1

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: January 19, 2011

TO: Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

FROM: Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.

SUBJECT: Summary of the January 6, 2011 Meeting with API Regarding CPMS Stay

Request and Petition to Reconsider on RICE NESHAP

INTRODUCTION

The American Petroleum Institute (API) requested this meeting with EPA to follow-up 

on the December 15, 2010 meeting. A summary of the December 15, 2010 meeting is available 

in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708). API also wanted to check on the status of the request 

for an administrative stay on the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) requirements 

and to discuss the petition for reconsideration submitted by API on the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engines (RICE). The most recent amendments to the NESHAP for stationary RICE 

were published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2010 (75 FR 51570). 

ATTENDEES

Michael Horowitz, EPA Dan Regan, INGAA

Bob Wayland, EPA Jim McCarthy, IES (by phone)

Melanie King, EPA (by phone) Rebecca Rentz, Bracewell & Giuliani (by phone)

Barrett Parker, EPA (by phone) Tom Monahan, ExxonMobil (by phone)

Tanya Parise, EC/R (by phone) Jeff Panek, IES (by phone)

Michael McBride, Van Ness Feldman Clay Freeberg, Chevron (by phone)

Bill Wehrum, Hunton & Williams Jenny Yang, Marathon (by phone)

Jeff Adams, BP Clint Gill, ConocoPhillips (by phone)

John Wagner, API Kyle Jantzen, Exterran (by phone)

Matt Todd, API Bill Grygar, Anadarko (by phone)

Stephanie Meadows, API Grover Campbell, Chesapeake (by phone)

John Admire, DCP Midstream Janet Bounds, Chevron (by phone)

Joshua Epel, DCP Midstream

E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989
2

SUMMARY OF MEETING

API submitted a request for an administrative stay on the CPMS requirements in the 

stationary RICE NESHAP. The letter from API specifically requests that EPA stay the 

provisions requiring CPMS for major sources and additionally requests that EPA stay the CPMS 

requirement for area sources engines to allow the full 3-year compliance period to begin once a 

final decision on reconsideration is reached. The request is available in the docket as EPA-HQOAR-2008-0708-0682. API has also previously submitted a petition for reconsideration on 

October 19, 2010 on the stationary RICE NESHAP (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0582). API

wanted to follow-up on the CPMS stay request and other issues described in the petition for 

reconsideration. API provided an agenda for the meeting, which follows this meeting summary.

CPMS Stay Request

API reiterated from the December 15, 2010 meeting to EPA that there are significant 

issues related to the CPMS requirements in the current rule and asked what EPA’s thoughts were 

on API’s request. EPA indicated that it has reviewed API’s letter and was in the process of 

responding to the request for the stay. 

Urban/Rural Distinction

EPA indicated that it was in the process of responding to the petitions for reconsideration. 

Letters will be mailed to petitioners in the near future indicating whether reconsideration on 

various issues have been granted or denied, EPA said. 

Regarding the requirements for area source stationary engines at rural locations, in API’s 

opinion there is no real need to regulate emissions from stationary engines at these locations. 

According to API, rural source engines are not big emitters, there is a small population of these 

engines and the engines are in areas with a small population density. API expressed that it 

believes that the decisions made under the Oil and Natural Gas Production (O&G) NESHAP are 

still correct, and asserted that the O&G rule sets a precedent, which is equally justified to apply 

to stationary engines subject to this rule. API added that engines in rural locations are widely 

dispersed. Typically, rural sites consist of only a single engine and some of these sites are at 

extreme distances, for instance in some cases as much as 30 miles from the nearest town, 

according to API. Accessibility can also be an issue at some locations. It is not practical to visit 

these engines, API said, who further stated that these sites are not visited on a regular basis. 

Having to frequently visit these rural sources would involve more resources API stated, as 

opposed to what would be necessary if the engine simply had to follow management practices. 

EPA asked how often staff come to the site for maintenance purposes as opposed to for 

monitoring reasons. API indicated that it has operators who are capable of performing some 

maintenance activities, but that it requires different people with the appropriate skills and 

knowledge to address instrumentation and electrical issues. Instrumentation and electrical staff

rarely go to rurally located sites, but are usually at larger sites or plants. API said that the 

personnel currently visiting rural sites do not have the knowledge to conduct pressure 

monitoring. 
3

In general, API expressed that it is the testing and monitoring requirements that are

creating the majority of the problems at rural sites. EPA asked what the specific problems are. 

