Page 1 of 6

SUMMARY 

DATE: May 21, 2015

SUBJECT: Summary of Calls with State, Tribal and District Air Agencies to Discuss Air 

Rules and CTGs, for the Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and 

Distribution Sector 

In February 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) sought self-nominations 

from states and tribes interested in approaches the Agency could consider as it develops proposed 

regulations, guidelines, and voluntary approaches to address greenhouse gases (GHG) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) in the oil and natural gas (ONG) sector. This effort is part of the strategy

announced by the Obama Administration in January 2015 to address methane and smog-forming VOC 

emissions from the oil and gas industry. The summary that follows captures the broad themes and general 

comments from the participants offered during a series of teleconferences.

EPA plans to build on its 2012 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) - 40 CFR part 60 subpart 

OOOO - for the ONG industry to achieve both reductions in GHGs (methane) and VOCs, and will issue 

a proposal in summer 2015. At the same time, EPA plans to issue draft Control Techniques Guidelines 

(CTGs) for controlling VOC emissions from covered ONG sources in areas where CTGs are required 

under the Clean Air Act (ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate and above, and states in the 

Ozone Transport Region). Both the proposed NSPS and the draft CTGs will be made available for public 

review and comment. EPA plans to finalize these actions in 2016. EPA also plans to expand the 

successful Natural Gas STAR Program by launching a new partnership in collaboration with key 

stakeholders by the end of 2015, with a program proposal to be issued for feedback earlier in the year.1

Participants in the outreach process included air agencies from 12 states and three tribes, along with two 

multi-state air organizations. Participating states were: California, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, New 

York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Tribal air agencies 

participated from the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, and 

the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. Two multi-state organizations, the Central States Air Resources Agencies 

(CENSARA) and the Western Regional Air Partnership, also participated in the process. 

After a kickoff call, EPA held a series of calls with the states, tribes, and state organizations to learn more 

about their experiences and hear their interests and concerns. Using a set of discussion questions as a 

guide, EPA sought and compiled feedback. This document summarizes the broad themes raised during 

those discussions.

Question 1: Are you considering regulating, or have you regulated new or existing sources of 

upstream oil and gas air emissions? 

The majority of states are regulating new sources of upstream ONG air emissions through permitting, 

while other states are relying primarily on subpart OOOO to regulate ONG facilities. One state noted that 

 

1 EPA released the Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program proposal in July 2015. Details are available at 

http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/methanechallenge/index.html
Page 2 of 6

it revises its permitting guidance periodically to capture new sources and to require controls on existing 

permitted sources in nonattainment areas. 

All Tribal air agencies have considered regulating new and/or existing upstream ONG air emissions. One

tribe noted it recently developed an air quality monitoring program to monitor criteria pollutants and 

ozone precursors. 

Question 2 – What pollutants are the focus of your regulations or deliberations (e.g., VOCs, 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or methane)?

The majority of states identified VOCs as a focus, though not exclusively, and some states listed HAPs as 

being of particular interest (New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming). A number of states,

including Colorado and Pennsylvania, specifically regulate methane, while other states control methane 

through VOC rules. Texas noted that it addresses criteria pollutants, hydrogen sulfide, and benzene 

through emissions limits in its oil and gas standard permit used primarily in the Barnett Shale, for 

example, and has rules focusing on emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, VOCs, and sulfur 

compounds in nonattainment and certain other areas. Other states do not regulate methane but may 

consider it in the future. Kansas regulations do not focus on any particular pollutant. 

Tribal air agencies listed VOCs, HAPs, and methane as concerns, in addition to suspended particles. 

They are interested in ways to reduce these emissions. One tribe has not considered VOC or methane 

emission regulations because there is both a New Source Review (NSR) program and an NSPS (subpart 

OOOO) for ONG sources in place.

A tribe stated that all pollutants listed in the question are a concern, methane in particular, due to climate 

change issues. Under the Part 70 program, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe have regulations for current 

NSPS and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) standards. Another tribe 

is focused on monitoring suspended particulates to monitor for radionuclides.

Question 3 – What are the types of sources you are regulating/considering regulating? Have you 

considered regulating sources identified in the EPA’s White Papers?

