E

C

/R Incorporated 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 30, 2010

SUBJECT: Summary of the July 27, 2010 Teleconference Between the EPA and 

Representatives of Environmental Organizations Regarding the Oil and Natural 

Gas Industry 

FROM: Denise Grubert, EC/R Incorporated

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

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the July 27, 2010 telephone conference 

between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and representatives of environmental 

organizations. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information about the Risk and 

Technology Review (RTR) of Part 63, Subparts HH and HHH (the Oil and Natural Gas 

Production and the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage standards) and the 8-year review of 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in Part 60, Subparts KKK and LLL (Equipment 

Leaks of VOC and SO2 Emissions from Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants). 

II. DATE

The meeting took place on July 27, 2010 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. at the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

III. ATTENDEES

The following individuals participated in the meeting. 

Ramon Alvarez Environmental Defense Fund

Thomas Au

Jim Bradbury City of Fort Worth

Deborah Goldberg Earthjustice

Amy Mall Natural Resources Defense Council

Jeremy Nichols WildEarth Guardians

Joe Osborne Group Against Smog and Pollution

Bruce Pendery Wyoming Outdoor Council

Dan Randolph Earthworks Oil & Gas Accountability Project

Deborah Rogers City of Fort Worth

Joanne Spalding Sierra Club

Amy Branning EPA/OGC 
E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

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

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

Jodi Howard EPA/OAQPS

Alex MacPherson EPA/OAQPS 

Bruce Moore EPA/OAQPS

Greg Nizich EPA/OAQPS

Nick Parsons EPA/OAQPS

David Solomon EPA/OAQPS

Denise Grubert EC/R Incorporated (Contractor for EPA)

Karen Marsh EC/R Incorporated (Contractor for EPA)

IV. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

The discussion topics included an update of the progress of EPA’s review of the regulations for 

the sector, the status of the Risk and Technology Review (RTR) and Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) assessments, and methane emission requirements. Additional 

topics were discussed at the end of the meeting.

A. EPA’s Review in Progress

 EPA provided a brief overview of the regulations under review pertaining to the 

Oil and Natural Gas sector along with the consent decree agreement. The public 

meetings that were scheduled for August 2 and 3 in Arlington, TX and Denver, 

CO, respectively were also discussed. EPA explained that the current review is 

looking at all segments of the industry, from drilling to the house meter. It was 

also explained that a 114 survey will not be sent to industry but that any 

information available would be considered and should be provided to EPA. 

 All of the information presented during this part of the discussion is included in 

Attachment 1.

 Questions raised during this portion of the discussion included the following:

a. Will the review include pipelines? 

i. EPA responded that pipelines are included in the review.

b. How is EPA coordinating with Regional offices?

i. It was noted by EPA that Regions 6 and 8 have already been consulted 

on this project. EPA is working closely with various individuals to 

obtain information from studies. Additionally, contacts have been 

established with Regions 2 and 3. The workgroup performing the 

review and advising on regulatory approaches consists of 

representatives from the various regions and other EPA offices.

c. Will engines be covered under the revised regulations?

i. Stationary engines are covered under other EPA regulations and will 

not be covered separately under the Oil and Natural Gas regulations.
3

ii. Drilling engines are considered “non-road” engines and are covered 

by rules from EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

(OTAQ). However, some of the participants on the call are concerned 

about whether drilling engines that are left stationary for over a year

would be covered under OTAQ’s rule. EPA agreed to check into this 

issue more.

B. RTR Assessment Status

 EPA stated that the only risk assessment that has been previously conducted 

on the Oil and Natural Gas sector was performed on glycol dehydrators and 

was not comprehensive. It was also noted that the current review is not at a 

stage appropriate for conducting a risk analysis. However, EPA plans to use 

the same methods as those used on recent risk analyses and will utilize 

information on specific facility locations.

C. MACT Assessment Status

 EPA stated that the current review is not at a stage appropriate for conducting 

a thorough MACT assessment. However, EPA plans to evaluate all emission 

sources, including those not already regulated by the current MACT 

standards.

D. Methane Requirements under NSPS

 EPA stated that co-benefits from regulating VOC emission sources are 

expected even if specific greenhouse gas regulations are not promulgated

E. Additional Topics of Discussion

 Waste Disposal Facilities

o Mr. Bradbury asked about information collected on waste disposal 

facilities. He stated that in the Barnett Shale area of Texas, these 

facilities are not regulated, but are permitted by the Texas Railroad 

Commission. These facilities are run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 

with salt water trucks making frequent visits. Some of these sources 

are gravity fed, while others are part of the pipeline. Tanks are 

present at these disposal facilities and they are a larger volume than 

land farming operations. No emissions studies have been conducted 

on this type of source, but Mr. Bradbury stated that ERG is in the 

process of conducting a study but not for the environmental regulation 

basis.
4

 Available Information

o Mr. Alvarez stated his concern over the lack of data on this sector. He 

said there is data available on downwind emissions for ambient air 

from the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 

monitoring campaigns. 

o Mr. Bradbury stated that TCEQ has conducted a study showing 

benzene downwind from injection wells.

