Source: http://elawreview.org/articles/the-control-of-air-pollution-on-indian-reservations/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:34:09+00:00

Document:
Changes in oil and gas production technology in recent years led to a boom in domestic oil and gas production. Between 2010 and 2014, petroleum production increased 59% and natural gas production increased by 22%. While this production has reduced the nation’s dependence on imported fuel, it has resulted in serious air pollution problems developing in sparsely populated oil and gas production areas of the western United States including Indian lands. The lack of effective air pollution controls, particularly on existing oil and gas well operations, has made it difficult to control emissions from this industry. This Article looks at the efforts being made to deal with air quality issues arising in Indian country that involve a legal regimen that differs from the program applicable to the rest of the nation. It examines the air pollution control program applicable to Indian lands in Utah where approximately 40% of the active oil wells and 2.4% of the gas wells are located in Indian reservations.
Indian lands in 2014 produced 1.8% of U.S. crude oil, 0.4% of the natural gas liquids, and 1.0% of the natural gas production. Royalty income from energy and mineral resources in 2015 is projected to exceed $1 billion, and is the largest source of revenue generated from Indian Trust lands. Moreover, the energy industry is a major source of employment responsible for an estimated 96,080 jobs. Because energy production from Indian lands is concentrated in the West, the local economic benefits are significant. Nevertheless, some Indian officials believe onerous restrictions by the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are responsible for the relatively small percentage of domestic production from Indian lands. Regardless of whether changes in regulations would increase production, the current level of oil and gas production in Indian country is contributing to high concentrations of ambient ozone that threatens public health and the environment.
Indian tribes have inherent sovereignty under the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, they are considered domestic dependent nations, and the Federal government is the trustee, which results in the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) playing an important role in regulating air pollution in Indian country. The present federal policy is to encourage Indian tribes to manage their land and resources subject to restrictions imposed by Congress.
The United States government is the trustee for the 566 tribal entities in the forty-eight contiguous states and Alaska that are recognized by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. A large number of the tribes are in Alaska because each native village is considered a tribal entity. An Indian tribe “means an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994.” Indian tribes control approximately 326 land areas, which encompass over 56 million acres of Indian reservations. There are over 300 Indian reservations in the continental United States. The largest reservation is the Navajo Nation with more than 16 million acres in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Many reservations, however, are less than 100 acres.
As used in this Article, “Indian reservation” corresponds to the first prong of the term “Indian country” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1151, i.e., “all land within the limits of any Indian reservation.” Tribal jurisdiction is complicated. Tribes have inherent sovereignty over their members and their territory, generally do not have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, and generally do not have civil authority over the conduct of nonmembers of the tribe on nontrust land within reservation boundaries. Except that tribes may have authority to regulate the conduct of nonmembers who have consensually entered into commercial dealings with the tribe, or whose conduct threatens the political integrity, economic security, or health or welfare of the tribe. However, an Indian tribe has very limited authority to regulate the conduct of non-Indians occurring outside reservation boundaries. States generally do not have authority to implement environmental protection laws in Indian country.
Determining what constitutes Indian country can be challenging. For example, on October 30, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia defined Indian lands as land validly set apart “for the use of the Indians . . . under the superintendence of the Government.” The D.C. Circuit in 2014, vacated the definition of Indian country with respect to nonreservation areas of Indian country (i.e., dependent Indian communities and Indian allotments). The court held that the states, not the tribes or EPA, have initial primary responsibility for implementation plans under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in nonreservation areas of Indian country in the absence of a demonstration of tribal jurisdiction by EPA or a tribe. EPA has amended its regulation to be consistent with the court’s decision. Moreover, over time the boundaries of reservations change. For example, the Ute Indian Tribe in Utah occupies the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. Its exterior boundary is defined by the original boundaries of the Uintah Valley Reservation and the addition of the Uncompahgre Reservation and the Hill Creek Extension. However, the land within the reservation has been reduced by allotments of land, particularly the General Allotment Act of 1887, as well as other federal actions including the 1905 National Forest withdrawals. Moreover, there are four categories of non-trust lands within the reservations. This has resulted in years of litigation over which lands within the exterior boundaries of the reservation are Indian lands. In June 2016, the State of Utah, two Utah counties, and the Ute Indian Tribe announced agreements concerning tribal and state jurisdiction. There will be cross-deputization of state, local, and tribal police, but the Tribal Court will not exercise civil and regulatory authority over reservation lands owned by nonmembers, which will include environmental regulation. However, this agreement does not affect EPA, which has primary jurisdiction over environmental regulation on Indian reservations.
EPA administers the CAA, which since 1970 has been the primary legal authority for administering and enforcing air pollution control requirements. The CAA requires each state to submit and receive EPA’s approval of a state implementation plan (SIP) to control stationary sources. If there is not an approved SIP, EPA is to develop and implement a federal implementation plan (FIP). By the late 1970s, EPA’s position was that states do not have authority to implement environmental protection laws in Indian country within the state. EPA’s position was upheld in 1985 when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the State of Washington could not administer a hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) on lands within Indian reservations. Numerous court decisions support the position that an approved state air pollution control program does not apply to Indian country within the state.
Indian tribes have the opportunity to administer the CAA’s programs but few tribes have accepted this responsibility, thus primary regulatory authority for air pollution control in Indian country is usually based on EPA’s regulations, which includes FIPs. There are currently forty-four FIPs applicable to specific tribes. One FIP has been issued by EPA’s Region 8, headquartered in Denver, but there is no FIP for any tribe in Utah because no Indian reservation is in a designated nonattainment area. This may change in the near future for the Ute Reservation, discussed in Part V. Even in the absence of a FIP, major sources located within Indian reservations are usually subject to EPA’s regulations including national FIPs, such as the FIP for New Source Review in Indian country, discussed below. Executive Order 13,175 requires EPA to consult and coordinate with tribal governments on federal actions that impact tribes. Pursuant to this Executive Order and a Memorandum from President Obama, on May 4, 2011, EPA updated its policy on consultation and coordination, to ensure tribe members have significant opportunities to participate in the regulatory process even if their tribe has not assumed regulatory jurisdiction.
