Date: June 17, 2010 

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

From: Kristin Sroka 

Subject: NSPS Subpart J Review: Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2009, Meeting 

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

Introduction

On November 19, 2009, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

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

representatives of the American Petroleum Institute (API), National Petrochemical & Refiners 

Association (NPRA), and others from the petroleum refining industry. The names and 

affiliations of the participants are included in Attachment 1. A copy of the presentation slides 

used in Dr. Richard Waibel’s presentation is provided in Attachment 2. Other handouts provided 

by the industry representatives are included in Attachments 3 and 4. The purpose of the meeting 

was to discuss various issues regarding EPA’s petroleum refinery rulemaking efforts, and one of 

the topics was reconsideration of the NSPS subpart Ja process heater and flare provisions. This 

memorandum documents the portion of the meeting that was relevant to NSPS subpart Ja. 

Discussion

The EPA representatives indicated that they had analyzed the additional continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data for NOX from process heaters submitted by industry 

representatives. They noted that turndown did not appear to be as much of an issue for poor 

NOX performance as operating at high excess oxygen concentrations. They also noted that they 

had evaluated a mass-based emission limit alternative as a potential means to address periods of 

turndown; however, it did not appear to be helpful. Most of the process heaters could meet the 

concentration limit already, and those that did not could not meet the alternative mass limit being 

considered either. The EPA representatives indicated that they are considering including a 

method for requesting an alternative limit on a case-by-case basis for process heaters that have 

the latest ultra-low NOX burner technology installed but still cannot meet the emission limit 

while in turndown. Industry representatives indicated that they thought the issue related to 

turndown is more pervasive than a case-by-case alternative would indicate, but having a case-bycase alternative would be an acceptable option. 

Dr. Waibel presented some of John Zink’s test facility research results for burner studies 

firing at turndown (see Attachment 2). He noted that, at turndown, they mix furnace gas with 

fuel to get NOX reductions and moderate peak flame temperatures. The cool furnace gas affects 

flame stability, so they generally need to run at higher excess oxygen concentrations – typically 
 

2

3 percent excess oxygen. The EPA representatives asked why many process heaters operate at 

excess oxygen levels of 5 to 10 percent. One industry representative noted that they could 

typically operate at excess oxygen concentrations as low as 3 to 4 percent without running into 

flame stability issues, but the furnace temperature decreases as oxygen concentration decreases, 

and they do not want the process heater temperature to get too low. Dr. Waibel noted that John 

Zink conducted recent testing to assess the effects of controlling excess oxygen concentration, 

and they found that at low oxygen concentrations, the carbon monoxide concentration increases 

(as the furnace temperature decreases, the combustion quality of the fuel decreases). He stated 

that if the carbon monoxide concentration gets too high, it can extinguish the flame in the 

burners, which would cause safety issues. It was also noted that, when excess (outlet) oxygen 

concentrations are high, the burners are not really operating as low NOX burners any more. 

The industry representatives provided a position paper giving examples of units that 

operate in turndown and options for emissions limits that could be applied to those situations 

(see Attachment 3). The industry representatives then summarized circumstances that may lead 

to a process heater operating at turndown conditions. The following circumstances were 

described: 

 Startup or shutdown of a process unit served by that process heater. 

 Amount of heat needed by the process: Certain processes, particularly hydrotreaters, 

do not require as much heat when the catalyst is fresh. As the catalyst gets old and 

begins to deactivate, then more heat is needed to support the reaction. 

 Change in process feed material: The process heater may be designed to accept cold 

intermediates from off-site, so if it begins processing warm intermediate from on-site, 

the amount of heat input required from the process heater would decrease. 

 Re-purposed process heater: An old process heater from one application may be used 

for a different application requiring less heat input. 

 Energy efficiency project: Recovering heat from one process to partially preheat feed 

reduces the heat input needed from the existing process heater. 

 The discussion then turned to flare provisions. Industry representative re-iterated the 

need to be able to use cylinder gas audits (rather than trying to perform a RATA for the sulfur 

monitors during actual flaring events). They also suggested that monitoring of the flare water 

seal be used to eliminate false positives when the installed flow monitor registers very small 

flows. When asked why this small flow would be an issue, the industry representatives noted 

that they are concerned with tripping the root cause analysis (RCA) threshold of 500 pounds SO2

per 24 hours for very large flares. See Attachment 4 for copies of the handouts they provided 

detailing their positions on these two issues. Finally, the industry representatives noted that the 

top of a dual range H2S monitor is typically 3-5 percent. They expressed concern that they may 

be required to install two monitors to cover the range of potential H2S concentrations, and they 

indicated that a second monitor was not need to show that an RCA is needed. 
Attachment 1 

Participants in November 19, 2009 Meeting 

Industry Representatives

Charlie Bennett, Marathon Petroleum Company 

Ron Chittim, API 

Clay Freeburg, Chevron 

David Friedman, NPRA 

Bob Hermanson, BP 

Matt Hodges, Valero Energy Corp. 

Jan Laughlin, ConocoPhillips 

Jack McClure, The JLM Group 

Bob Morehouse, ExxonMobil 

Norman Morrow, Fresh Air Consulting 

Matt Todd, API 

Doug Van Pelt, ExxonMobil 

John Wagner, API 

Richard Waibel, John Zink 

Bill Wehrum, Hunton & Williams 

U.S. EPA Representatives

Bob Lucas 

Brenda Shine 

Nick Parsons 

Pat Foley 

RTI International (EPA contractor)

Jeff Coburn 

Kristin Sroka