Date: March 30, 2010 

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

From: Kristin Parrish Sroka 

Subject: NSPS Subpart J Review: Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2009, Conference Call 

Between the U.S. EPA and Representatives of Various Environmental 

Organizations 

Introduction

On September 8, 2009, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

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

representatives of the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), Galveston-Houston Association for 

Smog Prevention (GHASP), Industry Professionals for Clean Air (IPCA), Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC), Earthjustice, the City of Houston and the University of Texas 

Environmental Law Clinic. The names and affiliations of the participants are included in 

Attachment 1. The purpose of the conference call was to discuss various issues regarding the 

EPA’s reconsideration of NSPS subpart Ja. 

Discussion

Flares 

The EPA representatives began by summarizing the history of the flare standards in 

subpart Ja, beginning with the original proposal in May 2007. They noted that in the original 

proposal, the EPA started with narrow applicability for new fuel gas producing units (which 

would cover only a small portion of flare gas generated at a refinery). In later versions of 

subpart Ja, the applicability was broadened to the flare itself and special flare modification 

provisions were added. The EPA representatives also noted that they plan to remove the 

60 ppmv hydrogen sulfide (H2S) long-term concentration limit for flares because it is not cost 

effective, but they plan to maintain the 162 ppmv H2S 3-hour average and to require detailed 

flare management plans and root cause analyses for exceedances of flow rate and sulfur 

thresholds. 

The environmental organization representatives asked why the 60 ppmv limit was cost 

effective in previous versions of subpart Ja but is not cost effective now, given that they provided 

the EPA with data that increased baseline emissions estimates. The EPA representatives 

responded that previously, all components of the flare and fuel gas combustion device (FGCD) 
 

2

requirements were considered in one cost effectiveness evaluation, including both H2S 

concentration limits for all FGCD (including flares), the flare management plan, and root cause 

analyses. However, the EPA’s current impacts analysis considers the cost and emission 

reduction impacts of each requirement separately. The EPA representatives stated that the latest 

analysis of the separate requirements shows that root cause analysis and flare management plans 

continue to be cost effective. It also shows that most of the emissions reductions associated with 

the 60 ppmv H2S concentration limit come from heaters and boilers, so the concentration limit is 

cost effective for FGCD, but it is not cost effective for flares when considering the incremental 

reductions beyond those achieved by the other flare requirements. 

The environmental organization representatives stated that in their experience, flare 

recovery systems save money, and they asked for further details of the EPA’s impacts analysis. 

The EPA representatives estimated that the first compressor in a flare gas recovery system is 

very cost effective, possibly saving the refinery money, and the second is less cost effective. 

Between those two compressors, about 90 percent reduction can be achieved. However, 

capturing the last 10 percent is not at all cost effective because the third compressor is rarely 

used (i.e., it has a substantial expense but does not result in much emissions reduction); in fact, 

capturing this last 10 percent is so cost ineffective that it causes the overall system to be not cost 

effective. The EPA representatives added that other practices, such as managing planned 

startups and shutdowns, can reduce that last 10 percent at a lower cost than a third compressor, 

and the flare management plan in subpart Ja includes startup and shutdown minimization as well 

as a description of every routine stream going to the flare and why it must be flared. 

The environmental organization representatives suggested that the EPA include an 

equipment standard or a work practice standard that requires the use of one or two compressors, 

depending on the results of the cost effectiveness analysis. They stated that a clear requirement 

to install certain technology is much easier for states and other delegated authorities to enforce 

than flare management plans and flow monitoring. They noted that delegated authorities will be 

overwhelmed by the monitoring and reporting requirements and will be unable to keep up with 

everything to make sure that facilities are following those plans. The environmental organization 

representatives stated that if the final amendments to subpart Ja do not require the installation of 

technology, the preamble should clearly state why not. The EPA representatives noted that a 

technology standard for flares could affect the flare modification provisions as well. The EPA 

representatives also noted that the current draft of the final amendments to subpart Ja is close to 

the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and South Coast Air Quality Management 

District rules; the main difference is that those rules require no routine flaring and, therefore, 

have a higher estimated cost for compliance. 

The environmental organization representatives asked if the EPA had thought about low 

flow requirements or flare efficiency requirements as part of subpart Ja. The EPA 

representatives responded that they are looking at the use of the flare as a control device and 

doing studies to learn more about the efficiency and emissions reduced by flares. They noted 

that they are interested in issues such as how flare efficiency affects compliance with 40 CFR 

63.18 and 40 CFR 60.11, overall flare minimization, and New Source Review. 
 