Areas having better air quality than the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are subject to the CAA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. A new major emitting facility subject to the PSD program must obtain a preconstruction permit that includes the requirement to use the Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Construction is defined to include major modifications, if there is a significant emissions increase. Significant is defined in terms of tons per year (TPY). A modification is any physical or operational change that would cause an increase in the allowable emissions of a minor source or an increase in the actual emissions of a major source for any regulated New Source Review (NSR) pollutant or that would cause the emission of any regulated NSR pollutant not previously emitted. The following exemptions apply: routine maintenance, repair, or replacement; an increase in the hours of operation or in the production rate; and a change in ownership at a stationary source. A major modification requires an increase in actual emissions based on the “actual-to-projected-actual” test. If a source is a major source for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), the CAA bars the construction or reconstruction of the source unless the appropriate permitting authority determines that the source will meet the maximum available control technology (MACT) requirements. If the Administrator has not established a MACT standard for the source category, MACT is to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
A permit applicant must analyze the impact of the project on ambient air quality to assure there will be no violation of the NAAQS, the PSD increments, or visibility protection requirements. Sources or modifications that impact Class I areas (e.g., national parks and other public lands) may have additional requirements to protect air quality related values (AQRVs). Under the PSD program, if the source’s potential to emit is greater than the major source threshold for one pollutant, then all pollutants regulated by the CAA may be subject to control. However, these additional pollutants are subject to control only if their potential emissions are above the level defined as “significant” in the PSD regulations, which is significantly lower than the major modification threshold.
No tribe was administering an EPA-approved PSD program in 2011. On July 1, 2011, EPA promulgated regulations that included sources in Indian country in its PSD program. EPA’s implementation of the CAA in Indian country continues until there is an EPA-approved tribal implementation plan (TIP) or an approved program delegation. EPA’s Region 8 has issued 14 PSD permits.
To address the impairment of visibility, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 added additional requirements to the PSD program. The Amendments mandated the creation of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) to address the problem of air pollution in Grand Canyon National Park. GCVTC included representatives from eight western states and the Pueblo of Acoma, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, and the Navajo Nation. EPA’s Regional Haze Rule incorporated GCVTC’s recommendations. Subsequently, GCVTC was replaced by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), which has an expanded membership that includes fifteen western states, twenty-three Indian tribes, five federal agencies, and twenty-eight local air agencies.
In 2000, WRAP submitted an annex to implement the GCVTC recommendations and meet the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. The Annex included a plan that applied through 2018 that involved a declining emissions cap and a sulfur dioxide (SO2) trading program. The area covered by the Annex includes more than two-hundred tribes, four of which have or had major sources of SO2 emissions within their reservations. The sources are the Navajo Nation’s Four Corners Power Plant and Navajo Generating Plant; Fort Hall Reservation’s Astaris-Idaho phosphorous plant (now closed); the Wind River Reservation’s Snyder Oil, and Koch Sulfur Products facilities; and the Uintah and Ouray Reservation’s Bonanza Power Plant (now in the process of reducing operations).
The Four Corners Power Plant, near Shiprock, New Mexico, received a twenty-five-year extension of its lease with the Navajo Nation on July 17, 2015. However, three of its five units shut down, and the operators agreed to install selective catalytic reduction devices on the other two units. On June 24, 2015, the utility companies that own the Four Corners Power Plant, in a settlement with the United States Department of Justice, agreed to install upgraded SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOx) pollution controls at an estimated cost of $160 million. The settlement also requires improvements to meet the regional haze program. In addition, the settlement requires over $10 million to be spent on health and welfare projects to benefit the local residents. Moreover, both the Navajo Generating Station and the Four Corners Power Plant are required by the Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, when, and if, it is allowed to be implemented.
The recommendations of the GCVTC were the basis for Utah’s 2003 regional haze SIP. This SIP was modified September 3, 2008, to include Best Available Retrofit Requirements (BART) applicable to two coal-fired power plants. On December 14, 2012, EPA approved most of Utah’s Regional Haze SIP, but disapproved the BART determination. Prior to EPA’s disapproval, three of the four units had already installed the BART-required equipment, and the fourth unit installed the required controls in 2014 as required by state law. Utah then opted to develop a NOx control program based on the alternative to BART provided by 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2). The Air Quality Board approved the revised SIP provision in June 2015, and sent it to EPA for approval. The Regional Haze SIP revision remains controversial as environmentalists continue to press for selective catalytic reduction technology being required for Rocky Mountain Power’s Hunter and Huntington plants. On January 14, 2016, EPA proposed partially approving and partially disapproving Utah’s implementation plan for the haze rule, and called for a public hearing. On July 5, 2016, EPA published its final rule that partially approved Utah’s particular matter (PM10) portion of its haze SIP, but disapproved the alternative to BART for NOx.EPA imposed a FIP that requires the installation of Selective Catalytic Reduction technology on units one and two at the Hunter and Huntington power plants by 2021.
In nonattainment areas, new source review (NSR) requirements are applicable to major sources, which are those that have emissions of 100 TPY of any pollutant subject to regulation under the CAA (except greenhouse gases) or lesser amounts, depending on the pollutant and the nonattainment classification. For existing major sources, NSR requirements are applicable to major modifications. For a modification to be major, three criteria must be met: 1) a physical change in or change in the method of operation; 2) the change must be at or above the significance levels found in 40 C.F.R. part 51, appendix S; and 3) the increase in emissions must result in a significant net emissions increase at or above the significance levels.
New or modified major sources must meet the NSR requirements, which include the use of the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) control technology. LAER is based on the most stringent emission limitation in the implementation plan of any state or achieved in practice for the source category under review. Sources subject to NSR may offset emissions increases by obtaining emissions reductions from other sources in the area or in an area of equal or higher nonattainment classification that contribute to nonattainment in the proposed major source’s area. The ratio of the offset relative to the proposed increase depends on the severity of the area’s nonattainment classification and must be at least one-to-one. Emissions reductions used as offsets must be quantifiable, federally enforceable, permanent, and not otherwise required by the CAA.
