Date: November 12, 2009

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

From: Kristin Parrish Sroka

Subject: NSPS Subpart J Review: Meeti ng Minutes for June 30, 2009, Conference Call Between the U.S. EPA and Representative s of the Petroleum Refining Industry

Introduction

On June 30, 2009, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their contractor (RTI International) particip ated in a conference call with representatives of the American Petroleum Institute (API), Na tional Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA), Western States Petrol eum Association (WSPA), and th e petroleum refining industry. The names and affiliations of the participants ar e included in Attachment 1. The purpose of the call was to discuss various issues regarding the EPA’s reconsideration of NSPS subpart Ja.

Discussion

Process Heater Turndown

The industry representatives noted that pr ocess heater testing shows that low-NO X burners can operate efficien tly with stable oxygen (O 2 ) content and bridgewall temperature down to 40 percent capacity. Below 40 percent, the flame becomes t oo cool, and the operator must heat the flue gas or add O 2 . The operating manual for the John Zink low-NO X burners provides more information on operating parameters. The indus try representatives stat ed that they planned to develop a list of suggestions for operating pa rameters for heaters operating in turndown. They also stated that they planned to compile data to show that steam methane reforming (SMR) heaters should have an emission limit of 60 ppmv NO X in subpart Ja.

Alternative Emission Limit for Flares

The industry representatives continued to e xpress interest in a pound per day (lb/day) sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emission limit for flares as an alte rnative to the 162 ppmv hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) limit. They noted that since the consent decrees allow them to comply with a mass SO 2 limit as an alternative to the lim its in subpart J, they should be allowed a similar alternative limit for subpart Ja. The representatives from ExxonMobil stated that after revi ewing their data, they found that the flare emissions were below 300 lb/day 90 percent of the time, so if the EPA feels 500 lb/day is too high an emission limit, 300 lb/day could be considered as another option. The2

industry representatives also noted that they anticipate this altern ative limit would not be allowed for every affected flare; rather, it would be limited either to flares with a consent decree allowing an alternative mass limit, or to those flares with ch aracteristics similar to the flares that have an
alternative mass limit in a consent decree ( e.g. , flares with high sulfur concentration but low flow rates). They also noted that the consent decrees require H 2 S and flow monitors for these flares. The industry representatives stated they would review the character istics of the flares with an
alternative SO 2 mass limit in the consent decrees and devel op a list of criteria that an affected flare subject to subpart Ja would need to meet to qualify to use the alte rnative lb/day limit.

Flare Monitoring

The industry representatives talked briefly about an alternative monitoring option that could apply to certain flares. They stated that water seals either have continuous water flow or automatic make-up, and flow to the flare is indicated by a difference between the upstream pressure and the water seal height (pressure differe ntial). They also noted that pressure relief valves are safety devices.

Regarding temporary flares, the industry repres entatives noted that they can be used for miscellaneous process vents whose exhaust is norm ally transferred to pr ocess heaters. These
vents could be on different turn around schedules. They noted th at individual states have different criteria for allowing te mporary flares, but they have not seen any allowance longer than a year. The industry representati ves stated that one difficulty of using continuous monitors on temporary flares is that there is not enough time to certify the monitors before the flare is no longer needed. They noted that temporary flares ar e subject to subpart J, but they are allowed to submit an alternative monitoring plan. They stated that Region 9 granted BP a waiver from compliance with subpart J for a temporary flare, a nd they agreed to send a copy of the letter to the EPA. They also noted that they plan to pr ovide examples of when temporary flares are used
so that the information can be incorporated into subpart Ja.Attachment 1 Participants in June 30, 2009, Conference Call

Industry Representatives Charlie Bennett, Marathon Petroleum Dennis Bolt, WSPA Luis Comas, Sunoco Inc. Ken Comey, BP Chuck Ferrick, Exxon Mobil David Friedman, NPRA Ty Hastriter, ExxonMobil Bob Hermanson, BP Jan Laughlin, ConocoPhillips Deanna Lipnick, Chevron Jack McClure, Shell Norman Morrow, Fresh Air Consulting John Wagner, API Bill Wehrum, Hunton & Williams David Wilson, MPC

U.S. EPA Representatives
Bob Lucas
Brenda Shine

RTI International (EPA contractor)
Jeff Coburn
Kristin Parrish