### 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

DearMr. Lowe: Re: BP America Production Company FloridaRiver Compression Facility Title 

### V Permit

- Renewal #

### I 

### # V-SU-0022-05.00

Thankyou for your May 19 and 21, 2008 e-mails concerningcommentson the draft 40 CFR part 71 federal operatingpermit for BP AmericaProduction Company's (BP's) Florida River Compression Facility. The public commentperiod for this permitended onMay 19,2008
. Significantcommentswere also received from the Rocky MountainClean AirActionorganization (now WildEarth Guardians) in Denver, Colorado
. EPA Region 8 has reviewed the conunents received and has provided responses in Enclosure 1, "Responseto Comments Document." Revisions have been made to the pennitand the Statement ofBasisbased on the comments, as necessary. Based onthe information submitted in BP's part 71 application, the U.S
. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby issues the title V operating permit for Florida River Compression Facility. Enclosedyou will find the final title V operatingpermit and amended Statement ofBasis for the facility. Please review each condition carefully and note any restrictions placed on this source. Procedures for appealing this permitcanbe found in40 CFR 71.11(1). A petitionto the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) must be filed within 30 days ofreceipt ofthis final permit action
.**~**

### "'~ Pn'n/edon RecycledPaper

### Ifyou have any questions concerning the enclosed final permit or StatementofBasis, you may contact Kathleen Paser, ofmy 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 BrendaJarrell, SUIT, Air Quality

### Program Manager



### 2Enclosure

- Response to Comments on the Florida River Compression Facility's March 2S i 2008 DraftTitle V Permit to Operate 

### Commentsfrom BPAmericaProduction Company 1. Statement ofBasis, Page I, Section La

- Facility Information: Location

- 3. 

### Change "SE/4, SW/4" to 

### "SE '14, 

### SW Y<.." EPA Response: The requestedchange has been made. 2. Statement ofBasis, Page 1, Section Lb

- Facility Information: Contacts

-


### a. For 

### Facility Contact, change "970-247-69lJ" 

### to "970-375-7540." b. 

### for the 

### Company Contact, change "501 Westlake 

### Boulevard" to "501 Westlake 

### Park Boulevard." 

### EP11 Response: The 

### requested changes have been made. 3. Statement ofBasis, Page 5, Section 1.e.

- Facility Information

- List ofall 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. Changethe serial numberfor Tw 1from "0307-H"to the turbine package number "HC93D50." An administrative amendment will be submitted for this change. EPA Response: The requestedchanges have been made. Per telephone discussions with

### BPAmerica Production Company, the originalserialnumbers were recorded in (he application incorrecllyand theyare aClual1y serialnumbers ofsmallerengine components of the turbinepackages, The new 

### numhers are the 

### correct numhersfhr (he entire turbinepackage. This 

### change does 

### not resulr in any changes in equipment oremissions, 

### bur onlychanges in (he serial identification. Therefore, 

### EPA informedBP I1merica 

### Production Company thaI it is not 

### necessary to submit adminisfrarive amendment requesls/or these changes. 4. Statement ofBasis, Page6, Section I.e.

- Facility Information

- List ofall units and emission generating activities, Table 2 -
a. 

### Change "l-Dehy #9 F!ash 

### Tank" to "I-Dehy#3 Flash Tank.", b. Change "1-238 gal CompressorOil 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 2tpy of

### regulated pollutants and less than 

### 0.5 tpy 

### ofHAPs. This

### change qualifies as an offpennit 

### change, and because 

### emissions are insignificant, no writtennotice is required to be submitted to EPA. BP will keep a record ofthe 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 ofregulated pollutants and less than 0.5 

### tpy ofHAPs. This change qualifies as an offpermit change, and because emissions are insignificant, no written notice is required to be submitted to EPA. BPwi!I keep arecord ofthe change that includes emission calculations. Additionally, the engine (DMT Corporation, Model DMT-80C, Serial No, 8941 1-2), was manufactured in October 1989 and does not triggerNSPS IIIl because 