The types of sources regulated, or being considered for regulation, vary among states. Texas, for example, 

stated that any oil and gas source of emissions other than methane, ethane, and carbon dioxide, requires 

authorization, in addition to having to meet requirements of any applicable NSPS or National Emissions 

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants. In addition, most states, such as Louisiana, New York2, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wyoming, and California’s air districts, regulate storage tanks in addition to 

wellheads. Colorado regulates hydraulically fractured gas and oil wells and venting from storage tanks, 

equipment leaks at the well site and compressor stations; pneumatic controllers, compressor engines, 

dehydrators, liquids unloading and well maintenance activities, and separators at well production sites are 

regulated, but not pneumatic pumps. Several states noted that they regulate compressors (New York, 

North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). North Dakota regulates compressors for NOx and CO, emissions 

from completions and ongoing production of hydraulically fractured oil wells, leaks, and liquids 

unloading, while pneumatic devices remain under EPA authority.

Some states are considering regulating sources identified in the EPA’s White Papers, with states 

specifically mentioning onsite tanks at oil fields, equipment leaks, pneumatic pumps and controllers, and 

compressors, but implementing new regulations is limited by available resources. Other states do not

 

2 New York regulates some storage tanks, but not all of them.
Page 3 of 6

regulate facilities beyond federal requirements, but may consider new sources such as compressor engine 

controls if there are new nonattainment designations.

Among the Tribal air agencies, the Southern Ute regulates compressor stations and processing plants. The 

Fond du Lac Band has a compressor on the Reservation that is receives its Title V permit from EPA, but 

the Band does not have independent regulatory authority at this time. 

Question 4 – Have you regulated or considered regulating both new and existing sources? If so, 

which factors did you consider in determining whether to regulate both? Did any factors present 

particular challenges? 

California, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana regulate both new and existing sources, while Wyoming 

regulates new and existing sources in nonattainment areas. Ohio regulates new sources exclusively, while 

other states regulate new and “modified” existing sources (Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah). Kansas has not 

considered regulating new or existing sources unless already subject to a federal rule.

Regarding challenges, California said federal methane rules would need to harmonize with existing local 

air districts’ VOC rules and a planned statewide methane regulation for the ONG sector may overlap with 

local rules for tanks, which will pose implementation challenges. California also noted that the 

transmission, storage, and distribution segments are currently unregulated for air quality purposes in that 

state, so imposing methane regulations on these segments may place a significant burden on smaller Air 

Pollution Control Districts (APCDs). Colorado’s challenges include cost-effectiveness of controls, size of 

operations, effects on nonattainment areas, technical feasibility, existing controls in industry, and 

proximity to buildings and human activities. Some states cited issues surrounding accurately identifying

pneumatic devices in the field. Wyoming said cost-effectiveness is problematic for new sources because 

higher costs may be economical in nonattainment areas but not in other areas of the state. Further,

pneumatic pumps are a significant source of emissions, but with no source classification code (SCC) for 

these devices, it is difficult to track emissions. Other states challenges include the quantity of permit 

applications, the quantity of new wells coming online, and the lack of gas collection infrastructure.

Tribal air agencies have considered regulating new and existing sources, but are still in the developmental 

stage.

Question 5 – Do the requirements vary by region or are they uniform across the state? If they vary, 

were there specific activities or reasons that the requirements vary?

Kansas, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania reported uniform regulations statewide. 

Other states reported general statewide uniformity with some variations, including different requirements 

for nonattainment areas (e.g., Colorado, Louisiana, Texas, Wyoming), different compliance dates (e.g., 

Utah), concentrated development areas (e.g., Texas and Wyoming), and major source NSR trigger (e.g., 

Ohio). California’s air districts have similar, but not uniform, rules. 

Among Tribal air agencies, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe stated the resource protection goals of the tribal 

council will drive any variation in regulations. The Fond du Lac Band does not have regulations.

Question 6 – Have you identified innovative compliance options that reduce the implementation 

burden for the state?

The participants discussed several compliance options, such as leak detection and repair (LDAR), optical 

gas imaging (OGI) monitoring, and the use of general permitting to reduce burden on states and facilities. 

