E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

1

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Bruce Moore, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/CCG

FROM: Bradley Nelson, EC/R, Inc.

DATE: January 5, 2012

SUBJECT: Summary of the January 5, 2012 Meeting with the Gas Processors Association 

(GPA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to Discuss the Proposed 

Oil & Gas NSPS/NESHAP

I. INTRODUCTION

The Gas Processors Association (GPA) requested this meeting with EPA to discuss theis 

comments and ask questions on the proposed Oil and Gas NSPS (40 CFR Part 60, subparts 

KKK, LLL, and OOOO) and NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subparts HH and HHH). This meeting 

summary will be available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0505). The proposed rule for the oil and natural gas sector was published in the Federal 

Register on August 23, 2011 (76 FR 52738). 

II. ATTENDEES

The following is a list of participants in the meeting.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Bruce Moore

Greg Nizich

Alex Macpherson

Hillary Ward (by phone)

GPA and Member Organizations

Molly Wentworth, Crestwood

Jeff Adams, BP

Grover Campbell, Chesapeake Energy

Quentin Mendenhall, DPC

Doug Jordan, SWE

Lynn Reed, ONEOK

Christi Trontell, Markwest (by phone)

Tim Helbig, ONEOK (by phone)
2

Jessica Kaiser (by phone)

Lance Lodes, OG&E (by phone)

Bill Grygar, Anadarko (by phone)

Klent Lasley, ONEOK (by phone)

Andrea McMillen, PVR (by phone)

Mitch Anderson, ONEOK (by phone)

EC/R Incorporated

Bradley Nelson (by phone)

III. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Bruce Moore opened the meeting by stating that the comment period is currently over and EPA 

could answer clarifying questions from the group, but could not provide any responses to 

comments on the proposed rules. 

GPA stated that one of their main concerns was the regulation of natural gas in the proposed 

rules. They noted that the definition for modification includes a reference to the change in 

natural gas emissions and believes that this should be omitted from subpart OOOO. They stated 

that the VOC content from gas streams varies widely and that the rule should only apply to gas 

streams with a VOC content greater than 10% by weight. They also stated that this VOC content 

should apply to all sources covered under the NSPS.

GPA asked if the comment summary on the proposed rules was completed. EPA responded that 

the individual comments were still being processed, but the industry and environmental group 

comments had been sorted into summary bins and that a list of specific issues would be 

completed by early next week. GPA asked if they could see a copy of the comment outline. 

EPA believes that a copy of the comment can be provided to the group. GPA asked if the 

schedule for completing the final rule was still the same. EPA responded that a schedule that 

included a 30-day Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had been produced; however EPA 

management believes that a 45-day OMB review would be needed. Therefore, Bruce Moore is 

currently working on a revised schedule that includes a 45-day OMB review. EPA also added 

that an internal management review of the final rule would take place in a couple of weeks.

The next topic of discussion was the complexity of the storage vessel requirements. GPA 

believes that this section needs to be rewritten to remove references to other storage vessel 

requirements. They believe it is not appropriate to use MACT standards, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements for NSPS sources. The group also believes that the 

monitoring and testing requirements for the NSPS should be reserved for major sources and not 

the small, remote, unmanned facilities. They stated that measurement of throughput is difficult 

and believe that provisions should be provided to use Lease Automatic Custody Transfer 

(LACT) meter, crude oil / condensate truck load out tickets or tank strappings or metering to 

determine whether a storage tank is exempt from the NSPS Subpart OOOO standards. They also 

believe that the efficiency of a vapor recovery unit (VRU) that is used as a control device should 

be determined by the annual overall efficiency considering both run time and allowed downtime 
3

for maintenance, and that a VRU that is part of a process should not be considered a control 

device, and therefore not subject to testing and monitoring. 

