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: January 12, 2012

SUBJECT: Summary of the January 5, 2012, Meeting with Region 8 and Air Quality 

Representatives from Colorado and Wyoming with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency to Discuss the Proposed Oil & Gas NSPS/NESHAP

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the meeting was 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, subparts 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). 

II. ATTENDEES

The following is a list of participants in the meeting.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Bruce Moore

David Cozzie

Alex Macpherson

EPA Region 8

Cindy Beeler

Kate Fay

Carl Daly

Colorado

Scott Patefield

Gary Kaufman

Wyoming

Steve Dietrich
2

Andrew Keyfauver

Carissa Krey

EC/R Incorporated

David Hendricks

Heather Brown

Bradley Nelson 

III. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Bruce Moore opened the meeting by stating that the comment period for the proposed rules has 

ended and EPA could answer clarifying questions from the group, but could not provide any 

responses to comments on the proposed rules. EPA received approximately 150,000 comments, 

however only about 150 of the comments that were received were considered to be substantive. 

He stated that EPA wanted to streamline the rule for both industry and regulators. 

EPA stated that they had received many comments relating to the burden of the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting and the definitions in the proposed rule and were working to 

address these issues. 

The first topic of discussion was well completions. Representatives from Colorado and 

Wyoming believe EPA needs to clarify the requirements for recompletions and when they apply. 

Wyoming requires equipment to do green completions at well sites. Colorado stated that the 

Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) oversee the drilling operations in 

their state, and their division takes over after production starts. Colorado noted that they do not 

have the staffing or expertise to observe drilling operations to make sure they are in compliance 

with the rules. 

EPA asked if there were significant emissions that aren’t regulated in the proposed rules 

subsequent to flowback. A member of the group noted that emissions occur during different 

periods of flowback, and not just after fracturing. EPA asked when states require green 

completions. Colorado stated that completions were covered by the COGCC, and the current 

requirements for completions were for odor control and resource recovery. Wyoming stated 

operators were required to do green completions after evaluation of safety, pressure and flow. 

EPA asked what were the state’s requirements for crude oil and condensate wells. Colorado 

noted that they won’t know if the well has oil (API Gravity <40°) or condensate, but the majority 

of wells are condensate. EPA asked if emissions from these wells were comparable to natural 

gas wells. Colorado noted that they don’t have data, but emissions appear to vary by type of 

well. They noted in some cases the natural gas from the wells is a waste product. Wyoming 

stated that emissions from wells can range from 23 tons to PSD major.

EPA asked the group if they had suggestions to clarify applicability. The group stated that 

equipment availability was an issue. EPA stated that this issue has been brought up by other 

commenters and EPA was currently evaluating what can be done. EPA asked if this same 

technology could be applied to both natural gas wells and crude/condensate wells. The group 
3

responded that the equipment used for both was the same. They noted that some equipment may 

differ because of the capacity of flow from the well. Wyoming stated that their minor source 

permit program requires reduced emission completions (REC). To do an REC, a pipeline must 

be available to collect the natural gas. Heavy crude oil wells are not required to do REC because 

of economics. EPA asked if a flare or other control is required. Wyoming responded that the 

vented emissions must be controlled. The group asked if EPA could leave the regulation of well 

completions to the states and not include in the NSPS. EPA responded that not all states have 

regulations for well completions, and the emissions from these operations are significant.

Storage tanks were the next topic of discussion. EPA stated that they received numerous 

comments on the requirements for storage tanks and some wanted the applicability to be based 

on VOC emissions and other asked for a throughput cut-off. EPA asked the group if they 

believed an emissions threshold was appropriate for storage tanks. Representatives from CO 

stated that a 6 TPY threshold has worked well in their state. The group from WY stated that an 

emissions threshold of 8 TPY is used in some areas and is lower in other areas. They added that 

emissions can vary based on the well composition and the models used to estimate the emissions. 

EPA asked if a rolling average was used to establish a limit. The group from WY stated that the 

state allows a 30-day period to establish an emission estimate and 30 days to put on controls if 

the emissions are determined to need control. The group from CO stated that non-attainment 

areas require controls for first 90 days of production where they are required to estimate the 

annual emissions. If the annual emissions are determined to be greater than 20 TPY then the 

controls must stay in place. For attainment areas, the operators have 90 days to determine if 

controls are needed (> 20 TPY). They also have a system wide reduction requirement of 90% 

aggregate control on all tank emissions from the facilities owned by a company in nonattainment areas. This helps to address cost effectiveness issues. The CO group also noted that 

they use an emission factor of 1 lb/BBL throughput. EPA asked if it would be useful to maintain 

a table of emission factors for tanks from the different formations or plays. The group stated 

they believe the emissions factors should remain at the state level and not on a national level. 

EPA asked if the states allowed companies to remove controls in cases where the production and 

storage tank emissions start to decline. The group from CO stated that if the storage tank 

emissions can be shown to be less than 20 TPY, then the control can be removed, and the 

operator is required to maintain records that show they are below this threshold.

The next topic of discussion was notification and reporting requirements in the NSPS. EPA 

stated that they did not intend to require reporting of all pneumatics, they intended to only 

require reporting of new pneumatic controllers that were installed during the reporting period. 

EPA also noted that they received comment regarding the difficulty of a 30-day notification for 

completions, but the intent was to make the states aware of the activity in their respective state. 

The group from CO stated that they did not receive notification for well completions, but the 

COGCC was aware of the drilling operations. They have concerns with the burden on their staff 

for overseeing these operations. The group from WY stated they require a 15-day notification of 

well completions.
4

EPA stated that they intend to make revisions to the definitions. They noted that they did not 

intend to say that workovers were the same as recompletions, and will clarify this in the final 

rule. EPA stated that the rule would not apply to workovers.

EPA noted that both states provided information of produced water ponds and other emission 

sources and EPA will review this information. EPA does not intend to include any action in the 

current rule, but will consider for future regulations. The group from CO stated that emissions 

from produced water ponds are greater than 200 TPY, and consists mostly of methanol

emissions. The group from WY stated that they had no data on emissions from produced water 

ponds.

A representative from WY stated that nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from nonroad engines are 

a large source of emissions, but the states can’t regulate them because they are mobile sources. 

They asked if EPA could classify these nonroad engines as stationary sources. EPA stated that 

any affected source covered by a NSPS is not a mobile source. The emissions are not included 

in this rulemaking, but EPA will consider this for future rulemakings. EPA asked if reducing 

NOX emissions would help with ozone issues in the states. The group from WY stated that they 

did not know if they were NOX or VOC limited.

EPA asked how the 15-day notification worked in WY. The group from WY responded that the 

notification is sent to the district office by email or letter at least 15 days prior to the well

completion.