One state mentioned looking at options for LDAR including using an infrared (IR) camera to identify 
Page 4 of 6

leaks with more frequent surveys. TCEQ, for example, noted that Texas uses IR cameras as a screening 

tool, both on the ground and from the air. Other states are also considering developing performance 

standards rather than specifying control technologies. One state described their forward-looking infrared 

(FLIR) program. Colorado, Ohio, and Pennsylvania also noted the efficacy of streamlined permitting 

requirements and processes.

Among the Tribal air agencies, the Southern Ute are developing streamlined reporting mechanisms that 

include an interactive online database of regulated sources in which sources can report compliance 

information. 

Question 7 – What has been your experience implementing Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs)?

While a number of states reported some experience implementing CTGs (e.g., California’s air districts, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah) to varying degrees, other states (e.g., California, Colorado, and 

Louisiana) said their experience has been very limited. Most of Colorado’s CTGs came out in the 1990s. 

Kansas and Oklahoma had no experience with CTGs applicable to the ONG industry.

Pennsylvania noted that they are just completing the regulatory process for CTGs issued in 2008; a

process that could be faster if they had model rule language in the CTG. Utah has used CTGs in the

development of their PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) to inform the inventory process and to help 

define area source controls. Utah noted that even though the CTG documents are often out of date, it is a 

helpful starting point. They have used CTGs as the basis of information documents made available online, 

such as voluntary control measures for pollutants. 

None of the Tribal air agencies noted any experience implementing CTGs.

Question 8 – As the EPA develops a CTG for sources of oil and gas emissions, what information 

and/or features would you like us to consider including (such as detailed cost information)? Is 

model rule language something that you would find helpful?

The vast majority of states noted that model rule language would be helpful, although some states said 

use of the model language should be optional. Other states wanted to review the CTG before providing 

comment. New York, Ohio, and Utah also considered cost information to be helpful. New York and Ohio 

added that clear definitions would be helpful, with New York noting it would be useful to specify 

applicability by SCC code. Colorado said the CTG should include a mechanism that recognizes current 

state requirements to minimize conflicts between federal and state rules on the same sources. The CTG 

should also clearly define the first day of operation or commencement of operation as it pertains to 

drilling or otherwise stimulating a well. Pennsylvania requested the CTG include alternative compliance 

methods, particularly ones that reduce the burden on small businesses. Texas agreed that a model rule

would be helpful, but requested that the CTG include sufficient time (more than one year) to plan and 

adopt rules into a SIP. Texas requested that the CTG help clarify applicability by including a statement 

outlining how each source type would be affected. Texas also requested the EPA use current cost 

information for recommended controls, including estimates of the cost of equipment and controls, and not 

“scale up” based on older estimates of nationwide compliance costs. Wyoming would like the CTG to 

address VOC and methane separately, not grouped together as hydrocarbons, as well as include a 

technical feasibility analysis taking into account different types of developments and avoids a “one size 

fits all” approach. 

Of the Tribal air agencies, Fond du Lac stated if there is a co-benefit of controlling a second pollutant as a 

result of a regulation directly controlling a first pollutant, then it would be helpful to see that addressed in 

the cost analysis. The Southern Ute believed it would also be helpful to account for the cost of climate 
Page 5 of 6

change in the cost analysis. The Ute Mountain Ute stated the cost savings resulting from capturing 

otherwise vented gas should be presented.

Question 9 – Do you think any sources of emissions are particularly amenable to voluntary rather 

than regulatory action? Do you have any state-specific voluntary programs that we should be 

aware of?

Nine of the states (California, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas,

and Wyoming) said they have no state-specific voluntary programs in place and most did not believe such 

programs would be useful or accepted by industry. One state, however, suggested that pneumatic devices 

and their associated maintenance requirements would be a good place for voluntary measures, as well as a 

voluntary program to institute best management practices (BMP) for liquids unloading and well 

maintenance. Another state also recommended that pneumatic controllers and pneumatic pumps might be 

appropriate, as they are aware of voluntary measures in other places, though they themselves had no 

voluntary programs.

