2013 Rulemaking

Stakeholder Meeting

April 25, 2013

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Air Pollution Control Division

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 1
2013 Rulemaking Effort Goals

 Identify and implement strategies that improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of Colorado’s air quality 

program

 Find ways to reduce permitting burdens for both the 

Division and the regulated community without impacting 

environmental benefits from the permitting program

 Address the growth in oil and gas development through the 

adoption of reasonable emission reduction strategies

 Lay the groundwork for ongoing efforts to reduce oil and 

gas emissions while minimizing burdens that don’t 

provide environmental value

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 2
Stakeholder Process Goals

 Role out concepts, draft language, and associated 

rulemaking documents, in phases, for stakeholder review 

and input

 All concepts, language and documents are expected to evolve 

through the stakeholder process

 Wrap up Regulation Numbers 3 and 6 by May 2013

 Wrap up Regulation Number 7 and Common Provisions by 

June 2013

NOTE: Stakeholders will have multiple opportunities to 

comment during the stakeholder process and later, during 

the rulemaking process.

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 3
Timeline and Schedule

 Stakeholder Meetings

 Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:30 pm-4:30 pm

Note: All meetings in Sabin/Cleere Rooms, CDPHE Campus

 Rulemaking Process Goal

 August 2013 Request for Hearing

 November 2013 Hearing

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 4
Areas of Discussion 

Proposed Revisions: Part 1

 Regulation Number 6, Part A, NSPS OOOO

 EPA reconsideration

 Regulation Number 3 – reporting and permitting

 Regulation Number 3 references

 APEN and permit analyses

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 5
Areas of Discussion 

Proposed Revisions: Part 2

 Possible Presumptive BACT options

 Oil and gas controls cost/benefit analyses

 Regulation Number 7 – oil and gas emission 

reduction strategies

 Discussion of comments received

 Review of language changes

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 6
Proposed Revisions: Part 1

NSPS OOOO

(Regulation Number 6, Part A)

Permitting and APEN Requirements

(Regulation Number 3)

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 7
Reg. 6 – NSPS OOOO

 Partial adoption October, 2012

 Adopt well completion and other provisions in full

 Remove manifolded tanks variation

 EPA reconsideration

 EPA estimated number of tanks and available controls

 Enforceable limits to avoid storage vessel requirements

Continue moving forward with potential full adoption

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 8
Reg. 3 – Revisions

 Remove requirements for sources subject to a NSPS, 

NESHAP, or MACT adopted by the AQCC to file an 

APEN and/or obtain a construction permit, regardless 

of emissions

 Revise Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) 

reporting thresholds (2 tpy)

 Revise Appendix A de minimis levels for non-criteria 

reportable pollutant (1000 lbs/yr)

 Revise construction permit thresholds (25 tpy)

 Remove the crude oil storage tank permit exemptions

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 9
Reg. 3 – References 

Avoid inadvertent changes to SIP 

requirements

Regulation Number 1

 Section III.D.

Regulation Number 7

 Section XII.

 Section XVII.

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 10
Reg. 3 – Preliminary Analyses

 Construction Permits

 Historical data analysis

 Real-time data analysis (ongoing)

 APENs

 Historical data analysis

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 11
Reg. 3 – Permit Analysis

 Division Proposal

 Raise construction permit threshold to 25 tpy for all 

criteria pollutants except lead

 Goals

 Streamline and reduce permitting requirements

 Consistent thresholds statewide

 No loss in emission controls

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 12

NAA APENs 1-2 tpy 2007-2012
Reg. 3 – Permit Analysis

 Analysis

 CDPHE permit database queried February, 2013 – all 

AIRS points with estimated uncontrolled actual 

emissions of criteria pollutants < 25 tpy

 Removed AIRS points at: major source facilities, 

facilities > 25 tpy, and synthetic minor sources

 Removed permit-exempt, APEN-exempt, and 

cancelled AIRS points

 7,600 – 9,500 AIRS points at facilities < 25 tpy

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 13

NAA APENs 1-2 tpy 2007-2012
Reg. 3 – APEN Analysis Ozone NAA

 Division Proposal:

