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: October 27, 2011

SUBJECT: Summary of the October 25, 2011, Teleconference with the America’s Natural 

Gas Alliance and the American Exploration and Production Council and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency to Discuss the Proposed Oil & Gas 

NSPS/NESHAP

1.0 INTRODUCTION

America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) and the American Exploration and Production Council 

(AXPC) requested this meeting with EPA to discuss questions on the proposed Oil and Gas 

NSPS (40 CFR Part 60, subparts KKK, LLL, and OOOO) and NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, 

subpart HH and HHH). This meeting summary will be available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505). The proposed rule for the oil and 

natural gas sector was published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2011 (76 FR 52738). 

2.0 ATTENDEES

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Bruce Moore

Alex Macpherson

America’s Natural Gas Alliance/American Exploration and Production Council

Amy Farrell, ANGA

Craig Brown, QEP

Bryan Clode, Encana

Ed Hance, Pioneer

Bill Grygar, Anadarko
2

Lee Hinman, Noble Inc.

Tom Curry, MJ Bradley

Participating by Phone

Gretchen Carr, Pioneer

Joe Leonard, Devon Energy

Chris Von Hatten, MJ Bradley

Ronnie Beasley

Grover Campbell, Chesapeake

Ken Meade, Bunting

EC/R Incorporated

Heather Brown

Denise Grubert

Bradley Nelson 

3.0 SUMMARY OF MEETING

Bruce Moore started the meeting by stating that the proposed rules are currently still in the 

comment period and EPA could answer questions and provide clarifications, but could not 

provide any responses to comments on the proposed rules. 

ANGA asked if there new developments for these proposed rules. EPA replied that Gina 

McCarthy had just signed a federal register notice that extends the comment period to November 

30, 2011. The reasoning behind the extension was the complexity of the proposed rules and the 

fact that this comment period coincides with other proposed rule comment periods. EPA also 

stated that the final date for promulgation of the final rule was also extended to April 3, 2012. 

ANGA provided a meeting agenda that included topics that they wish to discuss with EPA. A 

copy of the meeting agenda is provided in Appendix A. The compliance date was the first topic 

on the meeting agenda. ANGA stated that the compliance dates should be extended by 180 days 

for the different sources. They believe that additional time is needed to replace the large number 

of pneumatics and to add controls to the large number of tanks. ANGA also stated that there 

should be provisions in the rule that would allow facilities to use the current inventory of high 

bleed controllers that have already been purchased. EPA responded that the rule would actually 

go into effect 60 days after publication for final review under the Congressional Review Act; 

however August 2011 will still define a new source. EPA further stated that these suggestions 

should be included in their comments on the proposed rules.
3

The next topic was a proposal of a VOC threshold for wells and other sources. ANGA stated 

that the assumed VOC-to-methane ratio that was used in the proposed rules did not take into 

account the variability of VOC from different types of wells, for an example coalbed methane 

wells. Based on a sensitivity analysis that ANGA presented, lower VOC content wells can push 

the cost effectiveness of the control options above $6,000 per ton of methane. Because of this, 

ANGA believes that EPA should develop a VOC threshold to remove requirements for low VOC 

from the final rules. EPA responded that they appreciated the comments and analysis and asked 

ANGA to include the analysis in their comments.

The next topic that ANGA wanted to discuss was completions and recompletions of 

hydraulically fractured gas wells. ANGA believes that there are legal implications of the 

determination that recompletions are modifications for NSPS. ANGA believes that 

recompletions are a routine operation and part of the normal operation or maintenance of a well. 

EPA asked what percentage of wells are recompletions. One member of the ANGA group 

responded that 1% of their wells were recompletions. Another member responded roughly 500 

well are recompletions with approximately 5% of those being gas wells. Another member stated 

they are essentially adding additional zones to draw the natural gas from. EPA stated that they 

would like to receive additional data that shows that recompletions were overestimated in the 

proposed rule. EPA also stated that they will review the data that was used to estimate the 

number of recompletions. ANGA stated that the flare requirements in the proposed rules did not 

take into account safety considerations, land owner considerations, or type of gas that is being 

combusted (sometimes mostly CO2). They also pointed out issues with connecting to a sales 

line, such as; proximity to the sales line, right of way on land owners property, and whether the 

pipeline has the capacity to accept the gas. EPA stated that they should include these issues in 

their comments. EPA asked ANGA to provide specific requirements or approaches for 

enforcement. 

The next topic that was discussed was reporting requirements. ANGA stated they agreed with 

the Title V reporting exemption; however they believe there is still some duplicate reporting. 

One example was the 30 day notification of completions, which they believe is already included 

in the state permits. EPA asked if ANGA had any suggestions for notification. ANGA 

responded that the state oil and gas commission or the companies themselves can provide 

information on drilling activities. They also noted that the completion operations change 

frequently. EPA stated that ANGA should provide comments on what reporting requirement are 

practicable, but still allow inspectors to know what companies are doing. EPA does not want to 

stand in the way of production. 

Third party verification was the next topic that was discussed in the meeting. ANGA believes 

third party verification is not appropriate for the oil and natural gas industry. They believe this 

creates liability and contains concepts that operators are not familiar. They also believe this puts 
4

a burden on regulatory agencies and asked EPA to streamline the process. EPA stated that they 

should include their concerns in their submitted comments on the proposed rules.

The next topic of discussion was pneumatic controllers. ANGA stated they appreciate that EPA 

included operational standards rather than emission limits for these devices. They noted that 

some facilities are moving toward non-natural gas driven pneumatics, but additional time is 

needed for training. In some cases, residual or field gas may need to be used if the primary air 

compressor system fails. They also believe the requirements in the proposed rules should be 

more consistent with the requirements in subpart W, and the affected source should be high bleed 

controllers and not include zero bleed controllers. EPA noted that they included costs for a 

backup generator in their pneumatic cost analysis.

Storage vessels were the next topic of discussion. ANGA believes an applicability threshold 

should be used for storage vessels based on an emissions factor for the particular basin the 

storage vessels are used at. They also stated that a 90 day evaluation period should also be in 

place to determine applicability. They suggested that the Wyoming storage vessel requirements 

should be used. EPA asked that ANGA include these suggestions in their comments. ANGA 

also asked if temporary storage vessels used for flowback or fracking would be exempt from the 

rule. EPA stated that they would need rationale to exclude these tanks from the rule. ANGA 

also believes that EPA underestimated the number of tanks in the proposed rule. EPA asked for 

additional data on the inventory of storage vessels.

Definitions were the next topic that was discussed in the meeting. ANGA stated they will 

provide suggested changes to the definitions to make them consistent with the definitions in 

subpart W. They also will provide a new definition for modification. EPA stated that they 

planned to remove the modification definition from the proposed rules.

ANGA asked for well count estimates, VOC content assumptions, and pneumatic vendor data 

that were used to develop the cost for the proposed rules. They stated they would follow-up with 

Bruce Moore on this information.
5

ATTACHMENT A

ANGA/AXPC Meeting Agenda
6

ANGA/AXPC Meeting Agenda re: Oil and Gas NESHAP/NSPS

October 25, 2011, EPA Research Triangle Park

I. Introductions

II. Compliance date

III. VOC threshold

IV. Completion/Recompletion of hydraulically fractured gas wells

V. Reporting requirements

VI. 3rd party verification

VII. Pneumatic Controllers

VIII. Storage vessels

IX. Definitions 

X. Data Requests