API responded that getting a test trailer, for instance, to the rural location can be a problem, e.g., 

due to extreme weather conditions in Colorado or due to Bureau of Land Management land 

restrictions. Overall, API said that the problems related to testing and monitoring at rural 

locations are associated with logistics and costs. According to API, rich burn engine testing is 

very costly, particularly Method 323 and FTIR testing, whereas testing for carbon monoxide 

(CO) is easier to do than formaldehyde testing. 

EPA asked how API would recommend that compliance be demonstrated. API indicated 

that there are numerous ways to demonstrate compliance depending on how much assurance 

EPA requires. API said that it is not necessarily recommending moving entirely away from all

performance testing. It may be reasonable to test for nitrogen oxides (NOx) or CO to 

demonstrate that the catalytic converter is working and that a reduction is occurring across the 

catalyst, API said. Also, API recommended that EPA could allow a shorter ASTM method as an 

alternative to Method 7E. The personnel sent to a site will depend on the type of compliance 

demonstration it is necessary to conduct. For example, API said that a mechanic may be able to 

use a portable analyzer, but may not be qualified to conduct a full EPA test method. API added 

that additional engines can be tested with shorter testing requirements, for instance with an EPA 

method about 1 1⁄2 engines can be tested per day as opposed to several engines being able to be 

tested with portable analyzers. 

API argued that the numerical emission standard is not necessary and that it would make 

it easier with respect to personnel and electronics if EPA removed the numerical limit. 

According to API, this would improve cost, operations, miles travelled, and so on. As an 

alternative, API proposed a CO threshold that would act as a measurement or an indicator that 

the catalyst is working. If the threshold is exceeded, further action would be required that would 

either require a test or replacing the catalyst. EPA asked if the pressure drop would be sufficient 

to indicate whether the catalyst is working. API said that the pressure drop is not a good 

indicator because the pressure drop is impacted by the flow. 

API suggested looking at a different pollutant besides formaldehyde, and EPA indicated 

that it is talking to the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) regarding this and EMA is 

recommending total hydrocarbons (THC) in place of formaldehyde. API indicated that it is not 

sure if THC would be an appropriate surrogate because for natural gas engines THC would 

mostly consist of methane, which is hard to oxidize. The formaldehyde could be reduced, but 

methane might not be and that would be reflected in the THC emissions. API mentioned that 

there are methane cutters available to address this issue and also recommended that CO percent 

reduction could be used as an indicator. 
4

Above-the-Floor

Regarding aftertreatment controls on small rich burn engines at area sources, API

questioned whether this decision was economically justified, and questioned whether it was 

correct to rely on NOx reductions without a NOx limit in the rule. API argued that there is a very

specific operating window to achieve NOx reductions with a three-way catalyst on rich burn 

engines. The air-to-fuel ratio (AFR) has to be tightly controlled in order to obtain the NOx cobenefit, and without a requirement on the AFR controller and a NOx limit, API argued it is 

unlikely to obtain the NOx reduction EPA has claimed.

Rule Future

API expressed that the 3 years before sources will be required to comply with the RICE 

NESHAP amendments is not long. According to API, companies will soon begin planning and 

budgeting of controls and CPMS. EPA said that it will look at the issues API has brought up. 

EPA and API planned to meet again on January 26, 2011 to discuss monitoring specifics, and on 

February 9, 2011 to discuss other general issues related to the RICE NESHAP reconsideration 

petitions. 
5

Meeting Agenda

Date: January 6, 2011

Location: API, 1220 L St NW, Washington, D.C.

Room: 1204

Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Call-In Information: (866) 443.0059; Pass Code – 2026828319# 

Petition to Reconsider NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines, Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 51,570

1:00 Introductions & Meeting Objectives

1:05 Status of Request for Consideration of a Narrow 

Administrative Stay for CPMS Requirements

1:35 Failure to Include an Urban/Rural Distinction for Area 

Sources has Resulted in Unsupported Requirements and

Standards for Rural Engines

 EPA authority to regulate rural area source engines and

failure to provide sufficient justification for their inclusion 

1:50 Improper Inclusion of Above the Floor Controls at Area 

Sources

2:10 MACT Floor and Above the Floor Determinations Contained 

In Final Rule Introduced New Data and Methodologies That 

Precluded an Opportunity for Public Comment 

2:55 Need for Continued Discussions on Issues Outlined in the 

Petition for Reconsideration and Discussed Above

 Implementation timeline to meet regulatory requirements

3:00 Conclude Meeting