1

Summary of Meeting with the American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Regarding the Proposed Stationary Existing RICE NESHAP 

May 14, 2009 

Attendees 

Peter Tsirigotis, EPA Janet Bounds, Chevron 

Bob Wayland, EPA Clay Freeberg, Chevron 

Michael Horowitz, EPA Tom Monahan, ExxonMobil 

Melanie King, EPA (by phone) Jena Martin, ExxonMobil 

David Cozzie, EPA (by phone) Jack Maley, Exterran 

Tanya Parise, AGTI (by phone) Gerald Meinecke, Exterran 

Stephanie Meadows, API Dan Salgado, KinderMorgan 

Matt Todd, API Carol Butero, Kinder Morgan 

Jim McCarthy, IES Terri Stillwell, Magellan Pipeline 

Jeff Panek, IES Jenny Yang, Marathon 

Jeff Adams, BP Charlie Bennett, Marathon 

Randy Poteet, ConocoPhillips Jason Clark, Devon 

Clint Gill, ConocoPhillips Jeff Fincher, Colonial Pipeline 

Russell Wozniak, Dow 

 

Purpose of Meeting 

 The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the proposed national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing stationary reciprocating 

internal combustion engines (RICE). The proposed NESHAP for existing stationary 

RICE was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2009 (74 FR 9698). 

Summary of Meeting

General

The American Petroleum Institute (API) requested this meeting with EPA to 

discuss the recently proposed NESHAP for stationary engines. API has previously 

worked with EPA on other rulemakings affecting stationary engines. A slide presentation 

of issues was provided to EPA by API and is included as Attachment 1 to this meeting 

summary. The summary of this meeting will be available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708). 

Stephanie Meadows opened the meeting by stating that API has serious concerns 

with the proposed rule and therefore wanted to meet with EPA to discuss its concerns. 

API expressed that it wished to work with EPA on the issues before final development of 

the rule. In general, API was surprised of the magnitude of the rule in terms of engines 

that would be covered. For example, API did not expect that all stationary engines would 

be covered. Specifically, API was referring to stationary natural gas engines, which API 

did not realize would be addressed with the existing diesel engine rulemaking. In 

addition, API noted that the proposed rule threw in more engines in the upstream sector, 

that engines are going to have difficulties meeting the emission limits, and that the tight 
2

schedule of the rule is a problem. Other general comments API had were that it is a 

complex rulemaking and asked how EPA harmonizes the rule with other engine rules. 

Lastly, API suggested that EPA re-negotiate the timing on the consent decree with the 

litigant. 

Specific Issues

The specific issues that API discussed during the meeting are described below. 

Further details on these issues and a complete list of API’s issues can be found in 

Attachment 1. 

1. Area Sources 

 One of the main concerns API has regarding the proposed standards for area 

sources is that stationary engines at these locations need alternative standards. Also, API 

expressed that EPA should look at the health effects associated with stationary engines 

located in rural areas. In general, members do not install engines in the vicinity of 

people, according to API. It was suggested by API that one option could be to consider 

the distance of a source from residents. In addition, API pointed to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart HH, where EPA promulgated a different approach with regards to area sources in 

urban and rural areas. As far as the standards are concerned, API indicated that catalysts 

should not be required for engines in rural areas. Engines in these locations are not 

visited frequently, the engines are located as far as 1 hour away, and the engines at rural 

areas are not located closely together. According to API, members have no issue with 

installing catalysts on engines in urban areas. EPA asked how the engines are identified. 

According to API, for about 90 percent of the engines it is clear what the engines are, i.e., 

if they are rural or urban sources. EPA pointed out that every engine at an area source 

needs a standard. Such standard could be a work practice standard, EPA said, and 

wanted to know what specific practices API recommended. 

2. Emission Limits 

API stated that there is limited and flawed test data for the number of engines 

affected by the proposed rule. Actual operation, load shifts, backpressure, and so on have 

not been taken into account in the rule, according to API. Additional time is needed in 

order to collect sufficient and appropriate data for the rule, API said, and indicated that it 

is in the process of collecting emissions data. EPA pointed out that it needs to link any 

rule extension to the collection of information and that API should come up with a plan to 

put the information and emissions data together. API noted that it is primarily focused on 

getting gas-fired data and again added that it was not clear on the fact that gas-fired 

engines would be affected by the rule until the February 2009 signature date. According 

to API, some engines will not be able to comply with the rule with retrofits and some 

limits that EPA expects will be met without add-on controls will require add-on controls. 

API added that almost all engines affected by the rule will require add-on controls to 

meet the limits. API mentioned that slow speed engines that may be 30 to 40 years old 

will have to do a lot of work before add-on controls can even be considered. 
3

According to API, a 90 percent reduction is not attainable for many engines 

subject to the proposed rule. This topic was not extensively discussed during the meeting 

and more information on API’s concerns can be found on page 4 of Attachment 1. 

Regarding the above-the-floor analysis, API thought that the costs were not 

appropriate. In addition, API wanted to know what the acceptable cost per ton range is 

for making regulatory decisions. EPA indicated that it could not give API a specific 

number or range, but that cost per ton is something that is looked at on a case-by-case 

basis. 

3. Maintenance Practices 

 Regarding the proposed maintenance practices that certain stationary engines are 

subject to under the proposed rule, API was of the opinion that some of the specific 

maintenance practices provided in the rule are not appropriate. API said that it was 

supportive of the concept, but that it was not in agreement on the specific requirements 

such as the frequency of maintenance. 

