Date: September 16, 2014 

To: Brenda Shine, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD 

From: Jeff Coburn 

Subject: Meeting Minutes for September 9, 2014, Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and 

Representatives of API 

On September 9, 2014, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and their contractor (RTI International) participated in a meeting with representatives of 

the American Petroleum Institute (API). The names and affiliations of the participants are 

included in Attachment 1. The purpose of the meeting was to further discuss some of API’s 

concerns regarding the proposed sector rule. Discussion topics are summarized below. 

API representatives discussed the need for a standard for atmospheric pressure relief 

devices (PRDs) instead of the release prohibition in the proposal. It was noted that the Bay Area 

and South Coast both have rules concerning atmospheric PRD releases. The EPA 

representatives suggested that if the industry planned to comment on the need for a PRD 

standard, they should also consider how monitoring and compliance data should be recorded and 

reported. 

API representatives next suggested that the proposed visibility and velocity provisions for 

flares be deleted. According to API representatives, recent flare studies at Marathon Garyville 

indicate that, as long as there is a visible flame, exit velocity is not important. Therefore, 

according to API representatives, a visible flame requirement can be used rather than an exit 

velocity limit. With respect to the visible emissions limit, API representatives suggested that this 

is not a relevant parameter for hazardous air pollutant (HAP) control. A smoking flare does not 

necessarily indicate that one is getting poor HAP destruction. In fact, the formation of soot is an 

indication that HAP are being destroyed, according to API representatives. Therefore, according 

to API representatives, smoking flare provisions are more appropriate in the new source 

performance standards (NSPS). The NSPS provisions will ensure the flares are operated without 

smoking and below the velocity limits during normal operations, but allow smoking and velocity 

exceedances during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. 

API representatives noted concern regarding the 1 pound per hour limit for halogenated 

streams sent to the flare. API representatives noted that this limit might be workable if the mass 

flow rate was determined on an annual average basis. The EPA representatives noted that this 

provision was taken from the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) and that the limits were 

generally evaluated on an annual average basis rather than an instantaneous or hourly basis. 
2

 API representatives then discussed the need for a “bright-line” when equipment can be 

opened up for maintenance. API representatives noted that these sources were previously 

excluded from the definition of miscellaneous process vents (MPV), but this exclusion was 

removed in the proposed definition of MPV. API representatives suggested that these vents be 

excluded from the definition of MPV. If the EPA wants to set requirements related to these 

periodic maintenance activities, the EPA should set separate requirements for these, such as 

reducing concentrations to below 10 percent of the lower explosive limit. API representatives 

noted that Texas and Louisiana have good state standards that cover these sources. 

 API representatives then discussed issues related to the site-specific opacity limit for 

fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCU) that use tertiary cyclones. According to API 

representatives, these cyclones consistently meet the PM emissions limit when tested, but 

generally end up with a 10 percent opacity limit based on the site-specific opacity limit 

calculations. However, these units do not continuously meet a 10 percent opacity limit. API 

representatives argued that opacity is not a direct correlation with PM emissions and that a 

higher opacity limit (30 percent) should be allowed. The EPA representatives noted that the 

proposed rule included provisions for PM CEMS. The API representatives believed that 

provision was only available to units subject to the Refinery NSPS subpart Ja. Furthermore, the 

API representatives noted that the PM CEMS were expensive and were not considered reliable 

for refinery operations (only one PM CEMS is currently used at a refinery). The API 

representatives stated that owners or operators of facilities with tertiary cyclones on their FCCU 

would be willing to test annually to demonstrate continued compliance with the PM/metal HAP 

emissions limit if they could keep the 30 percent opacity limit (that was in Refinery NSPS 

subpart J). 

API representatives presented cyclone efficiency curves for primary cyclones at a 

Marathon facility. The cyclone efficiency curves showed that PM removal efficiencies of 98 

percent or higher were achieved with cyclone entrance (face) velocities of 20 feet per second or 

greater. API representatives were still collecting additional information, but the stated that the 

face velocity requirement would ensure good PM removal during FCCU startup and shutdown 

and would be more achievable than the proposed 30 percent opacity limit. The API 

representatives also noted that the oxygen and temperature provisions provided for sulfur 

recovery unit (SRU) shutdowns should also be allowed during SRU startup. According to the 

API representatives, during forced shutdowns, such as shutdowns due to hurricanes or power 

outages, the units will not be completely purged of sulfur. When the unit starts up, the sulfur 

remaining in the unit will get purged from the unit as gases begin to flow through the SRU 

reactors. During this startup, the SRU incinerator can ensure the sulfur HAP compounds are 

destroyed, but the SO2 concentrations will exceed the SO2 concentration limits that were 

established for normal operations. 
Attachment 1 

Participants in September 9, 2014 EPA/API Meeting 

API Representatives 

Matt Todd, API 

Dave Pavlich, Phillips 66 

Kris Battleson, Chevron 

Charlie Bennett, Marathon Petroleum 

Charles Feerick, ANS 

Erin Tullos, ExxonMobil 

George Graham, ExxonMobil 

U.S. EPA Representatives 

Andrew Bouchard 

Art Diem 

Eric Goehl 

Penny Lassiter 

Brenda Shine 

Peter Tsirigotis 

RTI International (EPA contractor) 

Jeff Coburn