Date: October 15, 2014

To: Brenda Shine, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

From: Jeff Coburn

Subject: Meeting Minutes for October 8, 2014, Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and 

Representatives of API

On October 8, 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 further discuss some of API’s concerns 

regarding the refinery sector rule proposal. Discussion topics included opacity standards for 

fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCUs), venting from atmospheric pressure relief devices (PRDs), 

and flare requirements.

FCCUs

API representatives stated that there is no correlation between particulate matter (PM) 

emission rates and opacity. The API representatives claimed they have supporting data for this 

assertion and will submit it for the EPA to review. Based on their data, the API representatives 

do not believe site specific opacity limits for these units are appropriate and recommended

changing the limit to 30 percent opacity. The API also requested the averaging period for opacity 

measurements be increased from 6 minute averages to daily or 3 hour averaging periods. Finally, 

API representatives stated that more frequent testing could be performed (i.e, annually rather

than once every 5 years) to ensure compliance.

PRDs

API representatives presented their ideas for requirements for PRD based on best industry 

practices and their review of the Bay Area and South Coast rules. The API representatives 

recommended the implementation 3 prevention measures for all process unit PRDs and 

recommended that the EPA provide a specific list of activities or systems that would be 

considered to a prevention measure. An atmospheric release from a process unit PRD would 

trigger a root cause analysis (RCA) and corrective action analysis (CAA) similar to the 

RCA/CAA requirements in the Refinery NSPS subpart Ja. API representatives suggested that, if 

3 releases occur over a 5 year period, the EPA trigger should be to require implementation of a 

fourth prevention measure rather than requiring the PRD to be piped to a flare.

The API representatives also noted that there are small PRDs throughout the refinery 

(such as relieve valves on sampling lines to prevent over-pressuring of analyzers) that should

have less stringent requirements. The API representatives suggested that PRDs less than 2
inches in diameter, PRDs installed on portable or mobile devices (i.e, those regulated by the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) or the U.S. Coast Guard), and PRDs on units with vapor 

pressure less than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge should not be required to install flow 

monitoring systems or have 3 prevention measures. API representatives suggested that releases 

from these small PRDs would still be subject RCA/CAA requirements. API representatives plan 

to submit draft regulatory language for their proposed approach in their comments. The EPA 

requested that cost data for this proposed approach also be included in their comment package.

Flares

API representatives stated that the flare tip velocity requirement of 400 feet per second

could be exceeded during upset conditions. API representatives also stated that the data 

supporting the correlation between the flare tip velocity and combustion efficiency were based 

on an old and limited data set. They also asserted that heat content is a better indicator of 

combustion efficiency. They requested maintaining only the heat content limits in the final rule 

and removing those related to flare tip velocity. Finally, API representatives discussed the visible 

emissions standards and requested that the final rulemaking have an allowance for periods of 

smoking during an emergency malfunction or upset.

2
Attachment 1

Participants in October 8, 2014 EPA/API Meeting

API Representatives

Charlie Bennett, Marathon Petroleum

Charles Feerick, ANS 

George Graham, ExxonMobil

Shari Keller, Shell

Norm Morrow, Fresh Air Consulting

Dave Pavlich, Phillips 66

Matthew Todd, API 

Erin Tullos, ExxonMobil

John Wagner, API

U.S. EPA Representatives

Andrew Bouchard

Eric Goehl

Penny Lassiter

Brenda Shine

RTI International (EPA contractor)

Jeff Coburn

Leslie Pearce