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah each have voluntary programs. Ohio has a voluntary program for HAP

emissions in which companies can receive public recognition for voluntary reductions. Pennsylvania 

relies on the Natural Gas STAR program for information about voluntary programs and they use this

information to help determine the best available control technology (BACT). Utah said emission controls 

in the Uinta Basin began with the Ozone Advance program that included voluntary proactive measures. 

Utah said a benefit of voluntary measures is that they are quick to implement. The state can monitor the 

effectiveness of the voluntary measure and get feedback from industry before moving it into a rule.

None of the Tribal air agencies have voluntary programs.

Follow-Up Call with California Air Districts

On April 23, 2015, EPA held a follow-up call with several California air districts (San Joaquin Valley 

APCD, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Ventura County APCD and Santa Barbara County 

APCD) to discuss their experiences with CTGs. The following is a summary of that discussion. 

Have you implemented the oil and gas CTG from the 1980s? 

All the districts (San Joaquin, South Coast, Ventura County and Santa Barbara) stated they have 

implemented the CTG through their own mature air programs; most of which have been in existence for 

decades. San Joaquin and Santa Barbara specifically noted that their own rules and regulations go beyond 

what the existing CTG requires. 

Are there lessons learned that would be helpful for us as we draft the new CTG?

San Joaquin said they cooperate closely with industry associations, citizen advisory committees, 

agricultural groups, and others, and recommended that EPA do the same. South Coast and Ventura 

County noted the importance of urbanization and sensitivity receptors; the age of a facility and its 

proximity to homes needs to be kept in consideration. Santa Barbara added that some new measurement 

devices – such as optical gas imaging cameras – can be too expensive for a district and recommended that 

the CTG should not mandate monitoring equipment that districts do not currently use and cannot afford.

Do you have experience in implementing CTGs that included model rules? How does this affect 

implementation?
Page 6 of 6

Among the air agencies, Santa Barbara stated they have implemented model rules which were helpful, 

such as the model rule in EPA’s CTGs for degreasers. All districts agreed that model rules could be 

helpful. South Coast and Ventura County added that it would be helpful if model language included the 

flexibility to allow a district to make it workable with their needs, such as an equivalency demonstration. 

Additionally, Ventura County noted that implementing the CTG will be smoother if the CTG is consistent 

with the new CARB rule. Santa Barbara added they would be interested in implementing a new CTG, 

only if it adds to what the district requires in its existing program, such as more stringent control 

requirements, improved monitoring, etc. 

Outside of the CTG, have you applied RACT-like measures to oil and gas sources in your district? 

If so, what types of measures did you apply? What worked well? What did not? 

San Joaquin has applied RACT (or beyond RACT measures) from crude oil wells to processing and 

handling. The South Coast stated it is helpful to have a robust compliance plan and try to steer away from 

flares and concentrate on reinjection and other non-NOx forming control technologies. Ventura County 

requires a vapor recovery system; NOx rules apply at low levels in oil fields. The Santa Barbara District 

noted a focus that includes tanks, loading racks, steam generators, and small boilers. They have minor 

leak rules and require vapor recovery for tanks with no venting of gas during testing. 

Do you foresee any challenges in implementing a new oil and gas CTG in your district?

None of the California air districts anticipated major challenges in implementing a new oil and gas CTG. 

All concurred that an equivalency demonstration would be helpful. South Coast reiterated its concern that 

multilevel controls and regulations not interfere with one another. Ventura County added that regulating 

something not currently regulated must be done carefully with feedback from the districts. The district 

stressed the importance of clear requirements, especially with regard to sources such as temporary 

production tanks.

Other information districts would like to see the CTG include?

San Joaquin would like to see any information that justifies the assumptions being made or the reasoning 

behind any requirements. San Joaquin and South Coast believed cost information would be helpful, as an 

aid in understanding why a specific requirement is being put in place. The San Joaquin District said that if 

the EPA is looking for detailed cost information, the District has a BACT NSR regulation that can 

provide such details to the EPA through their BACT analyses and permitting processes. South Coast also 

stated that new technology information would be very useful. Santa Barbara said it would be beneficial 

for the CTG to include an inventory of what is out there, such as equipment counts and control 

technologies.