Raise APEN reporting threshold in NAA from 1 to 2 tpy

 Goals

 Streamline and reduce reporting requirements

 Make APEN thresholds consistent statewide

 Minimal loss in emissions data

 Analysis

 CDPHE APEN database queried March, 2013

 Looked at uncontrolled, unit-level emissions

 Most recent, maximum data used (2012)

 Includes active APENs between 1-2 tpy in NAA

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 14
Reg. 3 – NAA APENs 1-2 tpy 2007-2012

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 15

 APENs in this 

category have been 

rising steadily from 

2007 to 2012

 Affected sources 

are very small 

relative to 

statewide point 

source emissions

 Most larger 

sources already 

have enacted 

controls
Reg. 3 – VOC Sources 1-2 tpy Emissions

 VOC detailed example

 64% of state 

uncontrolled emissions 

of VOCs are in NAA

 NAA uncontrolled VOC 

are less than 1% of NAA 

VOC

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 16

NAA

rest of 

state

NAA 1-2 

tpy

•Most APENs are for point source activities related to 

loadout/tanker trucks and small condensate tanks

•99% of condensate tank emissions are from 

tanks/batteries with uncontrolled emissions > 5 tpy

Emissions
4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 17

2012 NAA 

Uncontrolled 

Emissions for 

sources between 

1-2 tpy as a 

percent of all 

NAA 

Uncontrolled 

Emissions

Reg. 3 – Other pollutants in NAA
Proposed Revisions: Part 2

Oil and Gas Potential Control Strategies

(Regulation Number 7)

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 18
Presumptive BACT Options

 Division considering improved capture 

requirement

 Storage tanks with required control devices have “no 

detectable emissions” from thief hatches, pressure relief 

valves, and other access points except during periods of 

malfunction

 Operators must keep thief hatches, pressure relief valves 

and other access points closed except for maintenance 

and liquid loadout

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 19
Presumptive BACT Options

 Alternatively, compliance with “no detectable 

emissions” requirement is presumed when the tank is 

equipped with and operating presumptive Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT)

 New and modified storage tank batteries

 Existing storage tank batteries

NOTE: Still subject to 95% control requirements and 

General Provisions (good air pollution control practices)

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 20
Options for New/Modified Storage Tanks

 Centralized liquids gathering system

 Liquids processed at centralized facility

 Liquids stabilized before dispensing into atmospheric storage vessel

 Gaseous emissions captured and sent to sales line

 Closed-Loop Emission Capture System

 Technology that captures emissions from PRV and thief hatch

 Could include expandable tank bladder systems

 Gaseous emissions captured and sent to sales line

 HLP Separator

 At least two stages of separation must occur

 Gaseous emissions captured and sent to sales line

 The HLP control cost of a hypothetical 20 tons/year uncontrolled 

tank is about $1,174 per ton of VOC reduced 

 VOC reduction about 19 tpy

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 21
Options for Existing Storage Tanks

 Anything that qualifies as PBACT for new and 

modified tanks; or

 Second Stage Separation - Buffer Bottle

 At least two stages of separation must occur

 Gaseous emissions can be flared

 The Buffer Bottle retrofit control cost of a hypothetical 

tank with 20 tons/year (uncontrolled) is about $637 per 

ton of VOC reduced

 VOC reduction about 4.75 tons/year (assumes 25% 

improvement in capture of emissions)

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 22
HLP and Buffer Bottle Cost Estimates

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 23
Cost/Benefit Analysis

 Lowering statewide VOC control threshold for storage 

tanks

 Adding auto-igniters to existing flare controls 

statewide

 Expanding emission controls to crude oil tanks 

statewide

 Expand no/low bleed pneumatics statewide

 Connecting produced water tanks to existing flare 

controls statewide 

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 24
Control for Storage Tanks

 Division proposal to lower tank control threshold

 20 tons/year down to 6 tons/year

 About 521 condensate tank batteries would need 

controls

 About 159 tanks are in the 9-county Ozone NAA

 VOC reduction ≈ 3,908 tons/year

 Total annual cost for flares is about $3.2 million

 Total annual cost for VRUs is about $11.3 million

 Flare Cost effectiveness ≈ $824/ton of VOC reduced

 VRU Cost effectiveness ≈ $2,895/ton of VOC reduced

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 25
Flare & VRU Cost Estimates

