1

Summary of Meeting with the American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Regarding the Proposed Stationary Existing RICE NESHAP 

August 5, 2009 

Attendees 

Bob Wayland, EPA Jim McCarthy, IES (by phone) 

Melanie King, EPA Janet Bounds, Chevron (by phone) 

Michael Horowitz, EPA (by phone) Shankar Ananthakrishna, Chevron (by phone) 

Tanya Parise, AGTI Rebecca Rentz, Bracewell & Giuliani (by phone) 

Stephanie Meadows, API Jack Maley, Exterran (by phone) 

Matt Todd, API Gerald Meinecke, Exterran (by phone) 

Jeff Adams, BP Kyle Jantzen, Exterran (by phone) 

Tom Monahan, ExxonMobil 

Jeff Panek, IES 

 

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 and met with EPA 

earlier on the rule on May 14, 2009. API’s primary purpose for this meeting was to get 

an update from EPA on those issues brought up during the May meeting. A list of the 

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). 

API indicated that it has started collecting a group of people to develop an engine 

test program, but that the current matrix of testing is substantial and that some bounds are 

needed to limit the test matrix. API stressed that timing is an issue with the tight courtordered final rulemaking deadline in mind, therefore it is really important to define 

exactly what type of emissions testing information is needed. 

EPA said that the option of splitting the rule into two separate rulemakings for 

diesel and gas engines has been discussed, but that it is unlikely that separate rules will be 

developed. EPA recommended that API proceed under the assumption that no extension 

will be provided for natural gas engines. 
2

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. Method 323 

 API wanted to know if EPA would allow Method 323 in the final rulemaking and 

if EPA would consider including emissions data captured by Method 323 in a revised 

floor analysis. API indicated that it has been talking to EPA Region 8 regarding the 

method and believes that it is possible that the issues related to the method are strictly 

associated with one particular testing firm. For that reason, API believes that it may be 

appropriate to allow the method, which could produce reliable results and provide a more 

reasonable alternative to FTIR testing, which is currently the only allowable method. If 

only FTIR testing is allowed, API did not believe it could generate any significant data by 

the September/October timeframe. EPA asked if API could provide pieces of 

information that EPA could use, but API was hesitant because it was concerned that 

providing limited data would not be representative of all engines. 

 EPA pointed out that only having FTIR as an available and approved test method 

should only be an issue that is related to formaldehyde testing for rich burn engines 

because EPA could not establish a relationship between formaldehyde and carbon 

monoxide (CO) for rich burn engines. However, for lean burn engines, EPA determined 

that CO is an appropriate surrogate for formaldehyde and consequently for hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP). In other words, API could use portable analyzers to capture CO data 

and even if API has previous CO data available, it could provide that to EPA. For rich 

burn engines, EPA needs to document that there is a relationship between formaldehyde 

and some other pollutant that could be more easily measured, such as total hydrocarbons 

(THC) or volatile organic compounds (VOC). EPA could then use THC or VOC as a 

surrogate for HAP emissions from rich burn engines. 

 EPA indicated that it would check with EPA’s Emission Measurement Center to 

determine if there is any latitude with regards to Method 323 and get back to API on this 

issue as soon as possible. 

2. Rural vs. Urban Distinction 

 On the topic of rural versus urban area source engines, EPA indicated that it is 

considering various different options, including looking at the Oil and Natural Gas 

(ONG) MACT that API asked if EPA was contemplating following. API would be 

willing to provide more information and EPA noted that any technical information on this 

subject would be helpful in finalizing the rule. 

3. SSM Limits 
3

 EPA indicated that it is reviewing the comments submitted on the proposed SSM 

approach. EPA is considering the comments that recommended work practice standards 

would be appropriate for SSM. If EPA determines that work practices are the MACT 

floor, then EPA would need to include very specific work practices. EPA indicated that 

it would appreciate any information from API on work practices that are used to limit 

emissions during startup. 

4. Subcategories 

 EPA indicated that on the topic of subcategories there has not been much 

discussion yet. API made the point that there are several engines that operate cyclically, 

which does not go well with a steady-state rulemaking and that special provisions are 

needed for non-steady state operations, according to API. API urged EPA to consider the 

bullets in the agenda list. Also, API made the point that no limited use category was 

included in the proposal, but was included in the original rulemaking for engines above 

500 horsepower (HP) at major sources. 

5. Emissions Data 

 EPA indicated that it has not received any emissions data as of yet for stationary 

engines. Exterran mentioned that it would be providing emissions data to EPA, but EPA 

has not received it yet. The only data EPA has received post-proposal is data for landfill 

and digester gas engines. 

6. Cost Analysis 

API indicated that it would provide more supporting information on the cost 

numbers it provided in the comments on the rule. API said that it would be helpful to 

know the cost effectiveness threshold that EPA considers reasonable. EPA said that it 

would reanalyze the costs associated with the rule. 

7. Maintenance Practices 

As with the requirements for SSM periods, EPA indicated that if maintenance 

practices are to be included in the final rule, such practices need to have substance and be 

reasonable and enforceable. 

8. Streamlining Requirements 

On the issue of streamlining requirements, EPA noted that it wished to minimize 

the compliance and enforcement burden as much as possible, but that EPA is more 

limited under this section 112 of the CAA rulemaking as opposed to what EPA could do 

under section 111 of the CAA (i.e., in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)). 

However, EPA will do what it can to clarify and minimize confusion in the final rule. 

API made the point that requirements are confusing and suggested that if certain engines 

could demonstrate compliance by meeting the NSPS, that would be helpful. 

9. Other Issues 
4

EPA could not tell API what will happen on the SSM issue. EPA also suggested 

that API focus on the category of engines of greater concern and try to gather data for 

those engines. API asked how it should account for variability and if EPA planned to 

gather additional information on the efficiency of add-on controls because 90 percent 

reduction is not achievable by all engines. API recommended that if EPA obtain vendor 

information that EPA ask the vendors for catalyst warranties and specifications as well. 

EPA asked that API send any information it has available on these issues. API also asked 

if EPA would provide an exemption or adopt less stringent requirements (e.g., work 

practices) for smaller engines like those under 100 HP. EPA indicated that it could not 

answer that at this time. 
5

Attachment 1 

Existing Engine NESHAP Presentation by API