EC

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

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

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

 

MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 1, 2013

SUBJECT: Summary of May 14, 2013, Meeting with Representatives from the Independent 

Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and State Associations

FROM: Heather P. Brown, EC/R Incorporated

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

I. PURPOSE

This memorandum summarizes the May 14, 2013 meeting between the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and industry representatives from the Independent Petroleum Association of 

America (IPAA) and State Associations (“the Associations”). The intent of the meeting was to 

allow IPAA and the Associations to clarify their petition for reconsideration submitted on 

October 15, 2012, as well as the April 12, 2013, proposed amendments. 

II. DATE

The meeting took place on May 14, 2013, at 10:00 am at the EPA building in the Research 

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

III. ATTENDEES

The following individuals participated in the meeting either in person or via teleconference (as 

indicated):

Industry Representatives

Sarah Bartlett, PDC Energy

James Elliott, Spilman Thomas & Battle

Andrew McNeill, Kentucky Oil & Gas Association

Michael Wallen, Magnum Hunter Production, Inc.

Dawn DeVries, ENCANA

Jim Stephens, Hard Rock Exploration

The following representatives participated in the meeting via teleconference:

Katherine Crockett, Spilman Thomas & Battle

Christi Wilson,Trinity Consultants

Rudy Vogt III , CV Resources

Chris Martinez, Noble Energy
2

Rachelle King, Triana Energy

Bill Thompson, Williams

Astrud Masterson, KY Oil and Gas Association

Matt Kellogg, IPAA

Dave Ochs, Kreibel Gas

Shane Kreibel, Kreibel Gas

Anthony Giuliani, Vorys

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

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

Amy Branning (via teleconference), Office of General Council (OGC)

Suzie Waltzer (via teleconference), Office of Atmospheric Programs (OAP)

Melissa White (via teleconference), OAP

Alex MacPherson, OAQPS

Nick Parsons, OAQPS

Rachel Agnew, OAQPS

Mike Witowsky, OAQPS

Ravi Srivastava, OAQPS

EC/R Incorporated

Heather Brown

IV. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Three issues were discussed: (1) the definition of low pressure wells; (2) issues surrounding 

control requirements; and (3) storage vessel issues.

Definition of Low Pressure Wells

The following items were discussed regarding the definition of low pressure wells:

• The Associations had issues with how EPA defined low pressure wells. They consider the 

following to be low pressure wells: stripper wells (i.e., under pressurized wells); 

conventionally fracked vertical wells; and energized frack wells.

• Low pressure wells have a much smaller environmental footprint than other types of 

wells. Accordingly, pad acreage is smaller, emissions are lower, and water usage is 

lower.

• Flowback of low pressure wells is much shorter in duration and flow, resulting in a 

smaller opportunity to recoup the cost of controls. With the exception of wells that 

employ energized fracking, flowback usually lasts somewhere between 24 hours and 2 

days. Flowback associated with energized fracking can last longer.

• Issues with the regulation as written are a combination of both technical feasibility and 

economic feasibility. However, for energized fracking, it is more technically infeasible 

because controls would require the separation of the nitrogen (N2) used for the energized 

fracking and the methane.

• Rigs and other equipment are in high demand, with larger companies getting preference 

over smaller companies.

• In order to avoid regulation of these low pressure wells, the Associations would prefer 

EPA to use an alternate applicability level for which the well completion requirements 
3

would apply. The following are examples of the levels that would be preferable to the 

current NSPS.

o The applicability level used by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission (COGCC): Green completions are required where the reservoir

pressure, formation productivity, and wellbore conditions are likely to enable the 

well to be capable of naturally flowing hydrocarbon gas in flammable or greater 

concentrations at a stabilized rate in excess of 500 mcf/d to the surface against an 

induced surface backpressure of 500 psig or sales line pressure, whichever is

greater.

o The well completion requirements would apply to wells with pressures above the 

“fresh water gradient.” The “fresh water gradient” is defined as 0.433 psig/ft x 

depth (ft). As suggested by the Associations, wells would be subject to 

requirements if the rock pressure was higher than the fresh water gradient. EPA 

mentioned that it would be necessary to better understand the basis for this 

definition and how it would be used.

• According to the Associations, the applicability levels in the 2008 COGCC rulemaking 

were based on where it was determined to be reasonable to do reduced emission 

completions (REC). No pump would be required, the 500 psig pressure requirement was 

determined to be a reasonably expected line pressure and the flowrate was likely to be 

based on economics at a natural gas price of $7/mcf. EPA mentioned that they would like 

to better understand the bases of these pressure and flowrate levels.

Issues Surrounding Control Requirements

The following issues were discussed regarding flare safety issues:

• EPA underestimated the importance of well pad space needed for a combustion device.

• Independent studies conducted by industry indicate that emissions from well completions 

are much lower than currently estimated.

• It is unclear if well operators claim that it is unsafe to use a flare, will they be required to 

make the necessary changes to make it safe for flare use.

• Combustion of flowback from a well undergoing energized fracking is inconsistent and 

unsafe.

• The requirement for maintaining records onsite is burdensome because there is typically 

nowhere to keep these records. The Associations suggested being allowed to keep the 

records at the nearest field office.

• The Associations requested that electronic igniters be allowed as an alternative to 

continuous flames and that igniters be monitored on a similar schedule as continuous 

flame monitoring (i.e., periodic). To continuously monitor electronic igniters, a 

supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system would be required, which is 

not feasible for many remote sources. As a point of information, the electronic igniter 

does not required SCADA to operate.

Storage Vessel Issues

The following storage vessels issues were discussed:

• The Associations support the proposed amendments with respect to streamlined 

monitoring and encouraged EPA to adopt these in the final rule. 
4

• There are some issues with what requirements apply to the temporary tanks under the 

requirements for REC. These tanks are frequently used to collect flowback water after the 

separator.

• The 30-day period for calculation storage vessel emissions is too short. Accurate 

production data is usually not available for about 45 days due to a lag in information flow 

from the accounting process.

• The Associations expressed concerns with what would happen if they originally 

determined that a storage vessel would have emissions less than 6 tpy based on 

production projections but spikes in production resulted in emissions greater than 6 tpy.

• The Associations supported the use of flow rate, in barrels per day, rather than emission 

for applicability determination.

• It is taking 4 to 6 months for small operators to get control equipment delivered.

• The currently proposed amendments appear to prevent the use of flares as control 

equipment for storage vessels.