Date: November 12, 2009 

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

From: Kristin Parrish Sroka 

Subject: NSPS Subpart J Review: Meeting Minutes for June 30, 2009, Conference Call 

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

Introduction

On June 30, 2009, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and their contractor (RTI International) participated in a conference call 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. 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 process heater testing shows that low-NOX

burners can operate efficiently with stable oxygen (O2) content and bridgewall temperature down 

to 40 percent capacity. Below 40 percent, the flame becomes too cool, and the operator must 

heat the flue gas or add O2. The operating manual for the John Zink low-NOX burners provides 

more information on operating parameters. The industry representatives stated that they planned 

to develop a list of suggestions for operating parameters 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 NOX in subpart Ja. 

Alternative Emission Limit for Flares 

The industry representatives continued to express interest in a pound per day (lb/day) 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limit for flares as an alternative to the 162 ppmv hydrogen sulfide 

(H2S) limit. They noted that since the consent decrees allow them to comply with a mass SO2

limit as an alternative to the limits in subpart J, they should be allowed a similar alternative limit 

for subpart Ja. The representatives from ExxonMobil stated that after reviewing 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. The 
 

2

industry representatives also noted that they anticipate this alternative 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 characteristics 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 H2S and flow monitors for these flares. 

The industry representatives stated they would review the characteristics of the flares with an 

alternative SO2 mass limit in the consent decrees and develop a list of criteria that an affected 

flare subject to subpart Ja would need to meet to qualify to use the alternative 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 differential). They also noted that pressure relief 

valves are safety devices. 

Regarding temporary flares, the industry representatives noted that they can be used for 

miscellaneous process vents whose exhaust is normally transferred to process heaters. These 

vents could be on different turnaround schedules. They noted that individual states have 

different criteria for allowing temporary flares, but they have not seen any allowance longer than 

a year. The industry representatives 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 are 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, and they agreed to send a copy of the letter to 

the EPA. They also noted that they plan to provide 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