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 Representative s of the Petroleum Refining Industry

Introduction

On August 12, 2009, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency (EPA) and their contractor (RTI International) part icipated in a stakeholder conference call with representatives of the American Petroleum Ins titute (API), National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA), Western Stat es Petroleum Association (WSPA ), and the petroleum refining industry. The names and affiliations of the part icipants are included in Attachment 1. The purpose of the conference call was to discuss vari ous issues regarding th e 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 re sponded that they have discusse d the issues with their work group but not management, and the promulgation pack age 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 n eed to address process heater turndown. The EPA representatives noted that the environmental organization representatives stated that they understand theo retically why turndown is a con cern, but they asserted that the public record needs to include compelling data demonstrating the exis ting issue. The EPA representatives also stated that industry would need to be ab le to demonstrate continuous compliance with whatever standard is set. The EPA representatives noted that data showing the concentration and mass emissions as well as oxy gen content at full capac ity and turndown for various heater sizes would be helpful.2

Temporary Flares

The EPA representatives asked for clarificati on regarding the applicability of subpart Ja to temporary flares. They noted that their interpretation of the i ndustry 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 pr ocess upsets, it seems that they
could be included in the flare mana gement plan. The industry repres entatives stated that part of their concern is that if a temporary flare is re placing 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 repl acing flares used as control devi ces would not just be handling startups, shutdowns, and process upsets.

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. The EPA representatives again no ted that a mass emission limit would not be available as an option for all fl ares, and the industry representativ es agreed that it should be
limited to those flares that alr eady comply with a mass limit and noted that subpart Ja should include a provision that allows ow ners and operators of similar flares to petition to use the mass limit. The representative from Marathon noted th at he could provide EPA with the justification used to apply a mass limit to certa in flares, although he noted th at the reason was not the same for all flares ( e.g. , the justification for some flares was the lo cation, but that was not the justification for all flares). Th e EPA representatives stated that they would consider the issue further and noted they were concerned about whet her the limit would be legally defensible in a national standard. They stated th at they planned to discuss the i ssues with the staff in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance w ho 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