From: Michael Carbon [mcarbon@environcorp.com]

Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:33 AM

To: Shepherd, Lorinda

Cc: Kyle Heitkamp; Kyle Heitkamp Subject: RE: Statoil

- Response to EPA Email Questions

Attachments: image001.jpg

Lori

Just noticed a small error in our April 25 th response. Technically the cement/mud mixing activity source would qualify as an insignificant activity source. Sorry.....let us know if we need to correct the forums or if this is something you can correct on your end.

Take care.

Michael

From: Michael Carbon
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:14 AM

To: shepherd.lorinda@epa.gov
Cc: Donald Evans (DOEV@statoil.com); Kjersti Seim (kjes@statoil.com); Kyle Heitkamp; Michael Carbon Subject: Statoil

- Response to EPA Email Questions Importance: High

Lori,

This email correspondence contains responses to a series of questions you provided to Statoil over the

last month and a half. Responses are separated for each of the two drill rigs, and a series of

attachments include more detailed emission c alculations.



### Maersk Developer

Will the project include flaring? No, the Developer does not have flare booms installed and Statoil is not proposing to conduct any flaring during the exploratory drilling operations.

Will any welding activities be conducte d during the drilling campaign? Yes, welding occurs as part of regular maintenance activities. Rig operators estimate that up to

240 pounds of welding electrodes could be used per 180

- day drilling campaign. Electricity for welding is provided by the ma in engines on the drilling vessel. ENVIRON has estimated emissions from the welding

activities to be less than 0.01 tpy of PM/PM10/PM2.5 and approximately 7 lb/yr of total HAP. Detailed emission calculations for welding activities are attached to this em ail.

Since potential emissions of regulated air pollutants are less than 2 tpy, and HAP emissions are less than
1,000 lb/yr, the emission levels from welding activities are considered insignificant per 40 CFR 71.5(c)(11)(ii). There are no applicable regulations that would apply to the maintenance welding

activities.Detailed emission calculations for welding activities and application forms that required an update are

attached to this email.

Will any painting (spray or roll er) activities be conducted during the drilling campaign? Yes, painting occurs as part of regular maintenance activities. Rig operators estimate that up to

380 gallons of paint coating and 310 gallons of paint thinner could be used per 180

- day drilling campaign. Paint is applied using both brush/roller and sprayer depending on the size and location that needs to be painted; however, ENVIRON has assumed 100 percent of the paint is applied by spray to conservatively account for particulate matter emission s generated from paint overspray.

MSDS information (Percent Solids, VOC content, HAP content, etc.) was obtained for each paint coating and thinner used on the drill rig. ENVIRON has estimated emissions from painting in Table 1 below.

Detailed emissio n calculations and application forms that required updating are attached to this email.

Since potential HAP emissions (Xylene) are above the 1,000 lb/yr insignificance level, painting activities are not considered an insignificant activity. There are no applicable regulations that would apply to the maintenance painting activities.

Table 1. Maersk Developer

– Painting Emissions

Pollutant Emissions

(tpy)

PM10 0.3

PM2.5 0.1

VOC 1.5 Xylene 0.8

Will any seismic operations require additional emission units not included in the application? No, vertical seismic profile (VSP) activities during the Statoil exploratory drilling campaign will be drill rig

based. Electric compressors powered by the dr ill rig main engines will be utilized for all VSP activities and Statoil will not be including any additional boats or compression/spark ignition engines as part of

the seismic measurement activities.

Description of cement/mud mixing activities?
Dry cem ent and mud additives are mixed onboard the drill rig for use in casing and drilling operations. On the Developer drill rig, the mixer is completely enclosed and air that is displaced by the addition of dry materials and/or wet mud is directed back to the enclosed material conveyors. The enclosed conveyor and mixing system prevents the dry cement and mud mixing activities from being emitted as particulate matter to the atmosphere. We do not anticipate particulate emissions from this fully enclosed proces s.



### Transocean Discoverer Americas

Will the project include flaring? No, the Discoverer Americas does not have flare booms installed and Statoil is not proposing to conduct any flaring during the exploratory drilling operations.Will any welding activit ies be conducted during the drilling campaign?

Yes, welding occurs as part of regular maintenance activities. Rig operators estimate that up to

50 pounds of welding electrodes could be used per 180

- day drilling campaign. Electricity for welding is

prov ided by the main engines on the drilling vessel. ENVIRON has estimated emissions from the welding

activities to be less than 0.002 tpy of PM/PM10/PM2.5 and less than 2 lb/yr of total HAP.

Since potential emissions of regulated air pollutants are less t han 2 tpy, and HAP emissions are less than
1,000 lb/yr, the emission levels from welding activities are considered insignificant per 40 CFR 71.5(c)(11)(ii). There are no applicable regulations that would apply to the maintenance welding

activities. Detai led emission calculations for welding activities and application forms that required an update are attached to this email.

