Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0296
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2010-02-19T05:00Z

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 court-ordered 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.  

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

	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

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.  Attachment 1

Existing Engine NESHAP Presentation by API

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2