1

To: Brian Shrager, EPA/SPPD 

From: Amanda Singleton and Roy Oommen, ERG 

Date: September 30, 2010 

Re: Minutes of September 27th 2010 Meeting with API/NPRA Members

Meeting Agenda 

• Status update and schedule for Boiler MACT/GACT/CISWI 

• Summary of Critical Comments on the Major Source Boiler Proposal 

Meeting Attendees 

Mary Johnson, EPA/SPPD 

Brian Shrager, EPA/SPPD 

Bob Wayland, EPA/SPPD 

Amy Marshall, URS 

Amanda Singleton, ERG 

Glenn England, Environ 

Matt Todd, API 

Norm Morrow, Fresh Air Consulting 

D.J. VanPelt, Exxon Mobil 

Charles Bennett, Marathon Petroleum 

Chris Colman, HOVENSA 

Clay Freeberg, Chevron 

John Wigam, API 

David Friedman, NPRA 

Vince D’Ippolito, HOVENSA 

Melissa Dakas, Trinity Consultants 

Bob Hermanson, BP America 

Bob Morehouse, Exxon Mobil 

Ketan Patel, EPA (attending by phone) 

Russell Wozniak , Dow (attending by phone) 

Jan Laughlin, Conoco Philips (attending by phone) 

Dave Paploski, Conoco Philips (attending by phone) 

Shari Kellar, Shell (attending by phone) 

Susmita Dubey, EPA/OGC (attending by phone) 

Mr. Wayland discussed the current schedule for the promulgation package and a summary of major 

comment themes received to date on each of the four related proposals (Boiler MACT, Area Source 

Boilers, Non-hazardous secondary materials definition, and CISWI). 

Norm Morrow led the discussion of critical concerns on the proposal from the petroleum and refining 

industry. These concerns included: 

• EPA should minimize the job loss and economic impact of this proposal. Mr. Morrow added that 

EPA did not consider the economic impact that would result from a facility shutting down due to 

the inability to comply with limits. 

• A work practice for Gas 1-fired units is legal and appropriate, but should apply to all gas units. 
2

• The methodology used to develop the proposed numerical emission limitations violates the CAA 

and resulted in unachievable emission limits. EPA should reconsider the approach in instances 

where the pollutant by pollutant approach results in increases of other HAP or other emissions. 

• The excessively low CO limits in the proposal for gas and liquid-fired units must be corrected. 

Such low levels are infeasible at all operating conditions and they can increase emissions of other 

pollutants. In addition, at such low levels, the relationship between CO and HAP does not exist. 

EPA asked for data where the surrogate relationship between CO and organic HAP disappears 

and Glenn England pointed EPA to figure 12 of API comments. 

• The proposed energy assessment work practice should not be finalized. 

• The estimated costs of this proposal are significantly underestimated. 

• The claimed health benefits are significantly overstated and inappropriately based on criteria 

pollutant reductions. EPA aggregated the health benefits for all units and did not show the 

benefits specific to gaseous fuels. In addition, the benefits analysis overly relied on criteria 

pollutants instead of HAP. 

• CEMS should only be required for large units subject to numerical CO or PM emission limits. 

• Boilers and process heaters subject to other regulations, or with minimal emissions, or that have 

unusual configurations should be subcategorized and excluded from rule requirements. 

Specifically, the industry requested EPA to consider supplemental-fired waste heat boilers and 

temporary boilers. 

• Adequate compliance time must be provided. Russell Wozniak indicated that the NOX SIP 

program in the Houston area covered hundreds of units and the compliance time for that rule was 

from 2000 to 2007. 

• The oil subcategory should be divided into separate subcategories. Chris Colman and Vince 

D’Ippolito of HOVENSA presented the situation on island refineries where there is no access to a 

natural gas supply. They presented an overview of unique operations at the Virgin Islands 

refinery and other island refineries and they presented several options for EPA consideration: 

o Subcategorizing liquid vs. distillate fuel oil 

o Creating a separate subcategory for off-continental or island units that could be subject to 

work practices or a health based compliance alternative. 

o Collecting additional data from island facilities to have data representative of this 

subcategory.