UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 8 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

. DENVER, CO 80202 

Phone 800-227-8917 

http://www.epa.govlregion08 

OCT 1 " Lew 

CERTIFIED MAIL 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

John O. Lowe, Deputy Florida Operations Manager 

BP America Production Company 

380 Airport Road 

Durango. CO 81303 

Dear Mr. Lowe: 

Re: BP America Production Company 

Florida River Compression Facility 

Title V Permit - Renewal # I 

# V-SU-0022-05.00 

Thank you for your May 19 and 21, 2008 e-mails concerning comments on the draft 

40 CFR part 71 federal operating permit for BP America Production Company's (BP's) Florida 

River Compression Facility. The public comment period for this permit ended on May 19,2008. 

Significant comments were also received from the Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action organization 

(now WildEarth Guardians) in Denver, Colorado. 

EPA Region 8 has reviewed the conunents received and has provided responses in 

Enclosure 1, "Response to Comments Document." Revisions have been made to the pennit and the 

Statement of Basis based on the comments, as necessary. 

Based on the information submitted in BP's part 71 application, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) hereby issues the title V operating permi t for Florida River Compression 

Facility. Enclosed you will find the final title V operating permit and amended Statement of Basis 

for the facility. Please review each condition carefully and note any restrictions placed on this 

source. Procedures for appealing this permit can be found in 40 CFR 71.11 (1). A petition to the 

Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) must be filed within 30 days of receipt of this final permit 

action. 

~ 

"'~ Pn'n/ed on Recycled Paper 
If you have any questions concerning the enclosed final permit or Statement of Basis, you 

may contact Kathleen Paser, of my staff. at (303) 312-6526. 

Enclosure 

wi enclosure: 

Sincerely, ..... --

_7 C ~r -- /'" /-/ 

C~~6' 

Callie A. Videtich, Director 

Air Program 

Julie Best, BP America Production Company, Environmental Coordinator 

Rebecca Robert, BP America Production Company, Environmental Specialist 

Brenda Jarrell, SUIT, Air Quality Program Manager 

2 
Enclosure - Response to Comments on the Florida River Compression Facility's 

March 2Si 2008 Draft Title V Permit to Operate 

Comments from BP America Production Company 

1. Statement of Basis, Page I, Section La - Facility Information: Location -

3. Change "SE/4, SW/4" to "SE '14, SW Y<.." 

EPA Response: The requested change has been made. 

2. Statement of Basis, Page 1, Section Lb - Facility Information: Contacts -

a. For Facility Contact, change "970-247 -69l J" to "970-375-7540." 

b. for the Company Contact, change "501 Westlake Boulevard" to "501 Westlake Park Boulevard." 

EP 11 Response: The requested changes have been made. 

3. Statement of Basis, Page 5, Section 1.e. - Facility Information - List of all units and emission 

generating activities, Table 1 -

a. Change the serial number for T-l from "0690-H" to the turbine package number "HC90781." An 

administrative amendment Witt be submitted for this change. 

b. Change the serial number for Tw 1 from "0307-H" to the turbine package number "HC93D50." An 

administrative amendment will be submitted for this change. 

EPA Response: The requested changes have been made. Per telephone discussions with BP America 

Production Company, the original serial numbers were recorded in (he application incorreclly and 

they are aClual1y serial numbers ofsmaller engine components of the turbine packages, The new 

numhers are the correct numhersfhr (he entire turbine package. This change does not resulr in any 

changes in equipment or emissions, bur only changes in (he serial identification. Therefore, EPA 

informed BP I1merica Production Company thaI it is not necessary to submit adminisfrarive 

amendment requesls/or these changes. 

4. Statement of Basis, Page 6, Section I.e. - Facility Information - List of all units and emission 

genera ting activities, Table 2 -

a. Change "l-Dehy #9 F!ash Tank" to "I-Dehy #3 Flash Tank.", 

b. Change "1-238 gal Compressor Oil Drain and Sump" to" 1-238 gal Compressor Lube Oil Drain and 

Sump." 

c. Change "1-300 gal Diesel Tank" to "2-300 gal Diesel Tanks" (Note: An additional tank exists at the 

facility. PTE forthis tank is less than 2 tpy of regulated pollutants and less than 0.5 tpy of HAPs. 

This change qualifies as an off pennit change, and because emissions are insignificant, no written 
notice is required to be submitted to EPA. BP will keep a record of the change that includes 

emission calculations. Since the tank is less than 75 cubic meters, NSPS Kb does not apply. 

d. Add 1-99 hp Emergency Diesel Generator to the Insignificant Emission Units. (Note: The PTE for 

this unit is less than 2 tpy of regulated pollutants and less than 0.5 tpy of HAPs. This change 

qualifies as an off permit change, and because emissions are insignificant, no written notice is 

req uired to be subm itted to EP A. B P wi !I keep a record of the change that incl udes emission 

calculations. Additionally, the engine (DMT Corporation, Model DMT-80C, Serial No, 8941 1-2), 

was manufactured in October 1989 and does not trigger NSPS IIIl because it was constructed prior 

to July ll, 2005, manufactured prior to April 11, 2006.) 

With respect to NESHAP ZZZZ applicability for the emergency diesel generalor insignificant 

activity, the unit was constructed prior to June 12,2006 and no reconstruction has occurred since 

this date. Since the site is an area source of I-lAPs, the unit is thus considered existing under 40 

CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ. Per 40 C FR 63. 6590(b )(3), the engine does not have any requirements 

under this subpart or subpart A of Part 63. No initial notification is necessary. 

