Comments on Additional NSPS and MACTStandards for Oil and Gas Production andProcessing Under the Clean Air ActJohn R. Jacus**August 3, 2010 Denver, Colorado** **Overview of Comments • My Background** **• Summary of State Controls in CO and WY • Recent COGCC Controls Developed** **• Prior and Planned Studies of Air Emissions • New NSPS/MACT Controls Would Restrict** **State Choices in Their SIPs**Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP | www.dgslaw.com**2 John R. Jacus’ Background** **• 26 Years of Environmental Practice • B.A. in Environmental Policy – Stanford** **• J.D. – University of Colorado • Active in Every Ozone Rulemaking since** **2004 for Oil & Gas Operators • Brokered Broad Stakeholder Compromise** **in 2008**Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP | www.dgslaw.com**3 Summary of State Controls** **• In Addition to Existing NSPS/MACT Standards applicable to oil & gas;** **– Revised (3/10) WY Presumptive BACT for Oil & Gas; – Revised Ozone SIP and State-only Provisions in CO;** **– Lack of EPA Review of NSPS/MACT has not Resulted in Lack of Regulation in the States; and** **– WY and CO Regulations Among the Most Restrictive, Effective in VOC and HAP Control** Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP | www.dgslaw.com**4 Wyoming’s Revised** **Presumptive BACT Controls • Measures Tailored to JPAD, CDA and** **State-wide • Controls on Tank Flash Emissions, Dehys,** **Pneumatic Pumps and Controllers, Well Completions, Blowdown and Venting; and** **Produced Water Tanks**Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP | www.dgslaw.com**5 Colorado’s Revised Ozone** **Control Provisions of Reg. 7 • System-wide Condensate Tank Controls in** **the NAA @ 90% and State- wide > 20 tpy – Creates Incentive to Over-control** **– Provides Operational Flexibility • Flares and VRUs at 95% DRE** **• Electronic or Human Surveillance • Dehys at 90% Control** **• State-wide RICE Controls**Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP | www.dgslaw.com**6 COGCC Controls (non-CAA)** **• Green Completion and Odor Controls in the Piceance Basin** **• O&G Operations Subject to AQCC Odor Control Regulation No. 2** **• Use of Open-top Tanks Limited • Pit Flaring Very Limited** **• Use of Low-Bleed Pneumatics**Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP | www.dgslaw.com**7 Prior and Planned Studies** **• WY and CO Modeling for Ozone and RH SIPs** **• Modeling for BLM Resource Management Plans Under FLPMA** **• WRAP Phase III Oil & Gas Inventory Work • COGA’s PARA Report of 2008** **• Planned Literature Review**Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP | www.dgslaw.com**8 Potential Conflict of State and** **Federal Standards • Want to Preserve System-wide Tank** **Controls in CO • Inconsistency in Fed./State Regs Creates** **Confusion for Operators • State VOC Controls Also Control HAPs** **• New Federal HAP/VOC Controls not Harmonized with Air Modeling** Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP | www.dgslaw.com**9 Existing Federal MACT** **Standards Protective • 500 BBL/day threshold for Major Source** **MACT (Subpt. HH) is protective for Benzene, other HAPs, considering CO** **approved Emission Factors; • This is Especially True with CO and WY** **VOC Controls in Place; • Most Area Sources in Remote,** **Non-Urbanized Locations**Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP | www.dgslaw.com**10 Conclusion – Additional** **NSPS/MACT Controls Not Warranted** **• Existing Federal Standards Protective • State Regs Further Control VOCs and** **HAPs, Including Non-CAA Controls • Federal Standards may Create Confusion** **and Aren’t Tailored to SIP Air Modeling • Industry Data and Emissions Inventory** **Efforts Demonstrate No Need • More Data Before New Regs** Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP | www.dgslaw.com**11 For Questions, Contact:** John R. Jacus**(303) 892-7305 john.jacus@dgslaw.com** **12**Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP | www.dgslaw.com