Date: August 25, 2014 

To: Brenda Shine, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD 

From: Jeff Coburn 

Subject: Meeting Minutes for July 23, 2014, Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and 

Representatives of API 

On July 23, 2014, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

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

American Petroleum Institute (API). The names and affiliations of the participants are included 

in Attachment 1. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss API’s key concerns with the 

proposed sector rule. Discussion topics are summarized below. 

API representatives first requested that the EPA provide an extension to the comment 

period, noting the fact that the package included numerous rules and several new significant 

provisions. The EPA stated that they were evaluating the request. 

API’s first key issue with the proposed sector rule was the applicability of the flare 

velocity and visible emissions at all times. According to the industry representatives, flares are 

typically designed to operate in a smokeless manner up to about 20 percent of their “full 

hydraulic load” and the flares are not designed to meet the flare velocity and visible emissions 

limits during “full hydraulic load.” The industry representatives explained that “full hydraulic 

load” was the total maximum flow that the flare header system could handle. Full hydraulic 

loads could occur during significant periods of upset, such as a loss of electrical power that 

triggers emergency shutdown for numerous processes or the entire refinery. Flares are sized to 

handle full hydraulic loads during these safety events. New flares are only added if the full relief 

rate needed exceeds the existing flare’s hydraulic load capacity. However, flares may only 

operate at these load rates once every 2 to 5 years; during normal operations, flare vent rates are 

well below the 20 percent full hydraulic load rate, and can operate in a smokeless manner with 

discharge rates below the maximum allowed flare tip velocity. If refineries were required to 

meet the visible emissions limit and flare tip velocity limit at all times, they would need to 

effectively increase the number of flares per refinery by 3 to 5 times. The cost of this would be 

in the billions of dollars; the environmental impacts of this would be a net increase natural gas 

consumption and emissions from flares due to the need to continually maintain pilot flames and 

purge gas flow in these flares so they can be ready to receive emergency relief gas once every 

few years. Thus, API representatives stated that some exclusion is needed from the flare velocity 

and visible emissions limitations during periods of emergency relief. 
2

API’s second key issue with the proposed sector rule was the prohibition on atmospheric 

pressure relief device (PRD) discharges. The industry representatives cited a study done as part 

of the 2005 Bay Area rule for pressure relief devices, which indicated that there were 329 PRDs 

at 5 refineries, which would require 7 new flares and cost approximately $17-million to control. 

Extrapolating these costs nationwide suggests that the costs associated with the proposed PRD 

requirements are significantly more than projected by the EPA. 

API representatives then discussed a number of other issues that they had with the 

proposed sector rule. These include: 

 Alternative standards for FCCU startup/shutdown - the 30 percent opacity limit is 

not achievable. 

 Flare operating limits – the EPA should have a single limit and eliminate the H2-

olefin interaction limit as it is difficult to determine and will cause operators to 

target the 380 Btu/scf limit to avoid being out of compliance. API representatives 

prefer a 200 Btu/scf limit and suggested that, since most of the data were from 

steam-assisted flares, the operating limits for unassisted and air-assisted flares 

should not be revised. 

 Miscellaneous process vents – revised definition appears to include bleeder valves 

that need to be opened when preparing a vessel for entry or maintenance. Need 

maintenance/startup/shutdown provisions, perhaps based on work practice 

procedures, for these rarely used vents. 

 Fenceline monitoring – API described their pilot study (9 refineries of various 

sizes in 7 states). They noted that they saw significant variability between 

duplicate samples sent to different labs and suggested that the concentration limit 

threshold needs to account for this variability. 

 Delayed coking units – source is already regulated, so no standard is necessary. If 

a limit is established, the limit should be 5 psig. 

 Flare pilots – the rule should not require auto-ignition for flare pilot gas. Autoignition systems have been very unreliable so very few refineries have them; most 

refineries use manual ignition systems. 

 QA/QC requirements are not appropriate (e.g., can’t do quarterly QA checks on 

pilot flame monitors); the EPA should require a monitoring plan and follow 

manufacturer’s guidelines. 

 Equipment leaks – disagree with the definition of seal for open-ended lines. 

 No halogen to the flare requirement – was not specifically described in the 

preamble and the 1 lb/hr limit is too low. 
Attachment 1 

Participants in July 23, 2014 EPA/API Meeting 

API Representatives 

Charlie Bennett, Marathon Petroleum 

Jacob Fournier, Marathon Petroleum 

Bob Hermanson, BP 

Tom Gilmartin, BP 

Charles Feerick, ANS 

Tyler Kruzich, Chevron 

Kris Battleson, Chevron 

Bill Henning, Phillips 66 

Michael Wardinsky, Phillips 66 

Tim Goedeker, Phillips 66 

Erin Tullos, Phillips 66 

Shari Keller, Shell 

John Wagner, API 

Matt Todd, API 

Norm Morrow, Fresh Air Consulting 

George Graham, ExxonMobil 

U.S. EPA Representatives 

Andrew Bouchard 

Art Diem 

Gerri Garwood 

Eric Goehl 

Jodi Howard 

Penny Lassiter 

Brenda Shine 

Peter Tsirigotis 

RTI International (EPA contractor) 

Jeff Coburn