4. SSM Limits 

 The proposed startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) limits cause compliance 

uncertainty and are too stringent, in API’s opinion. EPA said that it did not have any 

information showing that emissions data would be different during periods of startup 

versus normal operation. EPA noted that it received the court decision affecting SSM 

limits just prior to the rule being proposed and did not have much time to investigate this 

issue. API indicated that it could take time for an engine to equilibrate and asked how 

sources are supposed to measure emissions during malfunctions. It was suggested by 

API that maintenance practices be implemented instead of specific limits for SSM 

periods. EPA noted that it will continue to work on this issue between proposal and 

promulgation. 

5. Rich Burn Add-On Controls Threshold 

Concerning rich burn engines, API indicated that it believes that the threshold for 

requiring add-on controls should be higher. According to API, small rich burn engines 

are less stable and air-to-fuel ratio controllers have difficulties controlling them. Also, a 

shorter catalyst life is associated with smaller rich burn engines, according to API. 

Finally, API indicated that the costs that EPA estimated for the proposal are 

underestimated. EPA asked API to provide cost information and that it will take a look at 

it for the final rule. 

6. Diesel Engines 

API said that a steady-state rule makes it hard to come into compliance for diesel 

engines used for variable operation. Certain diesel engines also have short-term usage 

periods and some diesel engines will never reach full load. According to API, a limited 

use category would be appropriate in the rule. 
4

7. Timeline/Next Steps 

As mentioned, API thought that more time is needed for a workable final rule. 

API is working on gathering existing formaldehyde emissions data and is also collecting 

new emissions data. EPA said that API should not rely on a rule extension and should 

prepare its comments and get data to EPA as soon as possible. 
5

Attachment 1 

Existing Engine NESHAP Presentation by API 

Existing Engine NESHAP

40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ 

Amendments

EPA Meeting

at API Offices

Washington D.C.

May 14, 2009

Summary of Concerns

 Alternative Standards are Needed for Area Sources

 Most Engines Cannot Achieve Emission Limits and 

90% Reduction is Unattainable for Many Engines

 MACT Floor Determinations Are Based On Too Few Data Points

 Beyond The Floor Analysis Cost per Ton is Significantly Under-estimated

 Maintenance Practices Are Not Tied To HAP 

Emissions and Event Frequency Is Unreasonable

 SSM Limits Cause Compliance Uncertainty and Are 

Unproven

 RB Catalyst Threshold Should be 250 HP or higher 

based on beyond the floor analysis

 Diesel Engine Concerns 
6

Alternatives are Needed 

for Area Sources

 Area Source Standards Directed at Urban 

Human Health Risk

 Engines Demographics Similar to O&G 

MACT

Significant population engines located outside 

urban cluster 

 Unattended & Remote Operations 

 Alternative Options Available Under Section 

112(h) Should Be Considered

 Liberal Use of GACT Management Practices 

Emission Limits and 90% Reduction are 

Unattainable for Many Engines

 Limited & Flawed Test Data for # Engines Affected

 Floor Determination Ignores Actual Operations

 Reduced load, exhaust temp & back pressure, and swing 

loads

 Floor only considers high load conditions

 90% Reduction Not Supported by Data

 Many Engines Unable to Meet Limits

 Many “uncontrolled” will require catalyst to meet limits.

 e.g. 2SLB slow speed engines

 Catalyst & Engine Life may be Shortened

 e.g. Oil consumption fouls catalyst
7

Mandatory Maintenance 

Practices and Frequency

 Relationship Between Work Practices and HAP 

Emission Must Be Established

 Spark plug replacement – Appropriate, Design vs. Life 

expectancy

 Alternative Options Available Under Section 112(h) 

Should Be Considered

 Operator O&M Consistent With NSPS Requested

 Oil Change & Inspections – Integrity related

 At Minimum, Frequency Needs to Be Addressed

 e.g., Oil Change EVERY 8 DAYS is Proposed!

 Allow alternative frequency, i.e. performance metric 

based

SSM Limits Cause Compliance 

Uncertainty and Are Too Low

 Await Outcome and Court Resolution of 

Pending Petitions

 SSM Emission Limits for Engines Impractical

Limits equivalent to MACT Floor Limits

e.g. Steady state best performing limit vs cold 

start emissions

 No Data on SSM Emissions

 How Can Title V Compliance Be Certified?

 Alternative Options Available Under Section 

112(h) Should Be Considered

 SSM Plan Work Practice is Appropriate
8

RB Catalyst Threshold 

Should be Higher

 RB Engines have Low Formaldehyde

 Small RB – Less Stable AFRC 

(KSU Study)

 Shorter Catalyst Life Expectancy Impacts Cost 

Analysis

 RIA only includes catalyst cost for $/ton value

 Does not include all equipment, monitoring recordkeeping, 

reporting, catalyst replacements, etc.

 EPA Beyond the floor $/ton analysis significantly 

underestimates costs 

Diesel Engines Issues

 Swing Loads Engines Including Drill Rigs, 

Cranes, Pumps Are Not Candidates For 

Steady State Regulation

 Technical Feasibility of Stacked Controls 

 Diesel Fuel Quality and ULSD

 Limited Use Engine Category – less than 500 

hours
9

Rulemaking Timeline and 

Next Steps

 More Time Needed for Workable Final Rule

 Short Timeframe and Significant Data Needs

 Adequate Catalyst Performance Testing 

Equipment and Testing Personnel is not Available 

to meet Demand

 Ability to Introduce Data and Information Into the 

Docket Following Comment Period

 Lock Down Date For Additional Input to Finalize 

Rule

 Request Additional Meeting After Close of 

Comment Period – July 2009