EPA Response: Based on evaluation afthe unit specific information prOVided, the requested changes 

have been made, 

5. Statement of Basis, Page 10, Section 3 - Applicable Requirements -

a. Under Streamlined Pennit Condition, change "1I.E.8" to "H.E.7." 

b. Insert an applicahility discussion of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Dc. This subpart is not applicable. A 

discussion of the non-applicability was provided in the additional information provided to EPA for 

the renewal appl ication on January 16, 2006. 

c. Under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKKK (ibid. - typo, should be KKK), change "The Florida River 

Compression Facility does not extract natural gas liquids" to "The Florida River Compression 

Facility does not extract or fractionate natural gas liquids," 

d. Under 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A, insert applicability to 40 CFR 63. t O(b)(3) recordkeeping 

requirement for applicability determination. 

EPA Response: The requested changes have been made. 

6. Permit, Page 9, I.E. Table 1 - Source Emission Pointsa. Change the serial number for T -1 from "0690-H" to the turbine package number "HC90781," An 

administrative amendment will be submitted for this change. 

b. Change the serial number for T-l from "0307-H" to the turbine package nwnber "HC93D50." i\n 

administrative amendment will be submitted for this change. 

EPA Response: The requested changes have been made. Per telephone discussions with BP America 

Produclion Company, the original numbers were recorded in the application incorrectly and they are 

2 
actually numbers of smaLler engine componen/s of the turbine packages. The new numbers are the 

correct numbers for lhe entire turbine package. This change does not result in any changes in 

equipment or emissions, but only changes in (he serial identification. Therefore, EPA informed BP 

America Production Company thaI it is not necessary 10 submit administrative amendment requests/or 

these changes. 

7. Permit, Page 10, Section 1.8. Table 2 - Insignificunt Emission Units -

a .. Change "1-300 gal Diesel lank" to "2-300 gal Diesel Tanks" (Note: An additional tank eXists at the 

facil i ty. PTE for this tank is less than 2 tpy of regulated po! lutants and less than 0.5 tpy of HAPs. 

This change qualifies as an off permit change, and because emissions are insignificant, no written 

notice is required to be submitted to EPA. BP will keep a record of the change that includes 

emission calculations. Since the tank is less than 75 cubic meters, NSPS Kb does not apply. 

b. Add l-99 hp Emergency Diesel Generator to the Insignificant Emission Units. (Note: The PTE for 

this unit is less than 2 tpy of regulated pollutants and less than 0.5 tpy of HAPs. This change 

qualifies as an off pennit change, and because emissions arc insignificant, no written notice is 

required to be submitted to EPA. BP will keep a record of the change that includes emission 

calculations. Additionally, the engine (DMT Corporation, Model DMT-80C, Serial No. 89411-2), 

was manufactured in October t 989 and does not trigger NSPS 1m because it was constructed prior 

to July 1\,2005, manufactured prior to April 11, 2006.) 

With respect to NESHAP ZZZZ applicability for the emergency diesel generator insignificant 

activity, the unit was constructed prior to June 12,2006 and no reconstruction has occurred since 

this date. Since the site is an area source of HAPs, the unit is thus considered existing under 

40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ. Per 40 CFR 63.6590(b)(3), the engine does not have any requirements 

under this subpart or subpart A of Part 63. No initial notification is necessary. 

EPA Response. Based on evaluation of the unit specific information provided, the requested changes 

have been made. 

8. Permit, Page 11, Section n.A. Emission Standards and Limitsa. In Part 4(b)(ii), change "Conditions II.E.3, Il.EA, H.E.S(a) and (b), ILE.6(c), and II.E.8" to 

"Conditions II.E.2, H.E.3, n.E.4(a) and (b), ILE.5(c), and I1.E.7". 

EPA Response: The requesred changes have been made 

3 
Comments from Wild Earth Guardians (WEG):1 

Comment I' "The Draft Title V Permit Fails to Ensure Compliance with Tille V and PSD 

Requirements" 

"A Tille V Permit is required to include emission limitations and standards that assure 

compliance with all applicable requirements at the lime of permit issuance. 42 USC § 

7661c(a): 40 CFR § 71. 6 (a)(1). Applicable requirements include, among other things. 

PSD requirements selforth under Title / a/the CAA and regulations at 40 CFR §52. 2 J. 

40 CFR § i 1.2. 1f a source will nOl be in compliance with an applicable requirement, 

including PSD at the lime of permit issuance, the applicant must disclose the violation 

and provide a narrafive shoWing how it will come inlo compliance. and the permit must 

include a compliance schedule/or bringing the source into compliance. 42 USC § 

7661h(bJ, 4() CFR §S,' 71.6(c)(3) and 71.5(c)(8) ... " 

;1, "The EPA Must Consider Emissionsfrom Adjacent and lnterrelaled PoilU/ant 

Emitling Activilies. including BP America's Coalbed Methane Wells and the Woll 

Point Compressor Station t{) Assure PSD Compliance ... " 

B. "The EPA Mus! Consider Emissions/rom Adjacent and Interrelated Pollutant 

Emilling Activities, including BP America's Coalbed Methane Wells and the Wolf 

Point Compressor Station (0 Assure Title V Compliance ... " 

EPA Response to WEG's Comment I: 

The EPA Region 8 Air Program (Region 8), in consultation with the EPA Office of Air Qua!ity 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and the EPA Office of General Counsel (OGC), and considering the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules at 40 CFR 52.21, the Title V Permit to Operale 

(Part 71) rules at 40 CFR Part 7 t, and past source determinations, has determined that the Plorida 

River Compression Facility (Florida Ri ver), the Wolf Point Compressor Station (Wolf Point). and the 

numerous well sites2 located within the Northern San Juan Basin (NSJI3) and owned or operated by SP 

should not be aggregated together in defining the source to be permitted under PSD and Part 71 

regulations. Please see EPA's detailed discussion in Response to WEG's Comment [} below. 