In 2011, EPA issued regulations governing the review of new sources, modifications to existing sources, and minor sources in Indian country. The regulations provide a mechanism for permitting major sources in nonattainment areas in Indian country. Because tribes generally do not have existing sources from which to generate offsets required for NSR permits, EPA proposed two options for tribes to address the lack of available offsets: 1) The Economic Development Zone (EDZ) option and 2) the Appendix S, paragraph VI option.
major sources that construct or modify within the EDZ are relieved of the offset requirement if the state or tribe can demonstrate that the new permitted emissions are consistent with the achievement of reasonable further progress pursuant to section 172(c)(4) of the Act and will not interfere with attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
An NSR permit applicant must also conduct an “analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental control techniques,” demonstrating that the “benefits of the proposed emissions source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs . . . of its location, construction or modification.” In addition, applicants must demonstrate that all other major sources under its control in the same state are in compliance, or on a schedule of compliance, with all emission limitations and standards of the CAA.
EPA has designated only a few Indian reservations as nonattainment areas. Two Indian lands in California are nonattainment: the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (serious for the 8-hr ozone standard) and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians (moderate for the 8-hr. ozone standard). The Fort Hall Indian reservation in Idaho is designated as moderate nonattainment for PM10. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe had the world’s largest elemental phosphorous processing plant within its Fort Hall Reservation near Pocatello, Idaho. The facility closed at the end of 2001, but the reservation is still designated as nonattainment.
A much larger number of reservations are located within nonattainment areas designated by states. For example, in San Diego County, California there are twenty reservations for four tribal groups that comprise 193 square miles of the 4,205 square miles of the county.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 created Title V, which for the first time mandated a comprehensive operating permit program to regulate air emissions from major stationary sources. Minor sources are commonly subject to state permit programs, and EPA has promulgated a minor source program for emission sources in Indian country. In addition, the operating permit program identifies the existing SIP program’s requirements applicable to specific sources as well as requirements imposed by other provisions of the CAA. The operating permit program, which is primarily implemented by the states, attempts to place the CAA “applicable requirements” in one document.
Under section 502(a), the following sources must obtain an operating permit: affected sources as provided in Subchapter IV’s acid rain program; facilities that emit, or have the potential to emit, 10 TPY or more of any HAP, or 25 TPY of any combination of HAPs (section 112); sources required to have an NSR permit because they are major as defined by part D of subchapter 1; any source emitting 100/250 TPY required to have a preconstruction review permit by part C of subchapter I (PSD); other major sources, as defined in section 302 that are located in nonattainment areas and that have emissions of 100 TPY or more of any regulated pollutant; any other source, including an area source, that is subject to a section 112 HAP standard or a section 111 New Source Performance Standard (NSPS); and any other stationary source in a category designated by regulations promulgated by the Administrator.
Determining which sources are major is affected by the rules developed under section 111 for NSPS. Major stationary sources located on contiguous or adjacent properties, under common control, and belonging to a single two-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) have their emissions combined to determine whether emissions exceed the threshold level.Sources of HAPs are major based on the aggregate emissions of a stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area and under common control without reference to the SIC of the source. Fugitive emissions are used to determine whether a source is major if the source is one of twenty-six categories listed in the regulation.
Applicants for permits must submit the permit application that meets the requirements of section 504 and 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.5(a)(2) and 70.6. Each permit application must include at a minimum: 1) a description of the facility’s processes and products; 2) a list of all air emissions from the facility; 3) emission rates in TPY; 4) information on fuels, fuel use, raw materials, production rates, and operating schedules; and 5) a description of air pollution control equipment. The permit application must include a certification by a responsible official attesting to the truth and accuracy of the permit application. Applicants may avoid a major source classification by accepting emission limits in an operating permit below the TPY major source threshold, or by accepting operational limits that have a similar effect.
A compliance plan is also required, which includes a schedule for compliance. A compliance schedule must include a schedule of remedial measures to be taken, and must be submitted within twelve months of the date on which the source becomes subject to a permit program. It must include a description of how the facility will achieve compliance with requirements for which the facility is not currently in compliance. A responsible official must sign the application as well as the compliance plan, compliance schedule, annual compliance certification, and all reports that are required to be submitted to the permitting authority. The responsible official’s signature certifies, under penalty of law, that the statements and information in the documents are true, accurate, and complete.
Section 505(b) provides for states (or tribes) to develop and run an operating permit program, but EPA may veto the issuance of permits. Regulations concerning the process for permit issuance, review, renewal, revision, and reopening are found at 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.7 and 70.8. Under the regulations, the permitting authority must submit to EPA any application for a permit, renewal, or revision, including any compliance plan. The permitting authority also is required to notify all affected states of each item that must be forwarded to EPA. Affected states are those whose air quality may be affected or are contiguous to the state in which the source is located or are within fifty miles of the source. The permitting authority must accept written recommendations from affected states; if they are rejected, it must explain the reasons in writing.
If new requirements are imposed under the CAA, the permitting authority is required to revise all major source permits subject to the new requirements that have a remaining life of three or more years. However, no permit revision is necessary if the effective date of the requirement is after the expiration of the permit. The permitting authority must have the right to terminate, modify, or revoke permits for cause. Reopenings for cause are subject to the requirements of section 505(e) and the regulations of the applicable title.
In 2011, no tribe had an EPA-approved Title V permitting program or had adopted any other program to implement section 112(g). However, the Navajo Nation had been delegated authority to assist with implementation of the federal part 71 operating permit program. In 2012, EPA approved the Title V Operating Permit for Colorado’s Southern Ute Tribe. EPA has issued fifty-three Title V permits to major sources located on Indian tribal lands in Regions 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Sixteen of the permits are for facilities in Region 8 covering New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, Utah, and North Dakota. There are no permits in Regions 1, 3, 4, and 7.
A permitting program for minor sources is to be developed by the states based on federal requirements. Most minor sources located in Indian country, however, have not been regulated, and only a few tribes administer EPA-approved minor NSR programs.