### it was constructed prior to July ll, 2005, manufactured priorto April 11, 2006.) With respect to NESHAP ZZZZ applicability for the emergency diesel generalor insignificant activity, the unit was constructedpriorto June 12,2006 and no reconstruction 

### has occurred since this date. Since the site is an area source ofI-lAPs, 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 ofPart 63. No initial notification is necessary. EPA Response: Basedon evaluation afthe unit specific informationprOVided, the requestedchanges have been made, 5. Statement ofBasis, Page 10, Section 3 - Applicable Requirements

-
a. Under Streamlined Pennit Condition, change "1I.E.8" to "H.E.7." b. Insert an applicahility discussion of40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Dc. This subpart is not applicable. A discussion 

### ofthe non-applicability 

### was provided in the additional information provided to EPA for the renewal application on January 16, 2006.

c. Under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKKK (ibid.

- typo, shouldbe 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.tO(b)(3) recordkeeping requirement for applicability determination. EPA Response: The requestedchangeshave been made. 6. Permit, Page9, 

### 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 changeshave been made. Per telephone discussions with BP America Produclion Company, the originalnumbers were recorded in the application incorrectlyandthey are 2

### actually numbers of smaLler engine componen/s of the turbinepackages. The new numbers are the correct numbersfor lhe 

### entire turbinepackage. This change does not result in any changes in 

### equipment oremissions, but only changes in (he serial identification. Therefore, EPA informedBP America Production Company thaI it

### is notnecessary 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 facili ty. PTE for this tank is less than 2tpy 

### ofregulated po!

### lutants and less than 0.5 tpy 

### ofHAPs. This change qualifies as an offpermit 

### change, and because emissions are insignificant, no written notice is required to be submitted to EPA. 

### BP will keep 

### a record ofthe changethat 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 2tpy ofregulated pollutants and less than 0.5 tpy 

### ofHAPs. This change qualifies 

### as an offpennit change, and because emissions arc insignificant, no written notice 

### is required to be submittedto EPA. BP will keep arecord ofthe 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 triggerNSPS 

# 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 ofHAPs, 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 ofPart 63. No initial notification is necessary. 

### EPA Response. Basedon evaluation of the 

### unit specific informationprovided, the requestedchanges 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 

### requesredchanges have been made

3Commentsfrom Wild Earth Guardians (WEG):1 Comment I' "The Draft Title VPermit Fails to Ensure Compliance with Tille VandPSD Requirements" "A Tille VPermit is requiredto include emission limitations andstandards that assure compliance with allapplicable 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 andregulations at 40 CFR §52.2J. 

### 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 andprovide a narrafive shoWing how 

### it will come inlo compliance. andthepermit must include a compliance schedule/orbringing 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 EmissionsfromAdjacentandlnterrelaledPoilU/ant EmitlingActivilies. including BPAmerica's CoalbedMethane Wells and the Woll Point Compressor Station t{)Assure PSD Compliance
... " B. "The EPA Mus! Consider Emissions/romAdjacentandInterrelatedPollutant EmillingActivities, includingBPAmerica's CoalbedMethane Wells andthe Wolf Point Compressor Station (0Assure Title VCompliance
... " 

### EPA Response to WEG's CommentI: 

### The EPA Region 8Air Program (Region 8), in consultation with the EPA Office ofAir Qua!ity Planning and 

### Standards (OAQPS) and the 

### EPA Office 

### ofGeneral Counsel (OGC), and 

### considering the 

### Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) rules 

### at 40 CFR 52.21, the Title V Permit to 

### Operale (Part 71) rules at 40 CFR 

### Part 7t, 

### and past source determinations, 

### has determined that the Plorida River 

### Compression 

### Facility (Florida Ri

### ver), the 

### WolfPoint 

### Compressor Station 

### (WolfPoint). 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.

IComments from Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action,Draji Tir/e VOperaring Permit for Florida River Compression Facility received by U.S. EPA Region 8 Air Program on May!9,2008. Rocky Mountain Clean AirAction merged with Wild Earth Guardians (WEG), and thus these comments wi!! be referred tohereinafteras the WEC Comments. 2 No distinction is being made between those well sites with pollutant emitting activities and those without pollutant emitting activities. 

