Date: August 31, 2009 

To: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011 

From: Kristin Parrish 

Subject: NSPS Subpart J Review: Meeting Minutes for April 17, 2009, Meeting Between 

the U.S. EPA and Representatives of the Petroleum Refining Industry 

Introduction

On April 17, 2009, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and their contractor (RTI International) participated in a stakeholder meeting with 

representatives of the American Petroleum Institute (API), National Petrochemical & Refiners 

Association (NPRA), Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), and the petroleum refining 

industry. The names and affiliations of the participants are included in Attachment 1. Also 

included is a copy of the industry representatives’ request for the meeting (Attachment 2). The 

purpose of the meeting was to discuss various issues regarding the EPA’s reconsideration of 

NSPS subpart Ja. 

The EPA representatives began by stating that they had not discussed any of their 

thoughts for amendments to subpart Ja with their management, so no decisions have been made. 

Therefore, they stated, the ideas discussed in the meeting only reflected preliminary thoughts. 

They then shared a summary of those thoughts and engaged in a discussion with the industry 

representatives as described below. 

Discussion

Flare Monitoring 

The EPA representatives outlined several thoughts on monitoring for flares. The EPA 

representatives noted that for a series of cascaded flares, only the first flare would need to be 

monitored, and they asked whether all interconnected flares are cascaded or whether some 

interconnected systems are designed so that part of one discharge could be routed to different 

flares based on pressure. The industry representatives responded that many interconnected flare 

systems are cascaded. However, they also noted that there are some systems designed so that the 

discharge can be released by any of several interconnected flares. In these systems, each flare is 

usually designed to be able to handle the entire capacity of a potential release. Some systems are 

designed to route to a specific flare based on the pressure of the release, and other interconnected 

systems provide backup in case of a problem with one flare or an unusually large discharge. 
 

2

The EPA representatives asked if the terms “purge gas” and “sweep gas” are used 

consistently throughout the industry to define two different types of gas. They noted that if 

definitions of these types of gases are added to the rule, they would like to be consistent with 

industry-accepted terms. The industry representatives responded that the terms are used 

interchangeably and are not used consistently throughout the industry. 

The EPA representatives noted they would like to accommodate flares with flare gas 

recovery, but they noted that not monitoring flow rate for all emergency flares seems contrary to 

the purpose of finding malfunctions. They noted that for a flare gas recovery system with a 

water seal, there is a possibility of monitoring the pressure and height of the water column and 

using any pressure exceedance as a trigger for root cause analysis. One question that would need 

to be answered in conjunction with this option is whether to define an emergency-only flare as 

one that handles only startups, shutdowns, and process upsets or one that handles just process 

upsets. The representative from the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

(OECA) noted that the consent decrees define emergency-only flares as those that handle 

startups, shutdowns, and process upsets based on the applicability of subpart J. The industry 

representatives agreed that if there is an alternative monitoring option for emergency-only flares, 

the rule should very clearly define an emergency-only flare. 

The industry representatives noted that for flare gas recovery systems, they would like the 

rule to spell out what to do when a compressor goes down. The OECA representative stated that 

the EPA is not likely to provide a maintenance exemption in the rule. Depending on how the 

flare management plan requirements are written, maintenance downtime could be addressed 

though that mechanism. The OECA representative stated that they prefer to use their discretion 

to allow maintenance downtime rather than writing blanket exemptions into rules, and he noted 

that they do take into account that not performing maintenance can result in large upset 

emissions. He also noted that systems at large refineries can be designed to operate while one 

piece of the system is down. The industry representatives stated that if redundancy will be 

expected to avoid enforcement penalties, then it should be made clear in the rule. 

The EPA representatives noted that they are considering allowing the cylinder gas test for 

the relative accuracy test audit for flare sulfur monitors. The industry representatives stated they 

would research those types of tests further and try to provide the EPA with more information if 

needed. 

As a result of this discussion, the industry representatives volunteered to send the EPA a 

list of flares that should be exempt from monitoring requirements. 

Alternative Emission Limit for Flares 

The industry representatives asked about a 500 pound per day (lb/day) SO2 emission limit 

for flares as an alternative to the 162 ppmv hydrogen sulfide (H2S) limit. They noted that one 

refinery has three small flares with high sulfur concentration that do not usually emit emissions 

anywhere near 500 lb/day SO2. The EPA representatives stated that a 500 lb SO2/day limit is too 

high to be considered best demonstrated technology (BDT) equivalent to the 3-hour 162 ppmv 
 

3

H2S standard. They noted that an equivalent mass standard could be set if the limit were much 

lower than 500 lb SO2. 

Process Heaters 

The EPA representatives noted that they are considering providing a daily mass emission 

limit for process heaters to account for turndown conditions. Each day, the owner or operator 

could choose whether to comply with the 30-day average concentration-based limit or the daily 

mass limit. The 30-day average would then be calculated using the most recent 30 days for 

which the concentration-based (or heating value-based) limit is chosen. The industry 

representatives stated that they would check their emissions data to determine if this approach 

would fully account for turndown. 

The EPA representatives also noted that as the rule is currently written, small heaters 

electing not to install a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) do not have a way to demonstrate compliance with the alternative daily mass emission 

limit. The industry representatives noted that instead of establishing one oxygen concentration 

operating limit, smaller process heaters possibly could do two biennial tests, one at higher 

capacity and one at lower capacity. They stated that they would think of other options to present 

to the EPA. 

Other Issues 

The industry representatives stated that they are working to update their list of other 

issues they would like the EPA to reconsider for subpart Ja. 
Attachment 1 

Participants in April 17, 2009, Meeting 

Industry Representatives

Charlie Bennett, Marathon Petroleum 

Vince D’Ippolito, HOVENSA 

Ron Chittim, API 

Chris Colman, HOVENSA 

Ken Comey, BP 

Chuck Ferrick, Exxon Mobil 

David Friedman, NPRA 

Ty Hastriter, ExxonMobil 

Jan Laughlin, ConocoPhillips 

Norman Morrow, Fresh Air Consulting 

Darren Stroud, Valero Energy Corp. 

John Wagner, API 

Dick Waibel, John Zink 

Bill Wehrum, Hunton & Williams 

U.S. EPA Representatives

Pat Foley 

KC Hustvedt 

Brenda Shine 

RTI International (EPA contractor)

Jeff Coburn 

Kristin Parrish 
Attachment 2 

Request for April 17, 2009, Meeting 

"Wehrum, William L." 

<wwehrum@hunton.com> 

03/30/2009 05:44 PM

To: Ken Hustvedt/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc: 

Subject: Meeting Request

KC -- I'm writing to ask for a meeting on behalf of API/NPRA/WSPA to discuss the NSPS Ja 

reconsideration proposal. We plan to submit supplemental comments later this week. We'd like to use 

the meeting to talk about these comments and other relevant issues. We propose to meet the morning of 

Friday, April 17. Please let me know if this works for you and your team. If that is not convenient, we also 

could meet on the afternoon of Apr. 17 or on the morning of Tuesday, Apr. 14. As usual, we would plan 

to meet you in your offices in RTP. 

 

Thanks for your help. 

Bill Wehrum 

Partner 

wwehrum@hunton.com

Hunton & Williams LLP 

1900 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20006 

Phone: (202) 955-1637

Fax: (202) 778-7417

www.hunton.com