Date: September 15, 2014

To: Brenda Shine, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

From: Jeff Coburn
Subject: Meeting Minutes for August 12, 201 4, Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and Representatives of AFPM

On August 12, 2014, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency (EPA) and their contractor (RTI International) particip ated 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 th e maximum individual risk (MIR) associated with refineries after the extensive data gatheri ng effort was very simila r 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 significantl y, 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 unde r 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 th e risks were driven by just a few facilities and asked why the rule had the same requirement s for all facilities. For example, the AFPM representatives suggested that fenc eline monitoring could be used onl y 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 tec hnology review as a means to ensure that facilities manage their fugitive h azardous air pollutant (HAP) emi ssions, rather than alternative command-and-control requirements for equipment leaks, wastewater treatment, and other fugitive sources.

The AFPM representatives then questione d why significantly mo re stringent flare requirements were proposed given that flare emissions did not c ontribute significantly to risk. The EPA representatives noted that the flare em issions were estimated assuming a 98 percent destruction efficiency. If flare de struction 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 tec hnology review in response to data indicating flare performance issues when over-assisted.2 The AFPM representatives also expressed a num ber 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 pr ocess 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 asse ss whether these vents are Group 1 or Group 2 miscellaneous process vents. The EPA s hould either exclude or provide specific provisions for vessel openings/d egassings (like 10 percent of lower explosive limit).

 Daily EPA Method 22 visual observations are to o 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 st ringent. 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/s hutdown 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 th e 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