### 4

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

..We underslandthat EPA may be inclined 10 

### rely on a flawedpolicyguidance memo issuedhyformerpoliticalappointee andEPA AssistanlAdministrator. William 

### L. Wehrum (hereajfer
.. Wehrum memo

### OJ whenpermitting (he Florida River Compression Facilily. This memo claims toprovide guidancefor determining if andhow to aggregatepollutant emitting activilies relatedto oil andgas operations underNew Source Review ("NSR "j 

### and Tille V permittingprograms. We re:,pectfully submit (hat this gUidance memo inappropriately subverts theplain language offederalNSR and Title Vregulations andthat it

### wouldbe inappropriatefor the EPA to rely on this memo. What's more, (he memo was illegallypromulgatedwithoulprior rulemaking, in viola/ion o/theAdministrative ProceduresAct ("APA "). " 1. 

### "The Wehrum Memo is Substantively Flawed
... " 2. "The Wehrum Memo is Procedurally Flawed
... " "
...Accordingly, as the EPA moves to analyze whether or not fa 

### aggregate interrelatedpollutant emittingactivities with the Florida River Compression Facility the agency must engage in a thorough and in-depth assessment thaI does notsimply rely on the Wehrum memo, but addresses the extent to 

### which the Florida River compression Facility is operating independently The EPA mus! conduct a/actualandlegal analysis thaI assesses whelher coa/hedme/hone 'wells andthe Waf/Point compressorStation are connected/0 

### the Florida River compression Facilily hy

### pipelines are inlerrelaledpol1want emitting Clt/ivilies thatshouldbe aggregaredwith the Compression Facility as asinglesource, " 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 ofAir and Radiation, titled, 

### Withdrawal a/Source Determination/or Oil and Gas Industries (McCarthy Memo available at http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/nsrlnsrmemos/oilgaswilhdrawal,pdj). For purposes of

### determining applicability ofthe PSD, nonattainment

### New SourceReview 

### (NSR), and 

### title Vprograms ofthe 

### 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 ofthe 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 ofPSD, NSR, 

### and title V applicability is a case-by-case 

### detennination that represents highly fact specific decisions, 

### and that no single 

### detemination can serve
3Source DI!/erminafionsjor Oil andGas Industries, William Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air (Jan. 12, 2007), EPA docket EPA·HQ·OAR-2007-0629. 

### 5as an adequatejustification 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 ofthe 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 ofthe court in theAlabamaPowerdecision,4 and past determinations5that provide insight into the nuances ofinterpreting the intent ofthe 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 

### Facility.6 

### BP also 

### provided a description ofthe 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 ofthe interactions ofthe 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'sflorida River, WolfPoint, and well sites located in the NSJB are separate sources. Below 

### is EPA's

### detailed 

### analysis, EPA 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. WolfPoint, and well sites in the NSJ13 owned and operated by 

### BP, The scope ofthis 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 contentto within pipeline specifications.? 

### By 1991, FloridaRiver handled 60 million standard cubic feet per day (mmscfd) ofgas, and 

### by 1998, that volume had been increased to 200 mmscfd. Florida River currently processes 380 mmscfd, with a plant capacity of400 mmscfd.8