On July 1, 2011, EPA promulgated an Indian country FIP that applies to new and modified minor stationary sources, and minor modifications at existing major stationary sources. The FIP also provides for a case-by-case determination of the MACT for sources of HAPs.
On May 1, 2015, an additional regulation for the minor source program in Indian country was promulgated. A minor source is a source, not including the exempt emissions units and activities listed in 40 C.F.R. § 49.153(c), with the potential to emit regulated NSR pollutants below the major source thresholds, but above minor NSR thresholds. Beginning September 2, 2014, any new stationary source that has the potential to emit (PTE) a regulated NSR pollutant in amounts equal to or greater than the minor NSR thresholds must apply for and obtain a minor NSR permit before commencing construction. A source’s PTE for a pollutant is expressed in TPY and calculated by multiplying the maximum hourly emissions rate in pounds per hour (lbs./hr.) times 8,760 hours (the number of hours in a year) divided by 2,000 (the number of pounds in a ton). If a source’s emissions are restricted by enforceable permit conditions, the PTE is calculated based on the permit restrictions.
A proposed modification of an existing major source that does not qualify as a major modification is subject to the minor NSR program requirements, if the net emissions increase from the actual-to-projected-actual test is equal to or above the minor NSR thresholds listed in table 1 of the regulation. However, the emissions must be less than the amount that would qualify the source as a major source or a major modification for purposes of the more stringent PSD or nonattainment NSR programs. The minor thresholds are much lower than the significance level and are more stringent for nonattainment areas than for attainment areas.
Fugitive emissions are included to the extent they are quantifiable for source categories listed in the regulations. These sources must install and operate control technology as determined by the reviewing authority on a case-by-case basis. These sources may also be required to submit air quality impact analyses as part of their permit applications. As an alternative to a site-specific permit, minor sources can request coverage under a general permit. Moreover, EPA has developed a list of activities that are exempted from the minor NSR program. The list was expanded on May 30, 2014.
3) Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines; 4) Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines; 5) Standards for New and Modified Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector; and 6) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities. There are numerous other amendments to the Indian Country Minor NSR Rule. The proposed FIP is needed because in September 2015 there were no approved TIPs covering areas subject to the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR Rule.
States that have a federally enforceable minor source permit program may designate sources that have the potential to emit above the major source thresholds as “synthetic minor” sources if they accept enforceable permit limits on emissions that keep the emissions below the major source threshold. However, this program was not available in Indian country until July 1, 2011.
The regulations promulgated in 2011 established the first synthetic minor source permitting mechanism for major sources of regulated NSR pollutants and/or HAPs in Indian country. A synthetic minor source permit is available under the PSD, nonattainment major NSR and Title V programs, as well as by synthetic minor sources for MACT standards and Title V purposes. HAP sources having synthetic minor permits must comply with emissions limits that are enforceable as a practical matter and with the applicable regulations found in 40 C.F.R. part 63. A synthetic minor source for NSR that has other applicable requirements that make it major for Title V purposes, must also apply for a part 71, Title V permit.
To obtain a synthetic source designation requires the source to agree to limit emissions below the major source trigger. The agreement to limit emissions must be enforceable. This rule is implemented by EPA or by a delegated tribal agency. Synthetic minor sources need a site-specific permit, but EPA is developing general permits for some common types of minor sources in order to streamline the permitting process. An applicant for a synthetic minor designation must also comply with minor source regulations concerning public participation requirements, the procedures for final permit issuance, and administrative and judicial review.
On June 3, 2016, EPA promulgated a FIP applicable to the oil and gas industry that is to be used to regulate most minor sources rather than using source-specific minor source preconstruction permits.
Emissions units covered by a general permit should usually have similar operations or processes and emit pollutants with similar characteristics. They should be able to handle the same or substantially similar permit requirements governing operation, emissions, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. EPA is in the process of developing general permits for various source categories under the factors mentioned. General permits must deal with the same permit elements required for permits issued under the site-specific preconstruction review rules. However, EPA has not allowed reviewing authorities to create general permit categories for synthetic minor sources.
On May 1, 2015, EPA finalized a rule concerning general permits in Indian country for new or modified minor sources in two source categories: hot mix asphalt (HMA) plants; and stone quarrying, crushing, and screening (SQCS) facilities. EPA also authorized the use of general permits to create synthetic minor sources for the HMA and SQCS source categories. EPA finalized permits by rule for new or modified minor sources in three source categories: auto body repair and miscellaneous surface coating operations; gasoline dispensing facilities, except in California; and petroleum dry cleaning facilities. Permit by rule requirements are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations and they preauthorize construction and modification activities that are carried out in accordance with the codified requirements. EPA subsequently promulgated a rule to manage emissions from six source categories of minor sources in Indian country on October 14, 2016. The rule covers concrete batch plants, boilers and emergency engines, stationary spark ignition engines, stationary compression ignition engines, graphic arts and printing operations, and sawmill facilities. The rule requires a preconstruction permit for true minor sources on or after September 2, 2017. This rule is one of several modifications to 40 C.F.R. § 49.151(c). True minor sources in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector are also subject to the June 3, 2016, FIP for true minor sources in Indian country.
To become covered by a permit by rule, a source must notify the reviewing authority that it meets the terms of coverage and is complying with the permit’s terms and conditions but does not need the approvals required for a source specific permit. The source must also submit a Notification of Coverage Form in fulfillment of the minor source registration requirement in the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR Rule. Once the Notification of Coverage Form has been submitted, and the reviewing authority has posted it online, the source may commence construction of a new source or modification of an existing source. The regulations do not allow the use of permits by rule to create synthetic minor sources.
The efforts by Indian tribes to use the CAA to advance tribal interests became more focused when the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 authorized federally recognized tribes to redesignate land within the exterior boundaries of their reservations under the CAA’s PSD program. This program classified areas that met the NAAQS into three classes, with the least air quality deterioration allowed in Class I, and the most deterioration allowed in Class III areas providing the NAAQS were not exceeded.