I Comments from Rocky Mountain Clean A ir Action, Draji Tir/e V Operaring Permit for Florida River Compression 

Facility received by U.S. EPA Region 8 Air Program on May! 9,2008. Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action merged with 

Wild Earth Guardians (WEG), and thus these comments wi!! be referred to hereinafter as the WEC Comments. 

2 No distinction is being made between those well sites with pollutant em itting activities and those without pollutant 

em itti ng acti v ities. 

4 
Comment II: "The EPA Cannol Rely on {he 2007 Wehrum lviemo When Permitring the Florida River 

Compression Facility" 

.. We undersland that EPA may be inclined 10 rely on a flawed policy guidance memo 

issued hy former political appointee and EPA Assistanl Administrator. William L. 

Wehrum (hereajfer .. Wehrum memo OJ when permitting (he Florida River Compression 

Facilily. This memo claims to provide guidance for determining if and how to 

aggregate pollutant emitting activilies related to oil and gas operations under New 

Source Review ("NSR "j and Tille V permitting programs. We re:,pectfully submit (hat 

this gUidance memo inappropriately subverts the plain language offederal NSR and 

Title V regulat ions and that it would be inappropriate for the EPA to rely on this memo. 

What's more, (he memo was illegally promulgated withoul prior rulemaking, in 

viola/ion o/the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA "). " 

1. "The Wehrum Memo is Substantively Flawed ... " 

2. "The Wehrum Memo is Procedurally Flawed ... " 

" ... A ccordingly, as the EPA moves to analyze whet her or not fa aggregate 

interrelated pollutant emitting activities with the Florida River Compression 

Facility the agency must engage in a thorough and in-depth assessment thaI 

does not simply rely on the Wehrum memo, but addresses the extent to which the 

Florida River compression Facility is operating independently The EPA mus! 

conduct a/actual and legal analysis thaI assesses whelher coa/hed me/hone 

'wells and the Waf/Point compressor Station are connected /0 the Florida River 

compression Facilily hy pipelines are inlerrelaled pol1want emitting Clt/ivilies 

that should be aggregared with the Compression Facility as a single source, " 

EPA Response to WEG's Comment II: 

EPA has not relied on the Wehrum Memo) in making thIs detennination. The Wehrum Memo was 

withdrawn with a September 22,2009, Memorandum from Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Air and Radiation, titled, Withdrawal a/Source Determination/or Oil and Gas Industries 

(McCarthy Memo avai lable at http://www.epa.gov/region 7/air/nsrlnsrmemos/oilgaswilhdrawal,pdj). 

For purposes of determining applicability of the PSD, nonattainment New Source Review (NSR), and 

title V programs of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the McCarthy Memo states that permitting 

authorities should rely foremost on the three regulatory criteria for identifying emissions activities that 

belong to the same "building," "structure," "facility," or "installation ," These are: (I) whether lhe 

activities are under the control of the same person (or person under common control); (2) whether the 

activities are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties; and (3) whether the activities 

belong to the same indus1Tial grouping. [See 40 C.F.R. Sections 70.2,71.2,63.2, 51.165(a)(I)(i) 

and(ii), and SI.166(b)((5) and (6); and 40 C.F .R. 52.21 (b)(6).] The McCarthy Memo emphasized that 

whether to aggregate sources for purposes of PSD, NSR, and title V applicability is a case-by-case 

detennination that represents highly fact specific decisions, and that no single detemination can serve 

3 Source DI!/erminafionsjor Oil and Gas Industries, William Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air (Jan. 12, 

2007), EPA docket EPA·HQ·OAR-2007-0629. 

5 
as an adequate justification for how to treat any other source determination for poHutant-emitting 

activities with different fact-specific circumstances. 

As explained in more detail below, when evaluating the extent of the source for this permit action, 

EPA relied on the PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21, the Title V Permit to Operate (Part 71) rules at 40 CFR 

Part 71) the opinion of the court in the Alabama Power decision,4 and past determinations5 that 

provide insight into the nuances of interpreting the intent of the regulations. EPA also used 

information provided by BP, such as a map showing the NSJB well sites owned and operated by BP 

surrounding the Florida River F acil i ty.6 B P also provided a description of the gas system and the gas 

movement from the well sites to various facilities in the NSJB field operated by both BP and other 

companies, and a detailed explanation of the interactions of the numerous operators in the NSJB that 

produce and process the coal bed methane gas from the field, 

EPA conducted a factual and legal analysis in determining that BP's florida River, Wolf Point, and 

well sites located in the NSJB are separate sources. Below is EPA's detailed analysis, 