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 26
Auto-Igniters – Existing Flares

 Auto-igniters required on flares in Ozone NAA

 APEN database analysis indicates:

 About 484 condensate tanks have flares

 About 198 glycol dehydrators have flares

 Total annual cost for auto-igniters is about $230k for 

tanks and $94k for dehydrators

 Condensate tank VOC reduction ≈ 201 tons/year

 Dehydrator VOC reduction ≈ 174 tons/year

 VOC reduction assumes 1% flare downtime (88 hours/year)

 Tank CE ≈ $1,147 per ton of VOC reduced

 Dehydrator CE≈ $540 per ton of VOC reduced

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 27
Auto-Igniter Cost Estimates

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 28
Control for Crude Oil Tanks

 Division is proposing controls on all hydrocarbon liquid 

storage tanks over 6 tons/year statewide

 Allows for consistency with NSPS OOOO

 Data Sources

 APEN data on Crude Oil tanks is limited

 APEN exemption removed in December 2008

 OGCC tracks O&G production and API gravity for each well

 Limitations between associating OGCC gas well API number 

with tank battery AIRS ID

 Division is still reconciling data

 Further analysis needed before the number of tanks is known

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 29
Low/No Bleed Pneumatics

 Pneumatic valves are below the APEN reporting threshold

 Don’t have APEN data on pneumatic valves

 Number of pneumatics estimated using emission inventory 

data based on producer surveys

 About 41,500 devices in DJ Basin (2006 data)

 High bleed pneumatic valves are defined as emitting at 

least 6 scf per hour

 Replacing/retrofitting high bleed valves to no/low bleed 

reduces emissions by 88-98%

 Payback period of recovered natural gas is about 1 to 2 years

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 30
Control for Existing Water Tanks

 Division proposes that produced water tanks with 

VOC emissions over 6 tpy should have emissions 

routed to the existing flare

 Number of tanks > 6 tpy uncontrolled = 26

 Division requests cost information on

 Plumbing costs

 Installation costs

 Maintenance costs

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 31
Areas of Discussion 

Proposed Revisions: Part 2

 Regulation Number 7 – oil and gas emission 

reduction strategies

 Discussion of comments received

 Review of language changes

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 32
Potential Control Strategies

 Expand control requirements for storage tanks

 Enhance capture at controlled storage tanks

 Expand non-attainment area auto-igniter 

requirements statewide

 Expand leak detection and repair requirements

 Expand non-attainment area pneumatic control 

requirements statewide

 Reduce venting and flaring of gas stream at well sites

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 33
Overview of Comment Process