By changing the status of a reservation to Class I, a tribe can make it difficult or even impossible for major emitting sources constructed after August 7, 1977, to locate either inside the reservation’s boundary or outside the boundary if the air quality of the Class I area is projected to be impacted above the legally allowed increase, known as the increment. Moreover, even if the allowed atmospheric concentration of a regulated pollutant does not exceed the increment, a permit for a new source or major modification of an existing source can be denied if it will violate “air quality related values,” including visibility. However, visibility protection only applies to mandatory Class I areas (e.g. national parks and wilderness areas). Nonmandatory Class I areas are only covered if they are part of the statutory dispute resolution process. If there is a dispute among tribes concerning classification, a mechanism is provided to allow EPA to resolve disputes between states and tribes. This ability to redesignate areas allowed Indian tribes to influence development within the exterior boundaries of their reservations as well as development upwind of reservations.
In 1977, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe requested Class I status for its reservation based on EPA’s 1974 PSD regulation. On August 5, 1977, the redesignation was approved days before the PSD program, including the right for tribes to redesignate tribal lands, was codified by the 1977 CAA Amendments. Thus, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe was the first Tribe to utilize the redesignation process. In 1981, the Ninth Circuit upheld EPA’s delegation to Indian tribes the authority to redesignate their lands. This redesignation resulted in the Montana Power Company being blocked from completing two new coal strip units. The units were eventually constructed after they agreed to install wet scrubbers to meet the Tribe’s PSD increment for SO2. The redesignation was opposed by the Crow Indian Tribe, which wanted the electric power project to be constructed.
In 1984, EPA issued a policy statement saying that until tribal governments are able to assume full responsibility for administering delegable programs, EPA will retain responsibility for managing the environmental programs, but will encourage tribal participation. For a noncompliant facility that is tribally owned, EPA will work cooperatively with the tribe to achieve compliance, but if the facility is owned or managed by private parties EPA will deal with environmental violations in the same way that it would respond if Indian land was not involved. In 2011, EPA updated the 1984 policy.
In 1982, EPA approved the redesignation of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe’s Flathead Reservation in northwest Montana to Class I. In 1984, EPA approved the Sioux and Assiniboine Tribes’ request to redesignate the Fort Peck reservation as Class I, which prevented a coal‑fired electric power facility from being constructed. In 1991, EPA approved the redesignation of the Spokane Reservation in Washington as Class I. On November 1, 1996, EPA approved the redesignation of the Yavapai-Apache Reservation in Arizona to Class I. In 2008, EPA approved the redesignation of the Forest County Potawatomi Community Reservation in Wisconsin as Class I. Nearly all redesignations involve the effort of tribes to prevent industrial development outside the boundaries of the reservation. However, once redesignation occurs, the tribe also has the limits imposed on its emissions producing development. In 2013, EPA issued guidance for Indian tribes seeking redesignation of lands within their exterior borders to Class I.
EPA administers the implementation of the CAA within Indian country until a tribal program is approved. In 1984, EPA adopted an Indian Policy that recognized the importance of close involvement by EPA with tribal governments in making decisions and managing environmental programs affecting Indian tribes. In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress expanded the power of Indian tribes to control air pollution by providing a path for Indian tribes to be treated as states (TAS), which allows tribes to administer and enforce the CAA in Indian lands.
Congress expanded the ability of Indian tribes to protect the environment with the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, the Water Quality Act of 1987, and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Amendments of 2006. RCRA is the only major statute administered by EPA that does not have a TAS provision. RCRA treats Indian tribes as municipalities. However, RCRA prohibits the states from using it as a basis for jurisdiction in Indian country. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, provides for tribes to be TAS for specific provisions of the statute including notification of releases consultation concerning remedial action affecting a tribe, but it does not recognize tribal authority to the same extent as the other pollution control statutes.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 expanded the power of Indian tribes to control air pollution in Indian country by providing a path for Indian tribes to be TAS. The Amendments provide Indian tribes with opportunities for air pollution program planning, implementation, and enforcement. Tribes can use section 105 to obtain funds to implement tribal air pollution programs. TAS status allows tribes to petition EPA under section 126 to impose control requirements on upwind sources that significantly contribute to a violation of an air quality standard in a downwind area.
In 1998, EPA promulgated its Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), which sets forth the requirements for a tribe to obtain TAS status. This status allows a tribe to implement the programs of the CAA, such as the development of implementation plans, the PSD program, and Title V permitting program. The TAR also sets out the requirements that a tribe must meet to have an approved TIP. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the TAR in Arizona Public Service Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA has provided guidance concerning the procedural steps that tribes must follow to obtain TAS status. After pre-application discussions and technical assistance, a tribe submits an application to EPA, which reviews the application. EPA notifies the appropriate governmental entities, identifies the reservation’s boundaries and any assertions concerning tribal authority over nonreservation areas, and notifies the tribe when the application is complete. A public comment period follows, and the tribe is given the opportunity to review the comments and to respond. EPA produces a draft decision, which includes a response to comments for final review within the Agency. If the application is approved, the regional EPA office notifies the tribe in a letter that includes the boundaries of the reservation and the tribal jurisdiction over nonreservation areas.
As of October 2015, there were forty-nine tribes—some with multiple approvals—that had TAS status for various CAA provisions. Region 8 has nine tribes with TAS approval: the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, Montana; the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, Montana; the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana; the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, the Montana; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; and the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah. Region 9 has ten TAS reservations, and Region 10 has thirteen TAS reservations. Thus, about two-thirds of the TAS reservations are in the West.
TAS status allows tribes to seek primacy to implement the CAA through a TIP, or to seek a more limited role by seeking primacy over specific CAA regulatory programs. EPA allows TAS and primacy applications to be filed together. Indian tribes must meet specified requirements to be granted TAS status. First, the tribe must have a governing body that has substantial governmental duties and powers. Second, the air pollution control functions to be exercised by the tribe must pertain to air resource management and protection within the exterior boundaries of the reservation—including tribal trust lands outside reservation boundaries. EPA interprets this requirement to cover sources within the reservation to include non-Indians within the reservation boundaries. To deal with emissions from outside the reservation boundaries requires the tribe to demonstrate its regulatory authority under general principles of Indian law. Third, the tribe must be “reasonably capable” of performing the duties and functions associated with the CAA. The term “capable” has both economic and technical ability requirements.