EP A Discussion 

Stationary source determinations are made on a case-by-case basis considering the foundational 

concepts provided in the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. The following analysis only 

applies to Florida River. Wolf Point, and well sites in the NSJ13 owned and operated by BP, 

The scope of this source analysis includes the following components: 

The Florida River Compression facilitv (Florida River): Florida River was first permitted for 

construction in 1987 to process coal bed methane (CBM) gas produced in the NSJB by reducing the 

CO2 and water content to within pipeline specifications.? By 1991, Florida River handled 60 million 

standard cubic feet per day (mmscfd) of gas, and by 1998, that volume had been increased to 200 

mmscfd. Florida River currently processes 380 mmscfd, with a plant capacity of 400 mmscfd.8 

4 Alabama Power Company v. Coslfe, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C Cil'. 1980) . 

5 See, e.g" leller from Richard R. Long, Director of EPA Region 8 Air and Radiation Program, to Lynn R McnloYe,EPA 

opinion o/the source i!1regard 10 (he Greal Sail Lakes Minerals plant and a pump Sial ion (August 8, 19(7) [hereinafter 

Greal Sail j.akes Minl!rals]; memo from Robert G, Kellam, EPA OAQPS, to Richard R. Long, Director of EPA Region 8 

Air Program, Analysis oj the Applicability oj PreventIOn ofSigniJicanl Deterioralion 10 the Anhiuser-B!lsch, Im:orporaled 

Brewery and NuJri-LUrj, Incorporated Landform (August 27, 1996) [hereinafter Anheuser-Busch Nutn-lUrj]; memo from 

Douglas E. Hardesty, Manager of EPA Region 10 Air Programs, to Robert R. Robichaud. Manager of EPA Region to 

NPDES Permits Unit, Permilling a/Foresl Oil's Kusta/on Production Facility and Osprey Platform Pursuant 10 the Alaska 

SIP (August 21, 200 I)[hereinafrer Forest Oil]; Letter from Richard R. Long, Director of EPA Region 8 Air and Radiation 

Program, to Lynn R. Menlove, Utah Division of Air Quality,Response to Request for Guidance in Defining Adjacent with 

Respect/o Source Aggregation (May 21, 1998) [hereinafter Guidance in Defining A djacenl]. 

6 BP information included as part of the record for this determination. 

7 Natural gas received and transported by the major intrastate and interstate mainline transm iss ion systems must meet the 

quality standards specified by pipel ine companies in the "General Terms and Conditions (GTC)" section of their tariffs. 

These quality standards vary from pipeline to pipeline and are usually a function ofa pipeline system's design, its 

downstream intcrconnexting pipelines, and its customer base. 

8 See Florida River Compression FaCility Title V Renewal Application Perlllli No V-SU-()()22-00 0';, received by U.S. 

EPA Region 8 Air Program on December l, 2005 [hereinafter Florida River AppliClJlion] at I; Supplemental Comments on 

FlOrida RIVer Planl Renewal Title V Operilling Permit, received by U.S. EPA Region 8 A ir Program on February 18, 2010 

[hereinafter Bf> Supplemenlat] at 4. 5. 

6 
The Wo!fPoint Compressor Station (Wolf Point): Wolf Point is a compressor station that first went on 

line in May of 200 1. Wolf Point is a central delivery point (CDP)9 for coal bed methane gas produced 

by BP-operated and third party-operated well sites. Gas handled by Wolf Point is compressed and 

dehydrated, and then tlows via BP-operated and third-party-operated medium-pressure pipelines to 

Florida River OR to other third-party-operated CDPs. Wolf Point is physically separate from Florida 

River. It is located approximately 4.5 miles away from Florida River and separated by rugged terrain.1o 

Well sites: The NSJB gas field is approximately 20 miles (north to south) by 30 mites (east to west) 

and contains thousands of well sites operated/controlled by several different companies. I I As of the 

time of this permitting action, the BP-operated weI! sites are spread throughout the entire basin and 

range in distance from Florida River from as far away as 18 miles to within eyesight of the facility. 

While some of these wells are close to Florida Ri vcr, they are not physically contiguous with it.12 

Analvsis 

The federal PSD requirements apply to the construction of major stationary sources and major 

modifications at a major stationary source. See 40 CFR 52.210). The federal title V requirements 

apply, in part, to the operation of major sources (meaning any stationary source as defmed in 40 CFR 

71.2). See 40 erR 71.3. 

The PSD regulations define stationary source as, "any building, structure, facility, or installation which 

emits or may emit a regulated New Source Review pollutant" 40 CFR 52.21(b)(5). The part 71 

regulations define stationary source as, "any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or 

may emi t any regulated air poll utant or any pollutant listed under section 112(b) of the Act." See 

40 eFR 71.2. In promulgating the title V major source definition found at 40 erR § 71.2, EPA was 

clear that the language and application of the title Y definition was to be consistent with the PSD 

defmition contained In section 52.21. Sec 61 Fed. Reg. 34202,34210 (July 1,1996). 

