EC

/RIncorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

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

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

 

MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 1, 2013

SUBJECT: Summary of June 27, 2013, Meeting with Representatives from the Texas Oil & 

Gas Association (TXOGA)

FROM: Heather P. Brown, EC/R Incorporated

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

I. PURPOSE

This memorandum summarizes the June 27, 2013 meeting between the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and industry representatives from the Texas Oil & Gas Association (TXOGA). 

The intent of the meeting was to allow TXOGA to clarify their comments submitted to EPA, 

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

II. DATE

The meeting took place on June 27, 2013, at 9:00 am at the EPA building in the Research 

Triangle Park, NC. Industry members participated via telephone.

III. ATTENDEES

The following individuals participated in the meeting:

Industry Representatives

Arnoldo Medina, Chevron

Cory Pomeroy, TXOGA

Shannon Broome, Katten Muchin Rosenman

Judy Raab, Quicksilver Resources, Inc.

Dan Isenhower, Devon Energy

Gretchen Kern, Pioneer

Tom Monahan, ExxonMobil

Roger Zygmunt, Shell

Scott Crump, Quantum Resources

Eric Tiemeyer, Energy Transfer

Ruben Herrera, BP

 1

Comment submitted by Cory Pomeroy, General Counsel, Texas Oil & Gas Association (TXOGA) OK to EPA 

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

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

22,126 (April 12, 2013), May 28, 2013. EPA Docket No.EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-4623.
2

Rupangi Faldu, Pioneer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

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

Chris Frantz, OAQPS

Charlene Spells, OAQPS

David Cozzie, OAQPS

EC/R Incorporated

Heather Brown

IV. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

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

• TXOGA believes that EPA underestimated the number of new affected facilities and that 

the supply of control devices would be insufficient. 

o If controls required to achieve compliance are not available, the standard is not 

achievable.

 A shortage in the supply of control devices will have a larger impact on 

smaller producers than larger producers. 

 Owners/operators’ ability to purchase control devices (i.e., money) is not 

necessary a driving force behind their ability to acquire control devices.

o TXOGA would prefer a compliance date of April 2014. 

• TXOGA expressed concerns about EPA’s proposed date of determination. 

o According to TXOGA, a single employee is often responsible for 

calculating/monitoring air emissions.

o Although TXOGA understood that they had to determine emissions on proposal 

dates, they thought the date of determination should have been in October 2013.

• TXOGA had issues with EPA’s proposed 4 tpy emission limit for storage vessels at well 

sites.

o According to TXOGA, it is not economically feasible for owners/operators to 

reequipped storage vessels with emission controls when monthly measurements 

predict annual emissions over 4 tpy.

o Having 2 thresholds is confusing.

o According to TXOGA, the costs associated with the removal of control devices 

from wells emitting less than 4 tpy and reusing these devices at other locations 

(e.g., conducting an engineering analysis and money for reengineering the tank to 

vent) would be similar to new installation costs.

 A 30-day compliance period does not provide owners/operators with enough 

time to comply with requirements. 

o Cost-effectiveness performance standards should not be much different from 

reinstallation.

o Based on EPA’s determination that 6 tpy is the threshold at which it becomes 

cost-effective to control VOC emissions, TXOGA believes that the reinstallation 

limit should also be set at 6 tpy. 
3

o Storage vessels that produce more than 4 tpy are subject to enforceable limits 

requiring 95 percent control of VOC emissions. 

o TXOGA inquired whether the 4 tpy threshold is based on an annual value or 4 tpy 

over a whole year of operations (i.e., an averaging period).

o TXOGA requested that EPA explain why it would be desirable for 

owners/operators to remove control devices and reuse them elsewhere, in 

particular the technical feasibility with operating a control device at such a low 

throughout. 

o EPA should clarify that the averaging period should have a rolling average instead 

of extrapolating monthly emissions for 12 months. 

• TXOGA had issues with the “nature” of events and EPA’s proposed open-ended event 

trigger language, which they believe encompasses “events” that do not lead to a longterm increase in emissions, but instead represent short-term variations in well throughput.

o TXOGA recommended that trigger events to require Group 2 controls for Group 1 

tanks be limited to specific, objectively-identifiable events that increase the VOC 

emissions rate to a level >6 tpy, which is consistent with the modification 

definition. 

o Inspectors need to easily ID an event, which is a challenge at small and widely 

spread-out facilities.

• TXOGA had issues with how EPA defined Group 1 and Group 2 storage vessels. 

o Section 60.5430 defines Group 1 and Group 2 storage vessels as those 

“constructed, modified or reconstructed” (C/M/R) as of certain dates

 TXOGA would prefer that EPA define Group 1 and Group 2 vessels in 

relation to the date that construction commenced.

o TXOGA encouraged EPA to clarify the meaning of C/M/R.

 It is unclear whether or not “construct” means completion of construction 

or the beginning of construction. 

o If a “commence construction” approach is not adopted then EPA runs the risk of 

categorizing some storage vessels as Group 1 and Group 2. 

• In regards to emergency replacement tanks, TXOGA would prefer that EPA exclude 

emergency replacement vessels from the final rule for 180 days, so that owners/operators 

have adequate time to obtain state permits.

o Many jurisdictions require a construction permit for replacement vessels if that 

vessel is subject to NSPS, which can take states several months to issue.

o Skid-mounted propane storage tanks may or may not be adequate replacements.

 According to TXOGA, while the use of a skid-mounted temporary tank 

can often provide enough lead time for an operator/owner to permit, 

install, and secure a control device for a new permanent tank, that may not 

always be the case. 

• TXOGA would prefer that the requirement for responsible officials to certify compliance 

and reports be eliminated and the period for submittal of reports, certified by a 

responsible official or not, be extended. 

o This requirement should only apply to “major sources,” because it is grounded in 

the Title V program.
4

o TXOGA believes that the requirement for responsible officials is burdensome and 

costly.

 The requirement that a responsible official have overall responsibility over 

one or more facilities is specific for facilities that have large numbers of 

employees (250 persons) or revenues exceeding several million dollars

($25 million). According to TXOGA, the oil and gas facilities are 

generally very small with full-time employees and low revenue, so this

requirement would be impractical.