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

. 5 See, e.g" leller from Richard R. Long, Director ofEPA Region 8 Air and Radiation Program, to Lynn R McnloYe,EPA opinion o/thesource i!1regard 10 (he Greal Sail Lakes Mineralsplant andapump Sialion (August 8, 19(7) [hereinafter Greal Sail j.akes Minl!rals]; memo from Robert G, Kellam, EPA OAQPS, to Richard R. Long, DirectorofEPA Region 8 Air Program, Analysis ojtheApplicabilityojPreventIOn ofSigniJicanl Deterioralion 10 theAnhiuser-B!lsch, Im:orporaled Brewery andNuJri-LUrj, IncorporatedLandform (August 27, 1996) [hereinafterAnheuser-BuschNutn-lUrj]; memo from Douglas E. Hardesty, Manager ofEPA Region 10 Air Programs, to Robert R. Robichaud. Manager ofEPA Region to NPDES Permits Unit, Permilling a/Foresl Oil's Kusta/on Production Facility andOsprey Platform Pursuant 10 the Alaska SIP (August 21, 200I)[hereinafrer Forest Oil]; Letter from Richard R. Long, Director ofEPA Region 8 Air and Radiation Program, to Lynn R. Menlove, Utah Division ofAir Quality,Response to Request for Guidance in DefiningAdjacent with Respect/oSourceAggregation (May 21, 1998) [hereinafter Guidance in DefiningAdjacenl]. 6 BP information included as part ofthe record for this determination. 7 Natural gas received and transported by the major intrastate and interstate mainline transmission systems must meet the quality standards specified by pipeline companies in the "General Terms and Conditions (GTC)" section oftheir 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 VRenewalApplication Perlllli No V-SU-()()22-00 0';, received by U.S. EPA Region 8Air Program on December l, 2005 [hereinafterFlorida RiverAppliClJlion] at I; Supplemental Comments on FlOrida RIVer Planl Renewal Title VOperilling Permit, received by U.S. EPA Region 8 Air Program on February 18, 2010 [hereinafter Bf> Supplemenlat] at 4. 5. 

### 6

### The Wo!fPoint Compressor Station (WolfPoint): WolfPoint is acompressor station that first went on line in May of2001. WolfPoint is acentral delivery point (CDP)9 for coal bed methane gas produced by BP-operated and third party-operated well sites. Gas handled by WolfPoint is compressed and dehydrated, and then tlows via BP-operated and third-party-operated medium-pressure pipelinesto Florida River ORto other third-party-operated CDPs. WolfPoint 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 ofwell sites operated/controlled by several different companies. I I 

### As ofthe time 

### ofthis 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 ofthe facility. While some ofthese wells are close to Florida 

### Rivcr, they are not physically contiguous with it.12 

### Analvsis The federal PSD requirements apply to the construction ofmajor stationary sources and major modifications at amajor stationary source. See 40 CFR 52.210). 

### The federal title Vrequirements apply, in part, to the operation ofmajor 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 aregulated 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 emit 

### any regulated air pollutant or any pollutant listed under section 112(b) ofthe 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 ofthe title Ydefinition 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 ofthe 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 ofthe same
9 A CDP is a gathering point in the field to which the raw natural gas fromanumber ofwells can 'flow, The gas from the COP is then sent 10 olher gathering points, a processing plan!, or atreating 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, PetrogulfCorporation, San Marco Petroleum Inc, Samson Resources Company, SG Interests ILtd, 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 andCas Conservation Commission (COCCC) website al**mJj'2'.!LfJ1.!i~(}~iilli{lf:f:!'L.;Yl** [hereinafter COGCLl,' search on Producti on/OperatorslYear Range 20I0 to 201 OILa Plata coun ry. 12 See BPSupplemental, at 8, Exhibit H 

### 7person (or persons under common control). Pollutant-emitting activities shall be considered as partofthe same industrial grouping ifthey 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 ofstationary sources that are located on one or more contiguousor adjacent properties, and are under common control (or persons under common control)), belonging to a single major industrial grouping"). Florida River, WolfPoint, 

### and some ofthe 

### 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, WolfPoint, and the emission-producing well sitesto be considered one stationary source, the three elements ofthe "stationary source" definition would need to be satisfied: (1) they must be "under the control ofthe same person (orpersons under commoncontrol);" (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, WolfPoint, 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 Wolf 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 ofBP's coalbed methane wells dearly provide coalbed methane gas to the Florida Compression Facility. Thus the facility depends upon the operations ofthese wells for its function. Similarly, all or some the coalbed methane wells owned and operated by BP depend upon the Florida River Compression Facility for their operations. Without the existence ofthe FloridaRiver CompressionFacility, all or some ofBP's coalbed methane wells would cease to operate as there would be no means ofcompressing, 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 offunctional interdependence. According to the 1980 preamble:

...EPA accepted the
... use ofthe SIC classification code for distinguishing between sets of activities on thc basis ofthe functional interrelationships. While EPA sought to distinguish between activities on that basis, it also sought to maximize the predictability ofaggregating activities and to minimize the difficulty ofadministering the definition. To have merely added function to the proposed definition would have reduced the predictability ofaggregating activities under that definition dramatically, since any assessment offunctional interrelationships would be highly subjective. 45 FR 52696. 13 WEG Comments at 4. 