The PSD regulations go on to define "building, stmcture, facility, or installation" as: 

... all of the pollutant-emitting activities which belong to the same industrial grouping, are 

located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under the control of the same 

9 A CDP is a gathering point in the field to which the raw natural gas from a number of wells can 'flow, The gas from the 

COP is then sent 10 olher gathering points, a processing plan!, or a treating faciliry in the field, or it cun be sent directly to 

interstate or intrastate gas transportation pipelines, 

10 Sec BP Supplem~nlal at 12, 13, \ 4, Exhibit H [deleted "supra note" references from all footnotes as not required given 

the shortened cile and the numbers were not always matching up 1 

II Companies include Big Run Production Company, BP America Production Company, Encrvcst OperatingLLC, Red 

Mesa Holdings/O&G LLC, Chevron Midcontinent LP, Chevron USA Inc, Coleman Oil & Gas Inc, Conoco Phillips 

Company, Dugan Production Corp, Burlington Resources Oil & Gas LP, Elm Ridge Exploration Co LLC, Energen 

Resources, Corporation, Four StaT Oil & Gas Company, Gosney & Sons Inc, Holcomb Oil & Gas Inc, Hubbs 1[1, LLC, 

Huntington Energy LLC, Maralex Resources, Inc, Mcelvain Oil & Gas Properties, Merrion Oil & Gas Corp, Murchison 011 

& Gas Inc, Pablo Operating Company, Petrogulf Corporation, San Marco Petroleum Inc, Samson Resources Company, SG 

Interests I Ltd, Red Willow Production Company, Synergy Operating LLC, Thompson Engineering & Production. Black 

Hills Exploration and Production Inc, Williams Production Company LLC, Williford Resources, LLC, SmmOl1s, Inc, XTO 

Energy Inc. See the database at Colorado Oil and Cas Conservation Commission (COCCC) website al 

mJj'2'.!LfJ1.!i~(}~iilli{lf:f:!'L.;Yl [h ere i na fter COGCLl,' search on Prod uct i on/OperatorslY ear Ran ge 20 I 0 to 201 OILa Plata cou n ry. 

12 See BP Supplemental, at 8, Exhibit H 

7 
person (or persons under common control). Pollutant-emitting activities shall be considered as 

part of the same industrial grouping if they belong to the same "Major Group" (i.e., which have 

the same first two digit code) as described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 

1972, as amended by the 1977 supplement. 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(6); see also 40 CFR 71.2 (defining a title V "major source" to include "any 

stationary source (or any group of stationary sources that are located on one or more contiguous or 

adjacent properties, and are under common control (or persons under common control)), belonging to a 

single major industrial grouping"). 

Florida River, Wolf Point, and some of the NSJB well sites are individually considered "stationary 

sources" to the extent that they contain equipment that emits regulated air pollutants. [n order for 

Florida River, Wolf Point, and the emission-producing well sites to be considered one stationary 

source, the three elements of the "stat ionary source" defi nition would need to be satisfied: (1) they 

must be "under the control of the same person (or persons under common control);" (2) they must 

"belong to the same industrial grouping;" and (3) they must be "located on one or more contiguous or 

adjacent propenies." 

L The activities belong to the same industria! grouping. EPA has detennined that Florida River, 

Wolf Point, and the well sites belong to the same industrial grouping (i.e., they have the same SIC 

code). 

WEG suggested in their comments to EPA Region 8 that EPA should aggregate Florida River with 

Wol f Point and numerous BP-operated wells across the NSJB as support facilities to Florida River 

since they are interrelated. According to WEG, "Some or all of BP's coalbed methane wells dearly 

provide coalbed methane gas to the Florida Compression Facility. Thus the facility depends upon the 

operations of these wells for its function. Similarly, all or some the coal bed methane wells owned and 

operated by BP depend upon the Florida River Compression Facility for their operations. Without the 

existence of the Florida River Compression Facility, all or some ofBP's coalbed methane wells would 

cease to operate as there would be no means of compressing, processing, and transporting natural gas 

to market pipelines."l) While WEO makes these allegations, they provide no support for them. 

WEO refers to the terms "support facility" and "interrelated;" however, \\!EO docs not evaluate how 

these terms are discussed in the 1980 PSD regulations preamble. The term "interrelated" arises from 

the discussion of "support facility ." EPA's only reference to interrelationship in the preamble is 

specific to how SIC codes may be applied when considering sources with different major SIC codes, 

but that appear to have some form of functional interdependence. According to the 1980 preamble: 

... EPA accepted the ... use of the SIC classification code for distinguishing between sets of 

activities on thc basis of the functional interrelationships. While EPA sought to distinguish 

between activities on that basis, it also sought to maximize the predictability of aggregating 

activities and to minimize the difficulty of administering the definition. To have merely added 

function to the proposed definition would have reduced the predictability of aggregating 

activities under that definition dramatically, since any assessment of functional 

interrelationships would be highly subjective. 45 FR 52696. 

13 WEG Comments at 4. 

8 
The preamble clarifies that "support facilities" that "convey, store, or otherwise assist in the production 

of the principal product or group of products produced or distributed, or services rendered" should be 

considered under one source classification, even when the support facility has a different two-digit SIC 

code. See 45 FR 52696. Thus one source classification encompasses both primary and support 

fad 1 ities, even when the latter inc! udes uni ts with a different two digit SI C code. Whi Ie EP A's prior 

determinations involving support facilities are instructive, Florida River, Wolf Point, and the well sites 

already share a common SIC code, Therefore, there is no reason to analyze whether there is a support 

facility relationship between these various emissions points. While there is nothing in the 1980 

preamble providing that a support facility analysis should override the separate requirement that 

sources be "contiguous or adjacent," to the extent that the WEG comments are suggesting that 

interrelatedness also be addressed as part of the "contiguous or adj acent" analysis, please sec point 3 in 

the analysis below. 

