be a deviation and if the engine would be out of compliance if the data was not 

available. In API’s opinion, the lack of data does not necessarily mean that the engine was 

actually out of compliance. API also indicated that the initial calibration of thermocouples 

would be problematic to complete within 90 days. (This requirement relates to obtaining inlet 

catalyst temperature readings.)

In terms of issues related to CPMS requirements for engines at area sources, API argued 

that there are a number of parameters at particularly rural area sources that are compelling 

reasons for not requiring CPMS at these locations. Rural sites are often not manned, they may

lack electricity, and it may be difficult to install and maintain controls at these remote sites, 

according to API. Sites would necessitate reliable power sources in order to properly fulfill 

CPMS requirements and some rural sites do not have power at all. In addition, many rural sites 

do not have communication access, which is another limiting factor. Also, determining accurate 

load is not possible at many sites, e.g., in some cases an operator would be unable to measure the 

flow per engine because the engine is grouped with other engines. Good infrastructure is needed 

and API indicated that it believes it is more of an issue with rural sources. API indicated that it 

is technically feasible, but that it is not economically feasible and argued that EPA needs 

regulatory and economic justification for the CPMS requirements.

API noted that it had provided comments on the original CPMS rule that have not been 

addressed. In addition, there was no opportunity for comment on the engine CPMS requirements 

since it was just added to the final rule. API recommended that EPA issue an administrative stay

for the CPMS requirements specifically and asked what it could provide to assist EPA delaying 

the requirements for major sources. 

EPA noted that it is open to continued discussion and asked how the CPMS requirements 

in the final rule are different from how owners and operators of stationary engines are currently

capturing monitoring data. API could not provide a specific answer, but indicated that based on 

OECA’s 2005 Questions and Answers document1, there are companies that are not monitoring 

 

1 Memorandum from Michael S. Alushin, Director, Compliance Assessment and Media Program Division to Region 

Air Compliance Branch Chiefs (I-X). September 30, 2005. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) – Questions and Answers.
3

catalyst inlet temperature at all or if they are capturing data, companies are capturing 95 percent 

of the data at most. API indicated that it would send a formal letter to EPA describing the 

specific issues it is requesting an administrative stay. A follow-up meeting with API is 

scheduled for January 6, 2011 to further discuss these issues.
4

Meeting Agenda

Date: December 15, 2010

Location: EPA, Washington D.C.

Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. ET

Discussion of CPMS Issues in Petition to Reconsider Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine 

NESHAP, Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 51,570

1:00 Introductions & Meeting Objectives – Eliminate CPMS Requirements for Area Sources

Technical Concerns/Deficiencies

 Data availability requirements (100% data capture)

 “Deviation” implications 

 Thermocouple calibration requirements 

Area Source Monitoring Compliance Implementation Issues 

 Area sources urban vs rural 

 Lack of site power

 Site communication access is limited at area sources

 Must be able to integrate with other monitoring equipment within a field.

 Must be integrated with other field monitoring equipment and meet industry and 

company standards

 Installation in weatherproof containers

 Determining load during monthly differential pressure monitoring is impractical at 

area sources 

Need / Justification for Inclusion of CPMS and monitoring in August 2010 Area Source Rule

 Addition of CPMS specifications without opportunity for public comment

 CPMS specifications did not respond to ACC/API comments on CPMS of February 

5, 2009 where applicable.

 Maintenance and calibration of new data and monitoring equipment at remote area 

sources is difficult and costly. 

 Area source cost/benefit comment does not match actual O&G site limitations and 

CPMS specification.

Inadequate Implementation Time for 2004 RICE MACT Systems at Major Sources and Need 

for Administrative Stay of Performance Specifications and Calibration Standard 

Schedule Next Meeting to Discuss Other Issues Outlined in the Petition for Reconsideration

2:00 Conclude Meeting