After TAS approval, EPA continues to remain the sole criminal enforcement authority over non-Indians. However, EPA allows tribes to enter into agreements that allow the tribe to work with EPA to assist in developing criminal enforcement actions. The TAR also exempts tribes with TAS status from exposure to citizen suits based on section 304, but tribes (or any person) can use the citizen-suit provision against sources that are constructed or operated in violation of the CAA or an applicable CAA permit. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users limited Oklahoma Indian tribes’ TAS authority by requiring an agreement with the state environmental protection agency to jointly administer environmental regulatory programs in order to obtain TAS authority.
In 1999, the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona became the first tribe to obtain TAS status. The Navajo Nation was a pioneer in taking the responsibility for environmental protection. It was granted TAS status and primacy for a program under the Safe Drinking Water Act on October 23, 2000. It obtained TAS status under the CAA on October 15, 2004. The Navajo Nation obtained TAS status for water quality on January 23, 2006, and obtained primacy approval on March 23, 2006.
On November 5, 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum that reiterated a commitment to collaboration with tribal governments on federal decisions that affect Indians. The memorandum directed federal agencies to develop plans to implement Executive Order 13,175, which requires coordination with tribal governments on federal actions that impact tribes. On May 4, 2011, EPA updated its policy on consultation and coordination. This policy expands the standards applicable to federal agencies beyond the requirements of Executive Order 13,175. In addition, several EPA Regions have procedures for consultation with Indian tribal governments.
EPA can provide support to tribes to initiate or operate air programs. By 2002, more than 120 tribes had received grants. EPA has promulgated regulations that establish the elements of TIPs and procedures for approval or disapproval of TIPs and portions thereof. The potential elements of a TIP are: maintenance strategies, attainment strategies, source preconstruction permits, and regional haze plans.
In PSD areas, there must be enforceable emission limits for existing sources, emission limits that are adequate to prevent violations, and schedules for implementing emission limits expeditiously. These requirements also apply in nonattainment areas, but additional contingency measures must be included to be used if the primary regulations do not result in attainment. EPA’s NSR program for PSD areas can be delegated to a tribe, or a tribe can adopt a program of their own if it meets EPA’s requirements.
In nonattainment areas, an NSR program is required and may be developed for the TIP, and a minor source NSR program may also be included. A tribe may include a regional haze plan if visibility issues are a concern. The last requirement for a tribe seeking approval for a TIP is to demonstrate that it has enforcement authority that meets EPA’s expectations. Federal enforcement of the CAA on Indian lands is not always aggressive. For example, the Bonanza Power Plant owned by Desert Power is located on Utah’s Uintah and Ouray reservation. The Ute Indian Tribe and environmentalists have uncovered more than 35,000 violations of the CAA by the plant.
According to EPA, in 2014, most tribes with TAS status were administering one or more parts of the CAA for EPA, but only three tribes were approved to implement TIPs, and only one tribe had been delegated the authority to implement a Title V operating permit program. On October 30, 2007, EPA announced the Saint Regis Mohawk tribe in New York State had become the first tribe to have an EPA approved TIP.
On January 19, 2011, EPA approved the Gila River TIP. The Gila River TIP is the most comprehensive TIP in the nation, and includes a minor source permit program, and mechanisms for administrative and tribal judicial review. The Southern Ute Reservation in Colorado includes approximately 700,000 acres of land and its forty-two major sources are about one-third of the major sources in Indian country; it also has an estimated 1,000 minor sources of air pollution. On March 12, 2012, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe became the first tribe with the authority to administer a Title V, 40 C.F.R. part 70 operating permit program. The Navajo Nation had previously been delegated responsibility for administering an operating permit program under 40 C.F.R. part 71.
Nevertheless, few tribes have tribal air pollution codes. In 2014, Professor Elizabeth Warner examined the environmental laws of 74 of the 566 recognized tribes, which included 29% of the nation’s Native American population. The tribes surveyed were located in Oklahoma, New York, Montana, and Arizona. Her study discovered that only 5% of the survey group had enacted tribal air pollution laws. They were the Cherokee Nation, the Gila River Indian Community, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and the part of the Navajo Nation in Arizona. The Navajo Nation has the most comprehensive air pollution regulations that generally follow the CAA.
An important issue is the jurisdictional reach of a tribe with TAS status that has an approved TIP. It may regulate all areas within the exterior boundaries of a reservation, including areas held in fee. It includes all dependent Indian communities, and all Indian allotments to which Indian title has not been extinguished. In Montana v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Montana challenged EPA’s decision to grant TAS status to regulate all sources of water pollutant discharges within the boundaries of the reservation, regardless of whether the sources are on land owned by members or nonmembers of the Tribe. The Ninth Circuit supported EPA’s TAS rule that allows control of the activities of nonmembers on non-Indian fee lands if the regulated activity affects “the political integrity, the economic security, or the health and welfare of the tribe.” The potential impacts of the activities on the tribe must be “serious and substantial” to allow tribes to regulate nonmembers.
As discussed previously, the CAA’s PSD program allows tribes to exercise power over development beyond the exterior boundaries of the reservation. Empowering Indian tribes with the ability to conduct their own air programs can impact emission sources in and near the Indian lands because it creates another regulatory entity that may impose regulations on existing or potential emission sources. Moreover, TAS status makes a tribe an “affected state,” which allows it to comment on draft operating permits proposed by neighboring state permitting authorities.