2. The activities are under the control of the same person (or person Illnder common control). 

EPA has determined that Florida River, Wolf Point, and the BP-operated well sites in the NSJB are 

under the common control of BP as of the time of this permitting action. 

3. The activities arc not contiguous and adjacent. While Florida River Compression Facility, Wolf 

Point Compressor Station, and NSJB wells are not contiguous, WEG asserts that Florida River 

Compression Facility. Wolf Point Compressor Station, and all the wells in the NSJB field are 

"adjacent" and "interrelated" to one another, and thus must be considered a single source under both 

PSD and title V.14 In so doing, WEG argues that two facts alone - the co-location of the various 

emission points wi thin the N SJB field and the ability 0 f those points to supply gas to the F lorida River 

facility - are enough to make all of these various emission points a single sOlU"ce. 15 However, WEG's 

argument is inconsistent "",rith EPA's past statements interpreting the "contiguous and adjacent" part of 

the source definition. Wl1ile it is true that EPA found that non-contiguous emissions points separated 

by significant distances can be "adjacent" (and thus a single source) based on their interrelatedness, 

such determinations were only made in circumstances in which those emission points had a unique or 

dedicated interdependent relationship with one another. 16 That is not the case here. As explained 

below, while gas from Wolf Point and the various wells can supply gas to Florida River, they can also 

supply gas to other non-BP facilities in the field and thus do not have the type ofdedicated 

interrelatedness that was determinative in other EPA statements on this issue. 

14 WEG Comments at 5, 6, and 7. 

15 WEG '5 Comments did not identify any specific wells that should be aggregated with Florida River or provide anything 

beyond general claims of adjacency and interrelatedness. See generally WEG Comments al 3-7. 

16 See, e.g., Greal Salt Lakes Minerals at 2 (finding a salt processing plant and pump station separated by more than 20 

miles to be a contiguous and adjacent single source because of Ihe "unique relationship" and a dedicated channel beTween 

the two facilities); Anheuser-Busch NUlri-lw/at 3-4 (finding a brewery and land farm separated by 6 miles to be contiguous 

and adjacent based on the integrated relationship between them where the and farm was the only form of waste disposal for 

Inc brewery and there was a dedicated pipeline between them) The WEG Comments reference a 1999 letter to argue al 

EPA has cstabl ished that compressor stations and their associated wells must be considered a single source (see id at 6-7), 

but that lel1er actually found that there were five different title V sources, each consisting of single compressor and selec1 

wells and equipment. See Letter from Richard R. Long. Director orEPA Region 8 Air and Radia~on Program, to Jack 

Vaughn, EnerVes! San Juan Operaring Co. (July 8, 1999), at 2. While chat letter did not contain a derailed analysis of the 

various elements of the 3-part source determ ination, it did not aggregate a number of compressors and an entire field of 

wells as WEG is arguing must be done in this case. 

9 
In the initial promulgation of the 3-part major source definition, EPA explained that we could not "say 

precisely how far apart activities must be in order to be treated separately" and directed that such 

determinations be made on a case-by-case basis. 45 Fed. Reg. 52676,52695 (August 7, 1980).17 Since 

that time, EPA has indicated that source determinations should be made on "case-by-case" and "highly 

fact-specific" basis, where "no single determination can serve as an adequate justification for how to 

treat any other source determination for pollutant-emitting activities with different fact-specific 

circumstances" and where a fact-specific inquiry is necessary to establish whether emissions sources 

should be grouped together-IS As explained above, the McCarthy Memo recognized that while 

proximity of disparate emissions units is important, it is not necessarily the deciding factor in making 

an aggregation determination. In addi tion, other EPA guidance has noted that the while EP A had never 

established "a specific distance between pollutant emitting activities" for determining whether two faciltt5 

are adjacent, the analysis must be "determined on a c3seby-casc basis, based on the relationship between 

the facilitics.,,19 

In examining whelher two stationary sources that are not actually touching (i.e., non-contiguous) 

should be considered "adjacent," the determination has been made on a case-by-case basis, considering 

the extent to which two sources are functionally interrelated. In fact, EPA has made case specific 

determinations to aggregate where facilities were many miles apart, but where the facts dearly showed 

they operated together as a "plant." The August 21, 200 I determination made by EPA in defining a 

"source" for the Forest Oil Kustatan and Osprey Platform Construction Pennitting is an example of 

where facilities some miles apart were aggregated into a single source?O Though the two sites in the 

Forest Oil determination were 2.8 miles apart, they belonged to the same industrial grouping, were 

under the control of the same person (or persons under common control), and were determined to be 

contiguous or adj acent through an analysis of the proposed operations. Therefore, making a 

determination of this nature - where distance between facilities seems to indicate that they would be 

separate sources but for their potential interaction - requires that "contiguous or adjacent" be evaluated 

simultaneously to determine if the operations should be considered one source. 

In the 2001 Forest Oil determination, EPA Region 10 relied on guidance previously issued by EPA 

Region 8, with the assistance of EPA headquarters offices, regarding the definition of "adjacency" in 

17 While this language is taken from the preamble to the final rule promulgating the major source definition for the NSR 

permitting program, EPA was clear that in promulgating the title V mapr source definition found at 40 CFR § 71.2, the 

language and application oflhe title V definition was to be consistent with the NSR program. See 61 Fed. Reg, 34202, 

34210 (July 1,1996). 

