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 Representatives of the Petroleum Refining Industry 

Introduction

On July 20, 2010, 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) 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 EPA’s reconsideration of NSPS subpart 

Ja. 

Discussion

This conference call was part of an ongoing conversation about flares, and the status of 

that section in NSPS subpart Ja. The EPA representatives 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 subpart Ja, the rule must instead include real and 

substantive requirements for flare gas recovery. 

Industry representatives stated that the operations, maintenance, 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 considering an alternative for flares with a 

water seal to instead conduct parameter monitoring (such as pressure upstream of a water seal), 

as flow and sulfur monitoring is not as critical when there is no flow to the flare. They noted that 

they were in the process of determining how sensitive the pressure monitor needed to be for use 

as a surrogate for flow. The industry representatives 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 that the flare management plan (FMP) needs to fully cover the 

different flaring scenarios, and refineries need to justify when they have to flare. 
 

2

The industry representatives stated that they could provide examples of improvements 

achieved by conducting root cause analyses (RCA) as required by a flare management plan. The 

EPA representatives agreed that the information would 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 the regulatory text clearly 

explains the industry requirements 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 SO2 RCA, which should further reduce flaring events. The industry representatives 

suggested that the EPA review the flaring incident 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 unique 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 circumstances 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