EC

/RIncorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 250 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Telephone: (919)484-0222  Fax: (919) 484-0122

MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 1, 2013

SUBJECT: Summary of June 20, 2013, Meeting with Representatives from the Gas 

Processors Association (GPA)

FROM: Heather P. Brown, EC/R Incorporated

TO: Bruce Moore, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/FIG

I. PURPOSE

This memorandum summarizes the June 20, 2013 meeting between the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and industry representatives from the Gas Processors Association (GPA). The 

intent of the meeting was to allow GPA to clarify their comments submitted to EPA, dated May 

28, 2013,1 regarding EPA’s April 12, 2013, proposed amendments. 

II. DATE

The meeting took place on June 20, 2013, at 9:00 am at the EPA building in the Research 

Triangle Park, NC. Several industry members participated via telephone.

III. ATTENDEES

The following individuals participated in the meeting:

Industry Representatives

Jeff Adams, BP

Grover Campbell, Chesapeake

Jerry Dismukes, Whiting

Shawn Fullingim, Enogex

Kaitlin Gregg, Van Ness Feldman

Laura L. Guthrie, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission

Shyla Harris, Whiting Oil and Gas Corporation

Alena Jonas, ConocoPhillips

Julie Lang, Prism

Lori Marquez, ConocoPhillips

Mark Peak, QEP

Brent Peterson, Atlas Pipeline

Daniel Pring, QEP

 1

Letter from Applekamp, J., Director, Governmental Affairs, Gas Processors Association, Tulsa, OK to EPA Docket 

Center, Washington, DC.Comments of the Gas Processors Association Regarding the Oil and Natural Gas Sector: 

Reconsideration of Certain Provisions of New Source Performance Standards; Proposed Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 22,126 

(April 12, 2013). May 28, 2013. EPA Docket No.EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-4615.
2

Gabriela Vega, QEP

Laura Weber, DCP

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Bruce Moore, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

Chris Frantz, OAQPS

Charlene Spells, OAQPS

David Cozzie, OAQPS

EC/R Incorporated

Heather Brown

IV. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

EPA and GPA made the following comments regarding permit burden:

• Kansas is holding off on issuing permits until the rule is finalized.

• Rulemaking is viewed as a way of easing permit burden for the Oil and Gas Industry.

• States, including but not limited to, Kansas and Oklahoma are required to obtain state 

permits for NSPS affected facilities. 

• Owners/operators must obtain permits for facilities affected and permits to keep facilities 

from being classified as an affected facility.

GPA discussed their May 2013 comments and addressed the issues described below. GPA 

discussed their “Critical Issues List,” as follows:

• The “events” described in 60.5395(b)(2) that trigger control requirements for Group 1 

tanks should be more specific for storage vessels at well sites. Only the events described 

in (b)(2)(i) through (iii) should be considered triggered events for storage vessels that 

store reservoir fluids (i.e., at well sites, tank batteries, centralized production facilities).

o Midstream storage vessels comprise approximately 1% to 2% of the total 

population of Oil and Gas storage vessels. 

o GPA proposed a set date of April 15, 2015 (instead of April 12, 2013) whereby 

Group 1 storage vessels with the potential to emit VOC emissions (downstream) 

equal to or greater than 6 tpy must comply with 60.5395(d) through (g). 

 Even though a tank emits <6 tpy of VOC it still needs to be equipped with 

a control device and it still impacts the availability of control devices (e.g., 

moving from one regulatory mechanisms). 

 Midstream operations are more likely to incorporate vapor recovery units 

(VRUs).

o The date upon which owners/operators must begin to track “triggering events” 

should allow time for initial determination of potential VOC emissions rate.

 Additional time would allow owners/operators the opportunity to obtain

state permits.

 According to GPA, long lead times are often an indication of a shortage of

supply. It will take large companies up to 9 months to obtain control 

devices; meanwhile some smaller companies might not be able get control 

devices at all. 
3

• The storage vessel alternative control requirement that allows for the use of vapor 

recovery to a flow line must be modified to be applicable to Midstream storage vessels.

o In the August 16, 2012 finalized NSPS OOOO the term “flow line” is only used 

within the context of gas well affected facilities. To address this issue, GPA 

suggested the following:

 Modify the definition of the term “flow line;” or 

 Modify the rule language wherever the alternative compliance option is 

addressed (i.e., substitute “flow line, or to a process natural gas line” 

everywhere “flow line” is mentioned).

o Industry uses the term “flow line” as it is currently defined, so to modify the 

definition could further confuse them. 

• The provision that storage vessels that decrease emissions below 6 tpy VOC remain an 

affected source should be limited in two ways to avoid unintended recordkeeping 

burdens.

o Emissions are completely dependent on operations at the facility so moving the 

tank should be allowed to reevaluate the emissions to determine affected facility 

status. 

 Relocation alone does not make it a new source under the NSPS. 

 Tank emissions are highly dependent on the flow rate at the facility and 

condensate composition, so each time the tank is moved it needs to be 

reevaluated. 

• When §60.5412(a) was modified to apply only to centrifugal compressor affected 

facilities, and 60.5412(d) was added for storage vessel affected facilities, it became 

unclear what needs to be done when using a flare as a control device for a storage vessel 

affected facility.

• In regards to closed vented systems (CVS) that recover vapors, the concept of 

“operational 95% of the year” is achievable if the term “operational” is changed or 

interpreted to mean “capable of being operated when the storage vessel affected facility is 

in service.”

• A flare or enclosed combustion device should only be required to be in operation when 

there is flow into the storage vessel affected facility.

o GPA recommended modifying 60.5412(d)(3) to include “there is flow into the 

storage vessel causing,” so that it is clear when operating a control device a flare 

or an enclosed combustion device should only run when there is a flow into the 

storage vessel affected facility.

• According to GPA, there are some inconsistencies and redundancy in the requirements 

for initial, continuous, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, as well as, the 

references in the affected facility standards, which they claim adds unnecessary bulk to 

the rule. 
4

• In regards to requirements for CVSs, GPA believes that the references found in 60.5411 

and 60.5416 are not consistent.

• If a storage vessel is not an affected source due to emissions of less than 6 tpy VOC, and 

emissions increase to 6 tpy or greater, when must the storage vessel be in compliance 

with the §60.5395 standards?

• Based on EPA’s determination that BSER is required at 6 tpy and not at 4 tpy, GPA 

believes that the trigger for reinstalling a storage vessel affected facility control device 

should also be 6 tpy. 

• In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of reporting, the notifications for Group 1

storage vessel affected facilities should be specified as being due with the initial annual 

report (90 days after October 15, 2013). 

• GPA would prefer if EPA allows manufacturer’s records to be maintained offsite.

• To ensure consistency with 60.5365(e) GPA recommended modifying 60.5395(c)(1) and 

(2) to include “taking into account requirements under legally and practically enforceable 

limits in a permit or by other mechanism.”

• According to GPA, the compliance requirements found in 60.5395(g) are unclear. They 

recommended that EPA explain the requirements more clearly.

GPA responded to EPA’s solicitation of comments in the preamble to the proposed amendments, 

as follows:

• Storage vessels installed in emergency situations (i.e., due to failure).

• GPA supports the proposal for an alternative, mass-based numeric limit on uncontrolled 

emissions of 4 tpy. GPA explained that EPA has put forth sound reasoning for the 

alternative limit; freeing up scarce control equipment where emissions have been proven 

to be significantly below the 6 tpy applicability threshold for controls. However, GPA 

also requests that re-installation of controls should not be required until uncontrolled 

emissions again reach 6 tpy as for a new storage vessel