Date: September 16, 2014

To: Brenda Shine, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

From: Jeff Coburn

Subject: Meeting Minutes for August 26, 2014, Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and 

Representatives of Valero

On August 26, 2014, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and their contractor (RTI International) participated in a meeting with representatives of Valero

Energy Corporation (Valero). The names and affiliations of the participants are included in 

Attachment 1. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Valero’s concerns and issues with the 

proposed refinery sector rule. A copy of the presentation provided by Valero outlining their 

issues is included as Attachment 2. A summary of the key issues discussed is provided below.

The Valero representatives expressed the need for separate flare standards during startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. The EPA representatives noted that, as stated in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA is not setting standards during malfunction events 

because, by definition, these are unpredictable releases. The EPA representatives encouraged the 

industry representatives to identify things that can be done to prevent releases rather than to rely 

on separate standards for malfunction events.

The Valero representatives noted that the proposed change in definition of miscellaneous 

process vent (MPV) would further complicate the SSM issue because startup, shutdown, and 

maintenance events were previously excluded from the definition, and now it appears releases 

from pressure relief devices (PRDs) may be subject to the MPV control requirements. The EPA 

representatives noted that the proposed rule specifically excluded “relief valve discharges 

regulated under §63.648” from the definition of MPV. The Valero representatives also noted 

that the change in definition of MPV would include vessel degassing that would be needed prior 

to opening up a vessel for maintenance, for example, to repair or replace distillation column trays 

or heat exchangers. According to the Valero representatives, these events are rare, have low 

emissions, and are already regulated under state or local requirements, and it would be very 

burdensome to determine a priori if a given maintenance event would trigger the Group 1 MPV 

emissions threshold.

The Valero representatives noted that the 30 percent opacity limit could not be met at all 

times during startup and shutdown of fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCU) equipped with 

electrostatic precipitators (ESP). The Valero representatives suggested that the EPA allow for up 

to four 6-minute averages of no more than 65 percent opacity over 30 minutes during startup and 

shutdown. The Valero representatives also requested clarification that the operating limits for 
FCCU wet gas scrubbers could be used to comply with the standard emissions limits, if elected, 

during startup and shutdown. The Valero representatives also suggested that the 1 percent 

oxygen (O2) limit should be available for all FCCU, not just those that do not have a postcombustion device.

The Valero representatives then discussed their concerns with the flare provisions. They 

noted that Valero has installed flare gas recovery systems at many of their refineries. In their 

experience, flow meters and composition monitors are not reliable and cannot handle the wide 

range of flow conditions that a flare can experience. They also noted that, with the time delay 

for obtaining compositional data and highly variable flare gas flow/composition, the flare 

operating limits may not yield the results that the EPA expects. The Valero representatives also 

noted that the daily calibration checks for the composition monitors would require too much time 

to perform and that refiners would not be able to get the data needed to comply with the 

operating limits during these daily calibration checks.

The Valero representatives argued that the delayed coking units were already controlled 

under the existing maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard and that additional 

requirements under the Clean Air Act section 112(d)(2) were not warranted. They also 

encouraged the EPA to review the units that are listed as subject to a 2 pounds per square inch 

gauge (psig) limit to confirm whether these units are currently meeting that limit in practice. The 

Valero representatives indicated that some of the units listed are not yet required to meet that 

limit and modifications to the units may be necessary in order to comply with the 2 psig limit (so 

the unit is not currently meeting the limit in practice).

The Valero representatives briefly discussed concerns regarding the fenceline monitoring 

requirements. The Valero representatives suggested that the action level appeared to be set 

based on normal operating conditions and the action level should be increased to account for 

SSM events. The Valero representatives indicated that air flow meters should be allowed to 

determine compliance with the sulfur plant O2 concentration limit. Finally, the Valero 

representatives indicated that the compliance times provided in the proposed rule were 

insufficient. Many of the proposed requirements will require equipment shutdowns to install 

monitoring or control equipment and the rule should allow time to perform these activities during 

a planned shutdown or refinery turnaround.

2
Attachment 1

Participants in August 26, 2014 EPA/Valero Meeting

Valero Representatives

Christopher Abshire

Elizabeth Bourbon

Deepak Garg

Matt Hodges

Paula LaRocca

Shelly Williamson

Christi Wilson

U.S. EPA Representatives

Andrew Bouchard

Art Diem

Eric Goehl

Penny Lassiter

Brenda Shine

RTI International (EPA contractor)

Jeff Coburn
Attachment 2

Copy of Presentation Material for EPA/Valero Meeting

August 26, 2014