 Injection Wells

o Ms. Goldberg stated that Pennsylvania site do not use injection wells. 

Instead, produced water sites and new wastewater treatment plants 

were being developed to handle waste. Large impoundments are also 

a popular choice for waste disposal. In most cases, a central 

wastewater treatment plant will receive piped waste for treatment. 

Pennsylvania has been monitoring areas with a large number of 

various sources, but this data is not publically available at this time.

 Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act

o Ms. Spalding asked if EPA plans to utilize section 111(d) of the Clean 

Air Act. EPA responded they would only use this if greenhouse gases 

are regulated.

 Scope of Future NSPS

o Mr. Nichols asked if EPA will broaden the scope of any future NSPS. 

EPA responded this would be done only if warranted by a review.

o Mr. Alvarez asked what information needs to be provided to warrant 

adding new requirements for previously unregulated sources. EPA 

stated that any statutory/regulatory authority would be used and if 

information found in the review suggested a broader scope, then EPA 

should do so.

 Hydraulic Fracturing

o Mr. Bradbury stated that any studies about hydraulic fracturing would 

be a big public concern.

 Total Source Emission Assessment

o Mr. Bradbury asked if EPA intended to conduct an assessment of a 

model shale field to come up with the total contribution to air quality. 

He stated this would allow EPA to evaluate the sector as a whole, 

instead of emissions from individual sources. EPA stated this was not

part of this particular project. However, EPA did state an analysis 

based on emissions and equipment counts could be used to determine 

the total contribution.
5

o Mr. Alvarez also stated that a cumulative impact analysis of the 

development in one particular area is very important. He asked what 

would be the most appropriate way to address this issue. EPA 

responded they would discuss this issue further.

o Ms. Spalding stated that a cost/benefit analysis of the NSPS would 

include this type of assessment. EPA responded that they would look 

at what has been done before when completing the cost/benefit 

analysis.

 Providing Information to EPA

o Mr. Nichols and Mr. Alvarez asked how information should be 

provided to EPA. EPA responded that any information received prior 

to proposal could be sent directly to Nick Parsons; otherwise, it should 

be submitted to the docket that goes with this rulemaking.
6

ATTACHMENT 1

Oil & Natural Gas Sector Regulatory Review Update

EPA and Environmental Group Teleconference

July 27, 2010

 WildEarth Guardians and San Juan Citizens Alliance filed deadline suit for failure to review 1985 NSPS (KKK, 

LLL) and failure to conduct risk and technology review of 1999 NESHAP (HH, HHH) covering oil and natural 

gas production and transmission.

o Consent Decree entered 02/04/10

o Proposal deadline 01/31/11

o Promulgation deadline 11/30/11

 Although not part of the consent decree, we agreed to conduct public meetings in the Dallas and Denver areas 

prior to proposal to seek information from the public to further inform our review.

o Arlington, TX Monday, 8/2/10, 12-4 and 6-10 pm

o Denver, CO Tuesday, 8/3/10, 12-4 and 6-10 pm

 Our existing rules are fairly narrow in scope, primarily covering gas processing plants and some gas 

transmission and storage operations. We believe that there are significant emissions across all segments of the 

industry that are not addressed by our existing rules. These segments include:

o Exploration & Production Processing

o Transmission & Storage Distribution

 During our review in progress, we are identifying all significant emission points across all operations from 

drilling to local distribution. We are considering a comprehensive, coordinated sector approach that addresses

all emission points that warrant control and the best strategy to achieve cost-effective multipollutant reductions

 Because our actions could target venting and leaks to control criteria and toxic pollutants, there should be 

significant methane co-benefits. 

 Some sources of criteria, toxics, and methane emissions not controlled by existing rules are:

o Pneumatic devices Well completions and workovers

o Condensate tanks and tank batteries Vapor displaced from truck loading

o Produced water ponds Land farming

 The project is now in the data collection and analysis phase, and we are looking at data from recent studies 

(WRAP III, CENRAP, and studies done by TCEQ and others), facility and well data from the Department of 

Homeland Security, conducting site visits, and have been interacting with our Natural Gas STAR program, 

regional offices, stakeholders on all sides, and States. Due to the short schedule and availability of recent data, 

we have no plans for a section 114 survey.

 There may be significant Tribal and Environmental Justice (EJ) issues and opportunities in this sector. We have 

already briefed the National Tribal Air Association and presented at a recent National Tribal Forum on Air 

Quality. The EJ analysis is normally conducted at the time of the risk assessment exercise as part of the Risk 

and Technology Review.

Contact:

Bruce Moore

EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

(919) 541-5460 moore.bruce@epa.gov