Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7592
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2016-06-03T04:00Z

MEMORANDUM   

TO:		Charlene Spells, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/FIG

FROM:	David Hendricks, EC/R, Inc.

DATE:	November 19, 2015

SUBJECT:	Summary of the November 5, 2015, Meeting with Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I.	INTRODUCTION

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko) requested this meeting with EPA to present an overview of their comments on the September 18, 2015 proposed Oil and Natural Gas Sector NSPS (80 FR 56593), proposed FIP for Indian Country Minor Source NSR (80 FR 56553), and proposed Source Determination Rule (80 FR 56579).

II.	ATTENDEES

The following is a list of participants in the meeting.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jameel Alsalam (by phone)
David Cozzie
Carl Daly (by phone)
Amy Hambrick
Bruce Moore
Lourdes Morales
Greg Nizich
Claudia Smith (by phone)
Chris Stoneman
Lisa Thompson
Cheryl Vetter
Suzie Waltzer (by phone)
Matthew Witosky
Anadarko Petroleum
Julia Jones
Charl Schlichteineur
Angela Zivkovich

EC/R Incorporated
David Hendricks (by phone)

III.	SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Bruce Moore opened the meeting and explained to the attendees that since the EPA is in the post-proposal phase of the NSPS and CTG, EPA personnel would listen to their comments but cannot respond to any of the issues raised. However, the EPA welcomed the comments. The attendees offered the following comments.

Tribal NSR
 Anadarko operates in tribal areas of Utah, which may be transitioning into an ozone nonattainment area. As they understand the proposed requirements, sources in this area would be subject to site-specific preconstruction permitting requirements until an implementation plan is approved. Anadarko does not believe that the permitting agency resources are available to provide responses to the preconstruction requests in a timely manner.
 EPA requested Anadarko's comments on how the period between when an area is designated nonattainment until an implementation plan is in place should be handled.
 Suggested that the registration process for Application for Permit to Drill (APD) not include ESA review of impacts to threatened or endangered species, or NHPA review of impacts to historic properties. Claimed that their current APDs do not address ESA or NHPA.

NSPS Proposal
                  
 Fugitive Emissions Monitoring Program
 Anadarko has developed significant fugitives monitoring plans in response to state requirements. Due to the level of resources they have devoted to developing and implementing these plans, Anadarko expressed concern over how equivalence between these plans the proposed subpart OOOOa requirements would be determined.
 Because there are so many different factors to consider that it would essentially be impossible to determine whether the emission reductions between plans are equivalent. They suggested that the equivalence determination should be based on a plan element approach. Thus, as long as a plan developed for state or local requirements has all the elements of the proposed subpart OOOOa plan (OGI monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, etc.), then the plan would be equivalent.
 If an equivalence determination is based on each and every detail of the proposed subpart OOOOa plan, then it would be so restrictive that equivalence could never be determined.
 EPA should address differences in monitoring frequencies between state rules and the proposed subpart OOOOa plan. If facilities have to monitor according to two different frequencies, then the burden would be excessive.
 EPA should allow states to develop their own fugitives monitoring plan if they do not already have one.
 EPA requested that Anadarko provide comments on how such an equivalency plan could be implemented, including what criteria EPA could evaluate to determine equivalency. EPA also requested comments on how to address enforceability across requirements from multiple states.
 Components such as thief hatches and Enardo valves are not the typical types of components that they have addressed for leaks. They believe the proposed subpart OOOOa would force these components to be vapor tight, which would force emissions out the storage vessel vent pipe instead.
 The proposed BOE threshold would exclude very little.
 Expressed concern that the compliance period is not long enough to develop and implement plans.
            
Source Determination Rule

 (1/4) Mile Radius
 Anadarko presented a series of handouts showing the potential effects of defining "adjacent" facilities in terms of (1/4) mile proximity to one another.
 Concluded that a (1/4) mile proximity requirement would result in essentially constant permit modifications.
 They would lose certainty as to when they could drill a new well because they would be delayed waiting on the permitting process to play out.
 Requested guidance on from where the (1/4) mile should be measured (center of site, edge of site, etc.). EPA requested that they submit comments on suggested approach.
 Pointed out that Texas incorporates a (1/4) mile proximity factor, but it is not determinative by itself. The Texas requirements use a 4-prong test, not just proximity.
 Suggested that "adjacent" should mean "physically abutting." Also suggested that the properties should have a permanent building/structure/installation on site.