### 8The preamble clarifies that "support facilities" that "convey, store, or otherwise assist in the production ofthe principal product orgroup ofproducts produced ordistributed, 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 

### fad1 ities, even when the latter inc!udes 

### units with 

### adifferent two digit 

### SIC code. WhiIe EP

### A's prior determinations involving support facilities are instructive, Florida River, WolfPoint, and the well sites already share acommon 

### 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 oradjacent," to the extent that the WEG comments are suggesting that interrelatedness also be addressed as part ofthe "contiguous or adjacent" analysis, please sec point 3in 

### the analysis below. 2. The activities are under the control ofthe same person (or person Illnder common control). EPA has determined that Florida River, WolfPoint, and the BP-operated well sites in the NSJB are underthe common control ofBP as ofthe time ofthis permitting action. 3. The activities arc not contiguous and adjacent. While FloridaRiver Compression Facility, Wolf Point Compressor Station, and NSJB wells are not contiguous, WEG asserts that Florida River Compression Facility. WolfPoint 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 ofthe various emission points within the NSJB field and the ability 0f those points to supply gas to the Florida River facility

- are enoughto make all ofthese 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 WolfPoint 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 '5Comments did not identify any specific wells that should be aggregated with Florida River or provide anything beyond general claimsofadjacency and interrelatedness. See generally WEG Comments al 3-7. 16 See, e.g., Greal SaltLakes Minerals at 2 (finding a salt processing plant and pump station separated by more than 20 miles to be acontiguous and adjacent single source because ofIhe "unique relationship" and a dedicated channel beTween the two facilities); Anheuser-Busch NUlri-lw/at 3-4 (finding abrewery 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 ofwaste disposal for Inc brewery and there was a dedicated pipeline between them) The WEG Comments reference a 1999 letter to argue al EPA has cstablished that compressor stations and their associated wells must be considereda single source (see id at 6-7), but that lel1er actually found that there were five different title Vsources, each consisting ofsingle compressor and selec1 wells and equipment. See Letter from Richard R. Long. Director orEPA Region 8Air and**Radia~on** Program, to Jack Vaughn, EnerVes! San Juan Operaring Co. (July 8, 1999), at 2. While chat letter did not contain aderailed analysis ofthe various elements ofthe 3-part source determination, it did notaggregate a number ofcompressors and an entirefield of wells as WEG is arguing must be done in this case. 9

### In the initial promulgation ofthe 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 acase-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 adequatejustification 

### 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 ofdisparate emissions units is important, it is 

### not necessarily the deciding factor in making an aggregation determination. In 

### addition, other EPA guidance has noted that 

### the while EPAhad 

### never established "a specific distance between pollutantemitting 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 acase-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, 200I determination made by EPA in defining a "source" for the Forest Oil Kustatan and Osprey Platform ConstructionPennitting 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 adjacent through an analysis ofthe proposed operations. Therefore, making a determination ofthis 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 

### ifthe 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 ofEPA 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 Vmapr source definition found at 40 CFR §71.2, the language and application oflhe title Vdefinition 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 JimGeier, et ai, to Stational)' Sources Program Staffand 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 ifapermit is neededfor criteria pollutants. As is the case for construction permits. emissions units on the same or contiguous properties wi11 be added together to determine ifthe 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 acase-by-case basis to determine ifan 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 ofEPA Region 8 Air Program (August 27, 1996), at 3. Sec also letter from Joan Cabreza, Permits Team Leader for EPA Regjon 10 Office ofAir Quality, to Andy Ginsburg, Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality (August 7, 1997) (stating that the 'Common sense notion ofa plant" is the "guiding principle" in determining how "near" faeilities need to be in order to be found "adjacent" and thus a single source, such thaI "pollutant emitting activities that comprise or support the primary product or activity ofacompany or operation must be considered part ofthe same stational)' source") 20 See Forest Oil. 10

