Date: September 15, 2014 

To: Brenda Shine, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD 

From: Jeff Coburn 

Subject: Meeting Minutes for August 12, 2014, Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and 

Representatives of AFPM 

On August 12, 2014, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

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

American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). The names and affiliations of the 

participants are included in Attachment 1. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss AFPM’s 

concerns and issues with the proposed refinery sector rule. 

The AFPM representatives first noted that the maximum individual risk (MIR) associated 

with refineries after the extensive data gathering effort was very similar to the MIR projected 

previously in 2008. Given the similar risks, they asked why the EPA was developing a much 

more stringent rule than was previously proposed. The EPA representative noted that, while the 

MIR did not change significantly, the population exposed to risks greater than 1-in-1 million and 

the incidence did increase from the 2008 analysis. The EPA representatives also noted that only 

the storage vessel controls were being added under the risk provisions [Section 112(f)(2) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA)]. Thus, most of the added requirements resulted from the technology 

review. 

The AFPM representatives then noted that the risks were driven by just a few facilities 

and asked why the rule had the same requirements for all facilities. For example, the AFPM 

representatives suggested that fenceline monitoring could be used only for the high risk facilities. 

The EPA noted that the fenceline requirements were not proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2); 

the fenceline monitoring was proposed under the technology review as a means to ensure that 

facilities manage their fugitive hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions, rather than alternative 

command-and-control requirements for equipment leaks, wastewater treatment, and other 

fugitive sources. 

The AFPM representatives then questioned why significantly more stringent flare 

requirements were proposed given that flare emissions did not contribute significantly to risk. 

The EPA representatives noted that the flare emissions were estimated assuming a 98 percent 

destruction efficiency. If flare destruction efficiencies are significantly less than 98 percent, the 

risk associated with flaring emissions would be higher. Also, the flare provisions were 

developed as part of the technology review in response to data indicating flare performance 

issues when over-assisted. 
2

The AFPM representatives also expressed a number of concerns with specific provisions 

in the proposed sector rule. These concerns are outlined below. 

 The pressure relief device provisions are unworkable. 

 The change in definition of miscellaneous process vent brings in periodic vents used for 

startup, shutdown, and/or maintenance that were previously excluded from the definition. 

It is very burdensome and difficult to assess whether these vents are Group 1 or Group 2 

miscellaneous process vents. The EPA should either exclude or provide specific 

provisions for vessel openings/degassings (like 10 percent of lower explosive limit). 

 Daily EPA Method 22 visual observations are too burdensome. Refineries would have to 

have a person dedicated and available to do this task. Allowance to use cameras to 

observe the flares should be provided in the rule. 

 The requirements for delayed coking units will cost more than projected and the 2 pounds 

per square inch gauge (psig) limit is too stringent. The AFPM representatives noted that 

not all of the units listed as having a 2 psig limit in the maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) floor analysis are currently operational or required to meet that 

limit. 

 The 30 percent opacity limit for startup/shutdown of fluid catalytic cracking units 

(FCCU) is not achievable. The alternate standard should also be allowed for FCCU 

while on hot standby. 

 The EPA should allow for the use of pressure-assisted flares. These flares generally 

cannot meet the flare velocity limits. 

 The EPA should allow for an off-ramp to the proposed fenceline monitoring requirements 

or a means to reduce the number of monitoring locations required after the initial year or 

two of monitoring. 

 The AFPM representatives opposed posting of the raw data to a website since the action 

level is on an annual average. If the data are posted to a website, the AFPM 

representatives suggested that the website include a description of the purpose of the 

action level (i.e., that it is not a health-based value). 

 
Attachment 1 

Participants in August 12, 2014 EPA/AFPM Meeting 

AFPM/Industry Representatives 

David Friedman, AFPM 

Michael Norman, DELEK 

Rohit Sharma, LyondellBasell 

John Askounis, Phillips 66 

Dave Pavlich, Phillips 66 

Matt Hodges, Valero Energy 

U.S. EPA Representatives 

Art Diem 

Eric Goehl 

Penny Lassiter 

Ted Palma 

Brenda Shine 

RTI International (EPA contractor) 

Jeff Coburn