It may be possible to extend the off-reservation reach of the CAA based on decisions under the CWA. In City of Albuquerque v. Browner, the City of Albuquerque challenged EPA’s approval of the Pueblo of Isleta’s water quality standards. The district court granted summary judgment to EPA, and Albuquerque appealed. This case was the first challenge to water quality standards adopted by an Indian tribe under the 1987 amendments to the CWA’s section 518(e) that allow Indian tribes to be treated as states. The Pueblo of Isleta adopted water quality standards more stringent than New Mexico’s standards, which were subsequently approved by EPA. This affected Albuquerque’s waste treatment facility because the city was required to revise its NPDES discharge permit to meet the downstream Isleta’s water quality standards. The issue before the court was whether EPA could impose Isleta’s standards on an upstream discharger. The Tenth Circuit held that Indian tribes may establish water quality standards more stringent than those imposed by the federal government, and it affirmed the grant of summary judgment to EPA. Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that EPA has the authority to require upstream NPDES discharges to comply with downstream state water quality standards.If a tribe has a FIP, this Supreme Court decision could support a tribe’s claims to restrict upwind emissions that affect its air quality.
A tribe, with or without TAS status, as an alternative to developing a TIP, may seek to have federal air pollution programs delegated to it for implementation. In 1975, the Supreme Court upheld the power of Congress to allow the delegation of authority to a tribe. EPA has well established processes for delegating federal authority to states and/or tribes for administering federal rules under the CAA, including conducting NSR under 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(u), and issuing federal operating permits under 40 C.F.R. §§ 71.4(j) and 71.10. For example, in 2004, EPA delegated authority to the Navajo Nation to allow it to administer the 40 C.F.R. part 71 federal operating permit program, but excluded the Four Corners Power Plant and the Navajo Generating Station.
On April 8, 2005, EPA finalized a FIP for 39 Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. EPA is willing to delegate certain administrative authority to the tribes, but it maintains it has the sole authority to enforce, and such actions would be subject to EPA’s appeal procedures. EPA has explained that a number of rules under the CAA will not be delegated. If delegation is approved, a Partial Delegation of Administrative Authority Agreement between EPA and the tribal agency will contain the terms and conditions of the delegation and specify the rules and provisions the tribal agency is authorized to implement.
The delegation of the authority to assist EPA with administration of elements of the federal NSR programs is a process that differs from approval of tribal eligibility and tribal programs under section 301(d) and the TAR. Tribes requesting to assist EPA through administrative delegation need not demonstrate congressionally-delegated authority within the exterior boundaries of their reservations or authority over nonreservations areas of Indian country. Tribes only need to show that their laws provide adequate authority to perform the delegated activities.
Administratively delegated programs will continue to be enforced by EPA, not the delegated tribal agency. Administrative appeals of permitting decisions will also continue to be made directly to the Environmental Appeals Board, with any subsequent judicial review to be conducted in Federal court.
EPA does not believe that it would be appropriate to delegate enforcement of a Federal permit in Federal court to an Indian Tribe assisting EPA with administration of the NSR program. . . . EPA has consistently withheld [the authority to seek] enforcement in Federal court by any administratively delegated entity, whether a state or a Tribe.
Tribes operating under delegated authority cannot charge permit fees, but tribes implementing TIPs can impose fees.
For many tribes, delegation is the better route to expand their ability to control air pollution, because of the expense, expertise, and time required to meet EPA’s requirements for a TIP. The Southern Ute Tribe’s TIP-based operating permit program, for example, required years to complete, required hiring and training of staff with the necessary expertise, and involved substantial “up front” costs.
Indian lands may be leased for mineral development pursuant to three federal laws. The Indian Mineral Leasing Act provides for Indian lands to be leased for ten years, or longer, with the consent of the Secretary of the Interior. The Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 allows tribes to enter into mineral development agreements subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress included the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act. This Act allows a tribe to enter into tribal energy resource agreements (TERAs) with the Department of the Interior if the tribe demonstrates its capacity to regulate the development of tribal resources. The TERA process includes an environmental review. However, as of 2015, there were no TERAs in existence. This may in part be due to the complexity of the TERA process, the high costs imposed on applicants by the Department of the Interior, and the problems created by the ownership of the surface and subsurface being held by different people.
EPA’s regulations applicable to oil and gas operations include NSPS for the oil and gas industry, discussed below, and NSPS for specific equipment including compression ignition and spark ignition engines. Oil and gas facilities must also comply with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) such as the rule for reciprocating internal combustion engines used in their operations. Oil and gas operations on Indian lands require an Application for a Permit to Drill (APD) to be submitted to and approved by BLM. Moreover, there are additional voluntary programs for the industry aimed at reducing their air pollution emissions.
An important EPA regulation is the 2012 NSPS/HAP regulation for the Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production and Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plant source category. The NSPS apply to well completions, pneumatic controllers, equipment leaks from natural gas processing plants, sweetening units at natural gas processing plants, compressors, and storage vessels that begin construction, modification or reconstruction after August 23, 2011. Well completions after January 1, 2015, are subject to the NSPS during the flowback period following hydraulic fracturing operations at a gas well affected facility. EPA has defined completions to include newly drilled and fractured wells, and completions following refracturing operations. The NSPS also applies to onshore sweetening units that process natural gas from onshore or offshore wells.
The NSPS for the Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production source category sets performance standards that limit volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from gas wells, centrifugal compressors, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic controllers, storage vessels and leaking components at onshore natural gas processing plants, as well as SO2 emissions from onshore natural gas processing plants. The rule regulates onshore gas wells drilled principally for production of natural gas, but it does not regulate wells drilled principally for the production of crude oil. Fractured and refractured gas wells are required to use reduced emissions completions, also known as “RECs” or “green completions,” to reduce VOC emissions. This may involve the use of a combustion device to limit VOC emissions.
Individual storage vessels in the oil and natural gas production segment and the natural gas processing, transmission, and storage segments, with VOC emissions equal to or greater than six TPY must achieve at least 95% emissions reduction. Pneumatic controllers located between the wellhead and the point at which the gas enters the transmission and storage segment have natural gas bleed limits. Centrifugal compressors have VOC reduction requirements. For onshore natural gas processing plants, the NSPS requirements for leak detection and repair and SO2 emissions are made more stringent.
The regulation also provides NESHAPs for the Oil and Natural Gas Production source category and the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage source category. In addition, EPA has established MACT standards for specified emission sources in the oil and gas industry. Major sources at oil and natural gas production facilities may be subject to the NESHAP for glycol dehydration units, which includes MACT standards for “small” glycol dehydration units that set specific limits for benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene.
