Date: January 21, 2011

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

From: Kristin Sroka

Subject: NSPS Subpart J Review: Meeting Minutes for July 20, 2010, Conference Call Between the U.S. EPA and Representative s of the Petroleum Refining Industry

Introduction

On July 20, 2010, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their contractor (RTI International) part icipated in a stakeholder conference call with representatives of the American Petroleum Ins titute (API) and the petroleum refining industry. The names and affiliations of the participants ar e included in Attachment 1. The purpose of the
conference call was to discuss va rious issues regarding EPA’s r econsideration of NSPS subpart

Ja.

Discussion

This conference call was part of an ongoing c onversation about flares , and the status of that section in NSPS subpart Ja. The EPA repr esentatives noted that the EPA management was supportive of moving forward and not delaying the sections on process heaters and flares. However, they stated that the EPA management expressed concern that if the limit on the flow rate of gas to the flare is removed from NSPS s ubpart Ja, the rule must instead include real and substantive requirements for flare gas recovery.

Industry representatives stated that the operations, mainte nance, and monitoring plan (OMMP) was on one end of the spectrum, while the flow limit was at the other. This led to a
discussion of flow and sulfur monitoring above the OMMP.

The EPA representatives indicated they were co nsidering an alternative for flares with a water seal to instead conduct parameter monitori ng (such as pressure upstream of a water seal), as flow and sulfur monitoring is no t as critical when there is no flow to the flare. They noted that they were in the process of determining how sens itive the pressure monitor needed to be for use as a surrogate for flow. The industry representa tives asked whether the main concern was to be able to report events with certainty. The EPA representatives confirmed this, and stated they wanted to make sure the requirements were reasonable for low flow flares. The EPA representatives also indicated th at the flare management plan (FMP) needs to fully cover the different flaring scenarios, and refineries ne ed to justify when they have to flare.2

The industry representatives stated that th ey could provide examples of improvements achieved by conducting root cause an alyses (RCA) as required by a flare management plan. The EPA representatives agreed that the information w ould be useful and added that it would also be good to know what refineries cannot and will never be able to do due to the design and operation of flares. The EPA representatives stated that they want to ensure that th e regulatory text clearly explains the industry requirem ents and expectations.

Industry representatives stated that the RCA in the consent decrees has been most influential in reducing flaring. They noted that NSPS subpart Ja will add flow RCA to consent
decree SO 2 RCA, which should further reduce flaring events. Th e industry representatives suggested that the EPA review the flaring inci dent reports submitted as part of the consent decrees for additional information. The industry representatives also indicated, however, that each flare is very different and each flare will have its own uni que baseline flow. They noted that it is difficult to explain why some flare reduction techniques work on some flares but not others due to the unique circum stances for different flares.Attachment 1 Participants in July 20, 2010 Conference Call

Industry Representatives Charlie Bennett, Marathon Petroleum Company Chuck Feerick, ExxonMobil Bob Hermanson, BP Jan Laughlin, ConocoPhillips Doug Van Pelt, ExxonMobil Bill Wehrum, Hunton & Williams

U.S. EPA Representatives
KC Hustvedt
Bob Lucas
Brenda Shine Sue Stahle (OGC)

RTI International (EPA contractor)
Jeff Coburn
Kristin Sroka