Date: May 18, 2009

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

From: Kristin Parrish

Subject: NSPS Subpart J Review: Meeting Minutes for January 29, 2009, Conference Call Between the U.S. EPA and Representatives of Flint Hills Resources

On January 29, 2009, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their contractor (RTI International) pa rticipated in a stakehol der conference call with representatives of Flint Hills Resources (FHR) re garding alternative monitoring options for flares with flare gas recovery. The names and aff iliations of the participants are included in Attachment 1. The information provided by FHR pr ior to the call is incl uded as Attachment 2.

The representatives from FHR described the current flow an d sulfur monitoring practices

for the flares under their consent decree. The EP A representatives asked clarifying questions to better understand the monitoring alternatives. Th ey asked the representatives from FHR to include as much detail as possible in their forthcoming public comments on the subpart Ja amendments. They noted that if the FHR alte rnative has nationwide applicability, they could consider adding it to the regulatory text. If the monitoring technique is more site-specific, then

the rule allows FHR the opportunity to apply for an alterna tive monitoring plan and prove that their monitoring methods are equivalent to the requirements in subpart Ja.

For more detail on the alternative monitoring methods, see Attachment 2 and FHR’s public comments in the docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011-0303.Attachment 1 Participants in January 29, 2009, Conference Call

FHR Representatives Michele Pugh, Director, E nvironmental Affairs, FHR Eric Kaysen, Vice President, EHS, FHR John Seitz, Partner, ES&P, LLC

U.S. EPA Representatives

Bob Lucas

Brenda Shine

RTI International (EPA contractor)

Jeff Coburn

Kristin ParrishAttachment 2 FHR Background Information

"Pugh, Michele" <Michele.Pugh@fhr.com>

01/28/2009 10:13 AM To: Bob Lucas/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA cc: "Kaysen, Eric" <Eric.Ka ysen@fhr.com>, "John Seitz" <JSeitzesp@atmc.net> Subject: FHR Background Information

As requested, attached is some background informat ion on the FHR Consent Decr ee and flare system for our meeting tomorrow regarding an alternative monitoring option as part of NSPS Subpart Ja.

Michele Pugh Director, Environmental Affairs>

Flint Hills Resources

Phone: 316-828-8412

Fax: 316-828-8405 michele.pugh@fhr.com

(See attached file: FHR Background_Subpart Ja.doc)Background For Meeting Between Flint Hi lls Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency – Proposed NSPS Subpart Ja

Flint Hills Resources, LP (FHR) operates refineries in Pine Bend, Minnesota, Corpus Christi, Texas, and North Pole Alaska. In Corpus Christi there are two refineries, the East Refinery and the West Refinery.

In 2000 Flint Hills Resources’ predecessor company, Koch Petroleum Group, LP, entered

in to a Consent Decree which includes the refi neries in Pine Bend and Corpus Christi. As part of this Consent Decree FHR agreed to a flare policy that would minimize flaring events by following good engineering practices. This includes flare gas recovery systems designed and operated to capture most an ticipated loads to the flare system, a management system to keep the base load into the flare system within the system’s recovery capacity, and a management system designed to minimize, and if feasible, prevent, unexpected loads or unexpected failu res of the flare gas recovery system. FHR also agreed to conduct root cause failure anal ysis on significant flar ing events, defined as any single event from which SO2 emissions exceed 500 pounds in a 24-hour period and which were not associated with a planned startup, shutdown, or maintenance activity.

Under the Consent Decree FHR has installed th ree flare gas recovery units, one at the Pine Bend refinery and one each at the Corpus Christi East and West refineries. These flare gas recovery systems run well below their capacities and capture normal process flows. Essentially, only process upset gases ar e routed to the flare. The only exception in 2008 was maintenance on the flare gas recovery system itself. In order to determine whether a root cause failure analysis is required FHR currently calculates sulfur

emissions from the flare based on gas sampling and flow calculations.

FHR believes that continuous sulfur and fl ow monitoring as proposed in Subpart Ja (proposed §60.107a(e) and proposed §60.107a(f), respectively) is not justified in cases where only process upset gas is going to the flare and th erefore only the root cause analysis/corrective action triggers are applicab le. In cases were maintenance on the flare gas recovery system would cause non-process ups et gases to be sent to the flare the 3- hour and 365-day H2S limits could still be calculated.

FHR is recommending an alternative monitori ng plan that, in place of continuous flow and sulfur monitors, would allow refineries; to monitor pressure drop across the flare seal drum in order to calculate flow rates, sample the flare gases to determine H2S concentration, and monitor flare gas recovery un it capacity to verify that normal process flows are being captured.