Will any painting (spray or roller) activities be conducted during the drilling campaign? Yes, painting occurs as part of regular maintenance activities. Rig operators estimate that up to

250 gallons of paint coating and 250 gallons of paint thinner could be used per 180

- day drilling campaign. Paint is applied using both brush/roller and spra yer depending on the size and location that needs to be painted; however, ENVIRON has assumed 100 percent of the paint is applied by spray to conservatively account for particulate matter emissions generated from paint overspray.

MSDS information (Perce nt Solids, VOC content, HAP content, etc.) was obtained for each paint coating and thinner used on the drill rig. ENVIRON has estimated emissions from painting in Table 2 below. Detailed emission calculations and application forms that required updating are attached to this email.

Since potential emissions of regulated air pollutants are less than 2 tpy, and individual HAP emissions are less than 1,000 lb/yr, the emission levels from painting activities are considered insignificant per 40 CFR 71.5(c)(11) (ii). There are no applicable regulations that would apply to the maintenance painting

activities.

Table 2. Transocean Discoverer

– Painting Emissions

Pollutant Emissions

(tpy)

PM10 0.2

PM2.5 0.1

VOC 1.5 Xylene 0.4

Will any seismic operations require additional emission units not included in the application? No, vertical seismic profile (VSP) activities during the Statoil exploratory drilling campaign will be drill rig

based. Electric compressors powered by the dr ill rig main engines will be utilized for all VSP activities and Statoil will not be including any additional boats or compression/spark ignition engines as part of

the seismic measurement activities.

Description of cement/mud mixing activities?
Dry cem ent and mud additives are mixed onboard the drill rig for use in casing and drilling operations. On the Discoverer Americas drill vessel, the mixing area is not fully enclosed like the Maersk Developer, but the Discoverer Americas contains dust pickup poi nts routed to a dust collector for control. There are no applicable regulations that would apply to the handling of cement/mud additives.Particulate matter emissions are based on the dust collector design flow rate (4,415 cfm) and an exhaust

grain loadi ng of 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot, established from discussions with the dust

collector manufacturer. Assuming continuous dust collector operation (180 days/yr), potential PM/PM10/PM2.5 emissions are 0.4 lb/hr and 0.8 tpy. The cement handling activities are not considered insignificant. Detailed emission calculations and updated forms are attached to this email.

Update BACT EGEN BACT Analysis for Engine Replacement? The BACT analysis included in the original permit application did not include technical feasibility or cost effectiveness for replacement of the Transocean Discoverer Americas emergency generator engine because, at that time, Statoil believed the engine was Tier 2 compliant. Subsequent information provid ed to Statoil showed the engine was certified as IMO compliant engine, but the engine was not certified Tier 2 compliant.

Compliance with EPA’s emission standards (Tier 2, Interim Tier 4, and Final Tier 4) is an inherent part of engine design and no modif ications or retrofits can be made to an existing engine to obtain a newer

emission certification level. The NSPS Subpart IIII requires the owner or operator to purchase a certified engine in order to comply with the NSPS regulations (40 CFR 60.4211(c)) an d does not allow the engine manufacture to provide certification for any Tiered emission levels if additional emission controls were to be added to the engines. Therefore, to meet an emission certification level, the engine would need to be replaced with a new engine. Replacement of the emergency engine would require the new engine to have a similar output rating, meet vessel space and footprint restrictions, and weight distribution requirements that were determined during the vessel design phase. Replac ement of the engine could also require a re

- design of the engine frame, modification of drill vessel structure, and potentially require the rig owner to recertify the vessel.

Even though the technical limitations provided above would likely prove replacem ent of the existing emergency engine is technically infeasible, Statoil has included conservative cost effectiveness calculations assuming that a Tier 4 engine (meeting most stringent future emission standard) is

available. A Tier 4 engine would be limite d to NOx emissions of 0.67 g/kW

- hr (40 CFR 1039.101, Table 1).

Conservatively assuming a new 3,000 hp engine would cost $20,000 and require one day in dry dock to install ($500,000), the cost effectiveness of the engine replacement is over $90,000 per ton of NOx

removed. The replacement of an emergency engine would require a yard stay based on safety concerns that the loss of main engines at sea without an emergency backup would clearly be an unsafe situation. Based on the very conservative cost effectiv eness calculations, replacement of the emergency generator engine with a future Tier 4 engine would not be cost effective. The cost effectiveness calculations for the EGEN replacement are attached.

Update BACT ACOMP BACT Analysis for Engine Replacement? The BACT analysis included in the original permit application did not include technical feasibility or cost effectiveness for replacement of the Transocean Discoverer Americas emergency air compressor engines engine because, at that time, Statoil believe d the engines were Tier 2 compliant. No emission certification documents were available from the engine manufacture, so Statoil has conservatively assumed the engines do not meet any emission standards.Compliance with EPA’s emission standards (Tier 2, I nterim Tier 4, and Final Tier 4) is an inherent part of

engine design and no modifications or retrofits can be made to an existing engine to obtain an emission

certification level. The NSPS Subpart IIII requires the owner or operator to purchase a certifi ed engine in order to comply with the NSPS regulations (40 CFR 60.4211(c)) and does not allow the engine manufacture to provide certification for any Tiered emission levels if additional emission controls were to be added to the engines. Therefore, to mee t an emission certification level, the two emergency engines would need to be replaced with new engines. Replacement of the emergency engines would require the new engines to have a similar output rating, meet vessel space restrictions, and weight

distrib ution requirements that were determined during the vessel design phase. Replacement of the engines could also require a re

- design of the engine frame, modification of drill vessel structure, and potentially require the rig owner to recertify the vessel.