18 Sec McCarthy Memo at 2; Inter-office Communication from Jim Geier, et ai, to Stational)' Sources Program Staff and 

Local Agencies, "Glycol Dehydration Unils- permit issues," January 4,1995, at 2 (slating that EPA "will review oil and 

gas facilities under the operating permit rules LO determine if a permit is neededfor criteria pollutants. As is the case for 

construction perm its. em issions units on the same or contiguous properties wi 11 be added together to determ ine if the source 

is major. Sources owned or controlled by the same company that are located on widelyseparated, non-contiguous property 

will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine if an operating permit is needed!'). Sec also guidance 

referenced in note 14, supra. 

19 Memo from Robert G. Kellam, EPA OAQPS, to Richard R. Long, Director of EPA Region 8 Air Program (August 27, 

1996), at 3. Sec also letter from Joan Cabreza, Permits Team Leader for EPA Regjon 10 Office of A ir Qual ity, to Andy 

Ginsburg, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (August 7, 1997) (stating that the 'Common sense notion of a 

plant" is the "guiding principle" in determ ining how "near" faei lities need to be in order to be found "adjacent" and thus a 

single source, such thaI "pollutant em itting activities that comprise or support the primary product or activity of acompany 

or operation must be considered part of the same stational)' source") 

20 See Forest Oil. 

10 
source determinations for air quality construction permitting of oil and gas production units.21 Based 

on this guidance and the facts involved in Forest Oil, EPA concluded that the Forest Oil Kustatan 

Facility and Opsrey Platform were "exclusively dependent" on each other and determined that they 

should be considered "adjacent" under the applicable PSD regulations?2 Such a determination is 

consistent with EPA's past statements regarding source determinations in other industries, which only 

aggregated various distant emi ssions points tnto a single source if there was a unique or ded icated 

interdependent relationship between them. 23 Based on analysis and guidance provided in the Forest Oil 

determination and other EPA guidance, Region 8 has reviewed the specific facts surrounding Florida 

River, Wolf Point and the well sites in the NSJB field, in order to determine the type of interrelatedness 

these facilities have with each other. Our case-by-case determination, as based on our analysis of the 

information provided by BP,24 appears below. 

At the outset, we note that Wolf Point and the BP-owned well sites do not exhibit the exclusive 

dependency found in Forest Oil or the dedicated interrelatedness that was detenninative in other EPA 

source guidance in which distant facilities were aggregated into a single source. Regardless of the 

distance between the various emission points, the flow of gas in the NSJB field is complex and 

dynamic, with several different companies operating within the production and transportation system 

under various business agreements to ensure the continued now of gas regardless of "issues" at anyone 

facility, providing tlexibility and reliabiliTy of the system. Specifically, for example, gas from the BP 

owned and operated wel! sites nows to low pressure pipeline systems (which can be owned and/or 

operated by either BP or third parties), to central points of delivery for compression (which can also be 

owned and/or operated by either BP or third parties), then to medium pressure pipeline systems (once 

again, which can be owned andlor operated by either BP or third parties) and then to the Florida 

Facility OR to third party owned and operated plants?5 

The lack of a uniquely integrated operation between the variolls emission points in this field, and thus a 

lack of "adjacency," is also evidenced by the fact that the oil and gas production process in the NSJB is 

split among different facilities. There are dozens of points across the field where BP-gathered gas can 

be offloaded to other companies' pipelines, compressors, or gas plants or where BP may accept gas 

from non-BP-operated wells and systems.26 BP has agreements with other third party oil and gas 

gathering companies to accept, compress, and treat BP's gas and vice versa?7 In each instance where 

2 \ See Forest Oil al 5 (citing the Ulilily Trailer guidance). 

22 See Furest Oil al 5, 

23 See note 14, supra; see also Lener from Steven C. Riva, Chief of EPA Region Air Permitting Section, to John T. 

Higgins, New York Stale Department of Environmenral Conservation,SI, Lawrence Cemenl's (SLC's) Proposed Greenpofl 

Project and ils Relationship with ils Exisling Catskill Fw.:ility Located 6 Miles Apart for Ihe Purpose of New Source Review 

(NSR)IPrevenlion of Sfgn ijic ant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) Applicabifiry (October 1 I, 2000) (finding two cement 

processing plants located 6 miles away and across the Hudson River were separate PSD sources because the 'lim ited 

functional interrelationship between the two facil ities does not outweigh the evidence that the two facilities do not meet [he 

"common sense" notion of a single plane'). 

24 See Florida River Application. supra note 6; BP S'upplemental, supra note 6: BP America Production Company FlOrida 

River Compression Faci/iry proposed Air Pollution Control Til/e V Permilto Operare Number V-SU-0022-05,00, 

December \ 7, 2009 [hcrcinartcr 121/7/2009 Clarification]; Flof/da River Compression F QedilY Proposed Tille V Permit 

No. V-SU-0022-05.00 Clarifo:ution afDecember /7,2009 Flow DeScription and Proximily Map, December .28,2009 

[here i na fte r 1212812009 Cf arijiuJI ion J 

25 See 12/1712009 ClarijiclJliol1 al Appendix A. 

26 Companies include Red Cedar Gathering Company, E1 Pag) Natural Gas Company, Northwest Pipeline GP, 

Transwcstern Pipeline Company. Williams Four Corners, LLC See 12//7/2009 Clarification at Appendix B. 

