Date: March 23, 2010 

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

From: Kristin Parrish Sroka 

Subject: NSPS Subpart J Review: Meeting Minutes for August 12, 2009, Conference Call 

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

Introduction

On August 12, 2009, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and their contractor (RTI International) participated in a stakeholder 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 conference call was to discuss various issues regarding the EPA’s reconsideration 

of NSPS subpart Ja, including additional industry comments transmitted to the EPA via email on 

July 22, 2009 (see Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011 for a copy of these comments). 

Discussion

Status Update 

The industry representatives began the call by asking the EPA representatives for a status 

update. The EPA representatives responded that they have discussed the issues with their work 

group but not management, and the promulgation package is almost ready to be reviewed by the 

work group. 

Process Heater Turndown 

The EPA representatives stated that they talked with environmental organization 

representatives and that one of the topics discussed was the need to address process heater 

turndown. The EPA representatives noted that the environmental organization representatives 

stated that they understand theoretically why turndown is a concern, but they asserted that the 

public record needs to include compelling data demonstrating the existing issue. The EPA 

representatives also stated that industry would need to be able to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with whatever standard is set. The EPA representatives noted that data showing the 

concentration and mass emissions as well as oxygen content at full capacity and turndown for 

various heater sizes would be helpful. 
 

2

Temporary Flares 

The EPA representatives asked for clarification regarding the applicability of subpart Ja 

to temporary flares. They noted that their interpretation of the industry representatives’ 

comments is that temporary flares should not be subject to subpart Ja. The EPA representatives 

noted that if temporary flares control startups, shutdowns, and process upsets, it seems that they 

could be included in the flare management plan. The industry representatives stated that part of 

their concern is that if a temporary flare is replacing a flare not already subject to Ja, there are 

costs associated with installing monitors and revising the flare management plan. They also 

noted that temporary flares replacing flares used as control devices would not just be handling 

startups, shutdowns, and process upsets. 

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. The EPA representatives again noted that a mass emission limit would not be 

available as an option for all flares, and the industry representatives agreed that it should be 

limited to those flares that already comply with a mass limit and noted that subpart Ja should 

include a provision that allows owners and operators of similar flares to petition to use the mass 

limit. The representative from Marathon noted that he could provide EPA with the justification 

used to apply a mass limit to certain flares, although he noted that the reason was not the same 

for all flares (e.g., the justification for some flares was the location, but that was not the 

justification for all flares). The EPA representatives stated that they would consider the issue 

further and noted they were concerned about whether the limit would be legally defensible in a 

national standard. They stated that they planned to discuss the issues with the staff in the Office 

of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance who worked to develop the consent decree 

requirements. 

 
Attachment 1 

Participants in August 12, 2009, Conference Call 

Industry Representatives

Charlie Bennett, Marathon Petroleum 

Dennis Bolt, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) 

Ron Chittim, API 

Matthew Hodges, Valero Energy Corp. 

Jan Laughlin, ConocoPhillips 

Norman Morrow, Fresh Air Consulting 

John Wagner, API 

Bill Wehrum, Hunton & Williams 

U.S. EPA Representatives

KC Hustvedt 

Bob Lucas 

Brenda Shine 

Susan Stahle 

RTI International (EPA contractor)

Jeff Coburn 

Kristin Parrish