The next topic of discussion was the proposed leak detection and repair requirements in the 

proposed NSPS. GPA believes that the proposed 500 ppm leak standard for valves should be 

revised to 10,000 ppm and connectors should continue to be monitored by visual, audible and 

olfactory methods. They stated that the subpart VVa LDAR program was designed for the 

synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry and does not work for the oil and gas 

industry. They believe the 500 ppm leak definition does not provide additional environmental 

benefit and significantly increases the cost of maintenance. One member noted that they use an 

outside contractor to perform their LDAR and that the addition of monitoring connectors would 

double the cost of the monitoring.

The next topic concerned the “commenced construction,” and related provisions of the NSPS.

GPA believes that EPA should use the subpart A, 60.14 definition for reconstruction to ensure 

that performance standards do not apply to compressors that are merely being relocated; and 

avoid confusion over whether pneumatic controllers are “reconstructed.”

The notification, monitoring, recordkeeping, performance testing and reporting requirements for 

each affected facility in the proposed NSPS Subpart OOOO was the next topic of discussion. 

GPA believes these requirements are onerous for small sources, especially the requirements for 

pneumatic controllers. GPA believes that EPA should allow all notifications required during a 

given year to be combined into a single annual report that would include all of the affected

facilities installed during that reporting period. GPA also believes that the compliance dates for 

certain storage vessels and pneumatic controllers should be extended. EPA stated that they were 

looking at other NSPS rules and in discussions with the Office of General Counsel (OGC) about 

extending some of these compliance dates in the NSPS.

Storage vessels were the next topic of discussion. GPA stated that there is currently a 24-week 

wait time for receiving VRUs and a 40-week wait time for receiving combustors for storage 

vessels. They believe this wait time will increase once the final rule is promulgated and they will 

not be able to achieve compliance. They also noted that the proposed rule requires the use of 

propene for testing the combustors and currently propone is only available from Louisiana, 

which may cause a shortage. In addition, GPA stated that the proposed rule assumed 600 storage 

vessels would need to be controlled, but they estimated that as many as 14,000 storage vessels 

would be affected.

GPA asked in the case of a processing plant that needed to replace a pneumatic controller with 

an air-assisted pneumatic controller, would they be able be able to have additional time to 

replace all of the pneumatic controllers with air-assisted pneumatic controllers. They believe it 

would take roughly 3 years to complete the transition. EPA asked why it would take 3 years to 

replace all of the pneumatic controllers. GPA responded that budgeting, ordering, and 

replacement of individual lines would require this amount of time. EPA believes that the 

transition time would be shorter, approximately 2 years.
4

The next topic was pneumatic controllers. GPA believes that a pneumatic controller affected 

facility should be defined as a single continuous bleed gas driven pneumatic controller located at 

and part of a natural gas processing plant, or a continuous high bleed pneumatic controller 

located upstream of a natural gas processing plant or point of custody transfer (excluding 

pneumatic controllers located along gathering pipelines). GPA asked if snap acting controllers 

are included as an affected source. EPA responded that snap acting controllers were not included 

in the proposed rule.

GPA noted that the proposed rule did not include a 180-day provisional period for the 

establishment of and LDAR program. GPA believes that existing “process units” that become 

subject to the NSPS Subpart OOOO LDAR requirements should have 180 days to make the

transition, as is allowed in NSPS Subpart KKK. EPA stated the omission of this provision was 

not intentional and would be included in the final rule.

GPA believes that EPA should maintain the exemption for startup, shutdown and malfunctions 

(SSM) in NSPS. EPA stated that the affirmative defense language in the proposed rule came 

from the Electric Utility rule and that EPA was adding language to all rules. GPA believes that 

EPA should require work practices and require documentation instead of the affirmative defense. 

They also noted that EPA did not include the malfunction costs or affirmative defense reporting 

costs in the proposed rule.

GPA asked if any changes had been made to the proposed rule. EPA responded that decisions 

had been made at this time. However, EPA did note that the proposed rule is regulating VOC 

and not methane. Also, for reporting, EPA does not intend to require reporting of all pneumatic 

controllers, only pneumatic controllers installed during the reporting period.