27 See BP Supplemental, at Exhibits T, U, and V (Contain confidential business information). 

II 
"BP gas" is transferred to third parties or vice versa, the gatherer takes custody of and assumes liability 

for the gas while in the gatherer's possession, the ras is measured by the gatherer, and the shipper 

verifies those volumes with its own check meter. 2 The following process flow diagram illustrating the 

flow of gas in the field demonstrates the lack of a unique connection between B P facilities. 29 

BP AmDnt.Zl PTodv(:tloft c('~., ... v 

FI",rid.Bl f'l'1N""l~ l..¢mr_o:;.'1;lon r ...... 1 Hy 

0. .. .,,;,.. ().¥'"\I.rl> Flow i'U.IIllilJ1m 

I r-[lP OW'M'::: 3nc1 {)o..t'.""'lhdlum 

I 

I 

I 

~ .- .,,--L-,~",~~~,''''''~t'' 

~ fklMili R"""er CofflC~1""~-t'f\'" r(!."'IM'\' 

t ""~_~ __ '~" __ -.-"_ 

Moreover, contrary to WEG's assertions, the fact that many ofBP's NSJB wells are located in La Plata 

County does nol mean they are ·'adjacent." La Plata County covers J ,692 square miles, or nearly 1.1 

million acres. All BP owned and operated wells that"happen to be co-located within such a large area 

cannot reasonably be said to be "adjacent" to one another Simply because they are located in the same 

county. In this case, while the WEG comments make general statements about the interrelatedness of 

the various BP emission units, they do not identify anything in the record showing that the co-location 

in same field affects the degree to which the various emission points may be dependent on each other. 

In fact, the placement of oil and gas well sites, compressor stations, and gas plants in this area is driven 

by several complex factors, including the spacing area established by relevant jurisdictional authorities: 

the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission (COGCC); the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); and the 

Southern Ute Tribe. Factors such as company-specific assessments of optimal geology, engineering, 

topography, access, power, and surface owner compatibility also playa significant role. 

In addition, we note that the well sites located closest to Florida River were drilledlconstructed at 

various times over the past 25 years - many well sites existed before Florida River was constructed and 

some were constructed after Florida River was constructed.30 The locations of the older well sites were 

28 Sec 1211712009 Uari/icalion at Appendix B, 

29 See BP Suppieml!l1lal at Exhibits S. 

30 See C()(JCC, search database on Facili(ics/Weli/Couoly Code 067, and selecllhe highlighted text 'well' for date specific 

in fonnation. 

12 
driven in part by surface owner preferences and in p'art by local jurisdiction spacing orders. The 

locations of the newest well sites were based on COGCe 80~acre spacing orders (agreed to by the 

BLM and the Southern Ute Tribe), and other factors, including BP's La Plata County MOU, which 

requires new wells to use existing infrastructure in order to reduce surface disturbances. 31 

Accordingly, any assertion of "adjacency" based simply on the fact that Florida River, Wolf Point, and 

the various well sites are located in the same county or the same fieJd fails to take these important 

spatial, temporal, and regulatory attributes into account. 

While the entire NSJB gas field is highly integrated, the record shows that the individual well sitc 

operations, compression, and gas processing are conducted by completely separate and distinct 

equipment, such that gas metered at one weI! head can flow to several low-pressure gathering lines 

which may be owned or operated by BP or by other companies. Therefore, regardless of where the well 

site is located in relation to other emission points and regardless of who owns or operates those 

emission points, once the gas is pumped, it enters these intermediate pipelines, mixes with gas from 

several other companies, and is sent to various compressor stations and gas plants. Gas handled by 

Wolf Point is compressed and dehydrated, and then flows - via medium-pressure pipelines operated by 

B P or third parties - to Florida River or to other third-party-operated COPs. Thus, florida River can 

continue to operate regardless of whether Wolf Point or one, two, three, four, or all of the BP operated 

well si tes were to shut down - and vice-versa. 32 The nature of movement and mixture of the gas 

product pumped from the wells in this field means that no one well site (or compressor station) is more 

interrelated to or dependent on Florida River than any other well site, such that operations at Florida 

Ri ver do not have an exclusi ve or dedicated interrelatedness v..rith Wolf Point or the B P operated well 

sites. 

Taking into consideration the complex and diverse gas movement among the facilities, as well as the 

lack of unique interdependence among the facilities, EPA has determined that the florida River 

Compression Facility, Wolf Point Compressor Station, and BP's numerous well sites within the NSJB 

are not adjacent. 

Conclusion 

Florida River, Wolf Point, and BP's NSJB welt sites: 

1. Belong to the same industrial grouping; and 

2. Are under lhe control of the same person (or persons under common control); but 

3. Are not located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties. 

Accordingly they do not meet the three regulatory criteria for identifying emissions activities that 

belong to the same "building," "structure," "facility," or "installation" under the PSD regulations and 

should not be considered a single source for the purposes of this title V pennitting process. Consistent 

with the McCarthy Memo and EPA's other existing guidance on stationary source detenninations, this 

decision has been made on a case-by-case basis considering the facts specific to this permitting 

31 See SP Supplemental at 10. 

32 Sec BP Supplementul at I 1, 12. 

13 
scenario. Thus, neither the fmal determination nor the specific facts considered are binding on other 

source detenninations for pollutantpcmitting activities with different fact specific circumstances. 

14