Even though the technical limitations provided above would likely prove replacement of the existing two emergency air compressor engines is technically infeasible, Statoil has included conservative cost effectiveness calculations assuming that Tier 4 engin es (meeting most stringent future emission standard) are available. A similar sized Tier 4 engine would be limited to NOx emissions of 4.7 g/kW

- hr (40 CFR 1039.101, Table 1 (19 ≤ kW < 56)).

Conservatively assuming a new 50/68 hp engine would cost $1,00 0 and no other costs would apply to the engine replacement, the cost effectiveness of the engine replacement is over $88,000 per ton of

NOx removed. Based on the very conservative cost effectiveness calculation, replacement of the emergency air compressor engines with future Tier 4 engines would not be cost effective. The cost effectiveness calculations for the ACOMP replacement are attached.



### Updated PSD Significance Analysis

Based on welding, painting, and dust collector (Transocean rig only) emission s, ENVIRON has updated the PSD Significance Analysis summary for particulate matter and VOC emissions from the two operating scenarios (Maersk Developer and Transocean Discoverer Americas). Table 3 presents the update PSD Significance Analysis for PM, PM1 0, PM2.5 and VOC. The updated emission calculations for both drilling scenarios do not change the pollutants currently subject to PSD review. Both scenarios are still subject to PSD for only NOx emissions.

Table 3. Updated PSD Significance Analysis

Pollutant Maersk

Developer

Scenario a (tpy) Transocean

Discoverer

Americas

Scenario b
(tpy) PSD

Significant

Threshold (tpy) Subject to

PSD

Review?

PM 10.6 10.2 25 No

PM10 9.8 9.4 15 No

PM2.5 9.5 9.2 10 No

VOC 27.6 24.8 40 No

Notes:

a

– Maersk Developer scenario PTE were updated to include welding and painting emissions.b

– Transocean Discoverer Americas scenario PTE were updated

to include welding, painting, and dust collector emissions.



### Air Quality Impact Analysis
The inclusion of maintenance activities (welding and painting) and cement handling (Transocean only) result in slight increases on short

- term and annual particulate matter and VOC emissions from the two drilling vessel scenarios

. As presented in Table 3 of this email, the updated operating scenario emissions still show that only NOx triggers PSD review, and PM2.5 PSD review is also triggered due to NOx

emissions. The addition of welding, painting, and cement handling does not i ncrease NOx emissions, so no changes to previous modeling completed for Class I or Class II NO2 concentrations or Class I nitrogen deposition are required.

The slight increase in primary PM2.5 emissions would have an insignificant impact on the conclusion s drawn from previous CALPUFF modeling. Tables 6.3.1

- 1 and 6.4.11

- 1 of the January 28, 2013 revised air quality impact analysis show that CALPUFF

- predicted Class I and Class II PM2.5 concentrations are well below relevant modeling criteria (Class I and Cl ass II Significant Impact Levels). Previous visibility modeling results show the change to visibility in Breton Wilderness is dominated by nitrates formed from NOx emissions from the two drilling vessel scenarios and direct PM2.5 emissions play a much

sma ller role in CALPUFF

- predicted visibility impacts. Based on these reasons ENVIRON believes no additional modeling is required for the small increase in potential PM2.5 emissions as it would have an insignificant impact to the Class I and Class II PM2.5 mo deling concentrations and to the visibility impact analysis already provided to EPA.

Additionally, please note that we have prepared responses to Stan Krivo’s email questions related to the Statoil air quality analysis and we will copy you on those resp onses.

Please do not hesitate to contact us with any additional questions or if you would like to discuss anything about Statoil’s permit application.

Thanks

Michael



### Michael Carbon | Principal

ENVIRON | www.environcorp.com 8235 YMCA Plaza Drive | Suite 300 | Baton Rouge, LA 70810 T: 225.408.2691| M: 225.907.3822 | mcarbon@environcorp.com



### This message contains information that may be confidential, privileged or otherwise protected by law from disclosure. It is intended for the exclusive use of the Addressee(s). Unless you are the addressee or authorized a gent of

### the addressee, you may not review, copy, distribute or disclose to anyone the

message or any information contained within. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by electronic reply to email@environcorp.com and immedi ately delete all copies of the message.

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *******************

This Email message contained an attachment named
image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could

contai n a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers,
network, and data. The attachment has been deleted.

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachme nts sent from the Internet into the agency via Email.

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name

extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. A fter receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can

rename the file extension to its correct name.

For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411

- 4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489

- 4900.

********** ************* ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ***********************