 Comments have been posted to website

 Mix of comments from environmental groups, industry 

groups, public citizens

 Division will continue to receive and respond to 

comments throughout the stakeholder process

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 34
Comment Areas

 Timing

 Definitions

 General provisions

 Good air pollution control practices

 Auto-igniter requirement

 Storage tanks

 Control requirements

 Capture requirements

 Leak detection and repair requirements

 Well-site flaring and venting requirements

 Low bleed pneumatic devices

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 35
Timing

 Timing of Installation

 Installation on existing equipment by January 1, 2015 

could be challenging

 Deadline for installation for existing equipment should 

be moved up

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 36
Definitions

 Concerns that many of the proposed definitions are 

unclear, create unintended consequences or are 

unnecessary

 Division is still evaluating these definitions and will 

make appropriate revisions so that definitions serve the 

intended purpose

 Concern that the definition of leak is overly stringent

 Leak definition intended to support substantive leak 

detection requirements, including use of IR camera to 

identify leaks

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 37
Definitions – Revisions 

 Deleted

 Atmospheric

 Downtime

 Modified/modification

 Leak

 Revision

 Storage Tank

 Well site

 No revision

 Date of First Production

 Normal Operation

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 38
General Provisions

 Good air pollution control practices requirements are 

overly broad

 Goal is to ensure that production and control equipment 

is operated properly in accordance with accepted 

standards

 Much of the language mirrors existing Regulation No. 7, 

Section XII

 Good air pollution control language is subjective

 Similar good air pollution control language is commonly 

used and by its nature is informed by particular factual 

circumstances

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 39
General Provisions

 Prevention of emissions requirements

 Apply to all O&G operations listed in header, 

regardless of size

 Air pollution control equipment requirements

 Apply where control equipment used to comply with 

Section XVII

 NSPS/MACT/BACT exemption for storage tanks 

 Brings in NSPS OOOO, NSPS Kb, and MACT HH 

subject storage tanks

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 40
General Provisions – Revisions

Good Air Pollution Control Practices

 Revision

 Add in language “unless being used for 

maintenance or liquids loadout” 

 No revision

 No required frequency of inspections

 Not tied to permit or O&M required sources

 Information available to the Division does not 

create a recordkeeping requirement

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 41
General Provisions – Revisions

Autoigniters

 Revision

 Deleted definition and reference to “modified”

 No revision

 Maintained definition as used for Section XII

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 42
Storage Tank Requirements

 Proposed language is more stringent than NSPS 

OOOO

 IR camera monitoring

 Costly and/or inherently unsafe

 Retaining images would require a lot of storage space 

 Some cameras may not be able to capture or record, 

especially with “regular” video

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 43
Storage Tank Requirements

 No Detectable Emissions

 Operating a controlled tank with no detectable 

emissions is not feasible

 Controlled condensate tanks can meet a no detectable 

emission limit and therefore BACT should not be 

available as an alternative compliance method

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 44
Storage Tanks – Revisions

Modified

 Revision

 Deleted modified from compliance schedule

 Included a description that tanks that increase 

emissions to above the threshold must meet the 95% 

requirement immediately

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 45
Storage Tanks – Revisions

Visual monitoring

 Revision

 Monitoring no required more often than every 7 days or 

less often than every 90 days

 Recordkeeping checklist – added in date of inspection

 No revision

 Visual monitoring requirement triggered by truck 

loadout

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 46
Leak Detection Requirements

 Too stringent or not sufficiently stringent?

 Historically leak detection programs have not been 

applied to these sites

 Better leak detection and repair provides an opportunity 

to reduce emissions and capture valuable product

No revisions made at this time

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 47
Well Tie-In

 Requiring wells to be tied into a gas pipeline within 6 

months could hinder development of unproven 

reserves

 Sets an expectation that wells will be attached to a 

pipeline within 6 months

 Allows for exceptions to be granted in appropriate cases

 Reporting requirement needed?

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 48
Well Tie-In – Revisions

Visual monitoring

 Revision

 Monitoring no required more often than every 7 days or 

less often than every 90 days

 Recordkeeping checklist – added in date of inspection

 No revision

 Visual monitoring requirement triggered by truck 

loadout

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 49
Well Tie-In – Revisions

Reporting

 Revision

 Deleted this requirement

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 50
Pneumatic Devices

 Retrofitting existing devices is costly and rule should 

be limited to new devices

 Timing of compliance should be adjusted

No revisions made at this time

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 51
Request for Additional Comments

 Economic costs of proposed requirements

 Feasibility of proposed timelines

 Options for leak detection/directed inspection and 

maintenance

 Presumptive BACT

 Monitoring schedule and frequency

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 52
Submit comments by May 15, 2013

On potential revisions to Regulation Numbers 6 and 3 to Leah 

Martland at leah.martland@state.co.us and Erin Overturf at 

erin.overturf@state.co.us

On potential revisions to Regulation Number 7 to Stefanie Rucker at 

stefanie.rucker@state.co.us and Clay Clarke at clay.clarke@state.co.us

Presentations, language, and additional information can be found on 

http://www.colorado.gov/cdphe/apcd

Hot Topics » 2013 Rulemaking Effort

Next meeting: May 22, 2013, at 1:30pm

4/25/2013 APCD 2013 Rulemaking April Stakeholder Meeting 53