3

Process Heaters 

The EPA representatives began by summarizing the history of the nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

standards in subpart Ja, beginning with the original proposal in May 2007. They stated that they 

are considering a limit of 40 ppmv for natural draft process heaters and 60 ppmv for forced draft 

process heaters (including newly constructed forced draft process heaters, for which a limit of 

40 ppmv NOX was proposed) based on a 30-day averaging period. The environmental 

organization representatives asked the EPA to explain why they were raising the limit for new 

forced draft process heaters, and the EPA representatives responded that the data currently inhand supported the higher 60 ppmv limit rather than the 40 ppmv limit. The EPA representatives 

stated that the data was already available in the project docket, and the environmental 

organization representatives had previously received a copy. The EPA representatives also noted 

that they had requested additional data from the petroleum refining industry and stated that they 

would share the new data when they are received. 

The EPA representatives then stated that they are considering options for how to handle 

turndown conditions. They noted that the change in averaging time from 24 hours in the final 

rule to 365 days in the supplemental proposal was aimed to address the turndown issue. 

However, industry representatives have indicated that this longer averaging time did not 

adequately address turndown for units that operated for significant period in turndown, so the 

EPA is considering including a mass limit equivalent to the mass allowed at 50 percent capacity 

and revising the averaging time for the concentration- and heating value-based emission limits to 

30 days. The environmental organization representatives then asked why the EPA is considering 

an averaging time of 30 days for the 40 and 60 ppmv limits, instead of shortening the averaging 

time back to the original 24 hours. The EPA representatives stated that the 30-day averaging 

time is supported by current data. 

Regarding collecting additional data, the EPA representatives noted that some consent 

decrees require refinery owners and operators to submit CEMS data to the EPA. They suggested 

that a more systematic approach to data gathering (rather than just asking industry to send data of 

their choosing) might yield more data. (They did note that smaller process heaters typically do 

not have CEMS, so data on turndown conditions for small process heaters would be limited.) 

The environmental organization representatives agreed with that idea and noted that while they 

do not necessarily disagree with the EPA’s revised emission limits, they do want to see 

representative data to support the conclusion that those are the appropriate limits. 

Other Issues 

The EPA representatives stated that they know there are other areas of concern for the 

environmental organization representatives that will not be addressed in this rulemaking (e.g., 

limits for fluid catalytic cracking units). The EPA representatives explained that all the issues 

are being considered as part of an industry sector approach, and they plan to re-evaluate the 

standards based on data collected as part of the consent decree process. As part of this sector 

effort, the EPA representatives listed several issues they would like to consider, including: 

(1) VOC standards for heat exchange systems (HAP standards are being finalized as part of 

Refinery MACT 1 review); (2) addressing potential gaps in the NSPS for boilers, such as 
 

4

turndown operations and combustion of refinery fuel gas; (3) possible additional standards for 

delayed coking units; (4) addressing quench water tanks and ponds associated with delayed 

coking units, particularly tanks and ponds that are uncovered and possibly including work 

practices for steam; and (5) what processes might be appropriate to address with CTG in 

nonattainment areas. 

Finally, the EPA representatives noted that data gathering efforts for this rulemaking are 

somewhat limited by timing. They noted they plan to send out a comprehensive survey under 

CAA section 114 authority in the near future, and if they send one company a request for NOX

data for process heaters now, they cannot follow that request too closely with a request to 

complete the comprehensive survey. Therefore, it will be important to consider the value and 

timing of each request for each company to ensure that the EPA is able to collect the best and 

most representative data. 
Attachment 1 

Participants in September 8, 2009, Conference Call 

Environmental Organization Representatives

Ann Alexander, NRDC 

Tim Ballo, Earthjustice 

Kate Fendler, EIP 

Kelly Haragan, University of Texas Environmental Law Clinic 

Layla Mansuri, EIP 

Elena Marks, City of Houston 

Jennifer Peterson, EIP 

Lucy Randel, IPCA 

Eric Schaeffer, EIP 

Matt Tejada (GHASP) 

U.S. EPA Representatives

Pat Foley 

Jodi Howard 

KC Hustvedt 

Brenda Shine 

RTI International (EPA contractor)

Jeff Coburn 

Kristin Parrish