### source determinations for air quality construction permittingofoil 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 emissions points tnto a single source ifthere was a unique or dedicated interdependent relationship between them. 23 

### Based on analysis and guidance provided in the Forest Oil determination and other EPA guidance, Region 8has reviewed the specific facts surrounding Florida River, WolfPoint and the well sites in the NSJB field, in order to determine the type ofinterrelatedness these facilities have with each other. Our case-by-case determination, as based on our analysis ofthe information provided by BP,24 appears below. At the outset, we note that WolfPoint 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 ofthe distance between the various emission points, the flow ofgas 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 ofgas regardless of"issues" at anyone facility, providing tlexibility and reliabiliTy ofthe 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 ofdelivery 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 ofa uniquely integrated operationbetween 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 ofpoints 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 otherthird 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, ChiefofEPA Region Air Permitting Section, to John T. Higgins, New York Stale Department ofEnvironmenral Conservation,SI, Lawrence Cemenl's (SLC's) ProposedGreenpofl Project and ils Relationship with ils Exisling Catskill Fw.:ility Located 6Miles Apart for Ihe Purpose of New Source Review (NSR)IPrevenlion of Sfgnijicant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) Applicabifiry (October 1I, 2000) (finding two cement processing plants located 6 miles away and across the Hudson River were separate PSD sources because the 'limited functional interrelationship between the two facilities does not outweigh the evidence that the two facilities do not meet [he "common sense" notion ofa single plane'). 24 See Florida RiverApplication. supra note 6; BP S'upplemental, supra note 6: BPAmerica Production Company FlOrida River Compression Faci/iryproposedAirPollution Control Til/e VPermilto Operare Number V-SU-0022-05,00, December \7, 2009 [hcrcinartcr 121/7/2009 Clarification]; Flof/da River Compression F QedilYProposed Tille VPermit No. V-SU-0022-05.00 Clarifo:ution afDecember /7,2009 Flow DeScription andProximily Map, December .28,2009 [hereinafter 1212812009 Cf arijiuJIion

### 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//7/2009Clarification 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 ofand 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 ofgas in the field demonstrates the lack ofa unique connection between BP 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'sNSJB 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 ofoil and gas well sites, compressor stations, and gas plants in this area is driven 

### by several complex factors, including the spacing area established 

### by relevantjurisdictional authorities: the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission (COGCC); the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM); andthe Southern Ute Tribe. Factors such as company-specific assessments ofoptimal geology, engineering, topography, access, power, and surface owner compatibility also playasignificant 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 ofthe 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 infonnation. 12

### driven in part by surface owner preferences and in p'art by localjurisdiction spacing orders. The locations ofthe 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'sLa Plata CountyMOU, 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, WolfPoint, 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 ofwhere the well 

### site is located 

### in relation to other emission points and regardless ofwho 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 WolfPoint is compressed and dehydrated, and then flows

- via medium-pressure pipelines operated by BPor third 

### parties

- to Florida River or to other third-party-operated COPs. Thus, florida River can continue to operate regardless ofwhether WolfPoint or one, two, three, four, or all ofthe BP operated well sites were to shut down

- and vice-versa. 32 

### The nature ofmovement and mixture ofthe 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 River do not have an exclusive or dedicated interrelatedness v..rith WolfPoint or the BP operated well sites. Taking into consideration the complex and diverse gas movement among the facilities, as well as the 

### lack ofunique interdependence among the facilities, EPA has determined that the florida River Compression Facility, WolfPoint Compressor Station, and BP'snumerous well sites within the NSJB are 

### not adjacent. Conclusion Florida River, WolfPoint, and BP's

### NSJB welt sites: 1. Belong to the same industrial grouping; and 2. Are under lhe control ofthe 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 ofthis title V pennittingprocess. Consistent with the McCarthy Memo and EPA's other existing guidance on stationary source detenninations, this decision has been made on acase-by-case basis considering the facts specific to this permitting
31 See SP Supplemental at 10. 32 Sec BP Supplementul at I1, 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