There are significant tribal interests in the emissions standards because of the growth of the oil and gas production industry in Indian country. Executive Order 13,175 sets some limits on the authority of any agency, including EPA. It states that, unless required by statute, EPA may not regulate a tribe in a manner that imposes substantial direct compliance costs unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.EPA concluded the regulation would not have tribal implications because it does not impose a significant cost on a tribe.
EPA consulted with tribal officials when developing this regulation. Prior to the proposal in 2010, EPA conducted outreach and information meetings and met with tribal leaders. After publishing the proposal, EPA offered all tribal leaders the opportunity to consult on a government-to-government basis. As part of the consultation process on October 12, 2011, a telephone call with tribal leaders was held. Among the Tribes that participated was the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. An affiliate of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe was concerned about the impacts of the rule on natural gas and oil production operations on the Southern Ute Indian reservation. Additional time to evaluate the impacts was requested and granted.
Methane is a greenhouse gas (GHG) with 25 times the global warming potential of CO2, and the oil and natural gas industrial category is the single most important U.S. emission source with nearly one-third of the nation’s emissions. On September 18, 2015, EPA proposed amendments to the NSPS for the oil and gas sources category to expand the coverage of oil and gas VOC emissions to include controls on methane emissions. EPA finalized the proposed changes on June 3, 2016. The changes to the NSPS are applicable to new, reconstructed, and modified oil and gas operations. The amendments impose standards for both greenhouse gases and VOCs, and add requirements for operations and equipment covered by the 2012 standards. The amendments will apply to hydraulically fractured oil wells, well completions, pneumatic pumps, and fugitive emissions from well sites and compressor stations that are not regulated by the 2012 rules; hydraulically fractured gas well completions and equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants that are currently regulated for VOC are now subject to GHG regulations.
The 2016 rule adds new requirements for detecting and repairing leaks at natural gas well sites. Leaks, known as fugitive emissions, must be repaired within thirty days, but if a repair would shut down production, additional time for the repair is allowed. Leak monitoring plans must be developed using optical gas imaging equipment or by using a portable VOC monitoring instrument as specified in EPA’s Method 21. The leak monitoring will apply to valves, connectors, pressure relief devices, open-ended lines, flanges, closed vent systems, compressors, and other components. However, some wellheads that contain only “Christmas trees” are exempt. The rule also adds new requirements for diaphragm pumps used at well sites.
The amendments to the NSPS rule also requires a monitoring plan to be developed and implemented to control leaks at gathering and boosting compressor stations that obtain gas from multiple wells and move it to a natural gas processing plant. Because the best system for reducing methane is the same as is used to reduce VOC emissions, the requirements for centrifugal and reciprocating compressors, pneumatic controllers, and storage tanks continue to be regulated by the 2012 NSPS. However, the 2016 update limits methane and VOC emissions from wet seal centrifugal compressors from the oil and gas industry, except for those located at well sites. For covered centrifugal compressors, a 95% reduction of methane and VOC emissions is required by utilizing either flaring or by routing captured gas back to the processor. Dry seal centrifugal compressors are not covered by the final rule because they have low methane and VOC emissions. Reciprocating compressors, except for those located at well sites, are to have the rod packing replaced based on specified hours of operation, or elapsed calendar months, or by routing emissions from the rod packing through a closed vent system under negative pressure to be reused or recycled by a process or a piece of equipment. Pneumatic controllers are used to maintain liquid levels, pressure, and temperature that are powered by high pressure natural gas. Continuous bleed pneumatic controllers not located at a natural gas processing plan now have a natural gas bleed rate limit of 6 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh). Low-bleed controllers with a gas bleed rate of 6 scfh or less have no new requirements. EPA did not finalize requirements for pneumatic pumps at compressor stations. Storage tanks also do not have new requirements, but continue to be regulated by the 2012 NSPS requirements.
Natural gas processing plants have new requirements for controlling emissions from pneumatic pumps. Natural gas driven piston pumps are not subject to new rules, nor are diaphragm pumps powered by electricity, compressed air, or solar power. Processing plants continue to be regulated primarily by the 2012 NSPS.
Requirements imposed by states (and tribes) that are at least as protective as federal requirements can be used to demonstrate compliance with the federal rule. Facilities that will be subject to the proposed EPA standards may also be subject to current or future requirements of BLM, which regulates the production of natural gas on Federal lands. Therefore, EPA and BLM will continue to coordinate their regulatory requirements.
EPA’s regulation of methane emissions from oil and gas wells was challenged by the State of North Dakota in the D.C. Circuit on July 15, 2016. Subsequently about 14 states joined the lawsuit, as well as numerous industry organizations. This was followed by nine states and numerous environmental groups intervening to support EPA’s section 111(b) rule.
The “Source Determination Rule,” promulgated June 3, 2016, will lead to more oil and gas facilities being considered major sources. The new rule applies to onshore oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing. The PSD preconstruction permit requirements and the Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) preconstruction permit program apply to stationary sources, and the Title V operating permit program applies to major sources. Sources in the same industrial group (the same two-digit SIC code) under common control and located on contiguous or adjacent properties are to be aggregated. EPA’s final rule clarifies the term adjacent, which determines when minor sources are to be aggregated to create a major source. Multiple sources are to be aggregated to produce a major emitting facility if they are on the same site, or are on sites that share equipment and are within one-quarter of a mile of each other.
EPA is not requiring that EPA-approved state and local programs adopt the approach in the Source Determination Rule. This allows state and local permitting authorities that have programs approved by EPA to continue to make source determinations for the oil and gas industry “in the manner that they believe best addresses their local air quality concerns.” However, states that administer PSD permitting programs under a delegation of federal authority will have to follow the approach of the Source Determination Rule, or develop their own permitting programs and have them approved as a revision to a SIP.
On September 18, 2015, EPA promulgated a proposed FIP to regulate new true minor sources and minor modifications at true minor sources involved in the production of oil and natural gas, and in the processing of natural gas. On June 3, 2016, EPA promulgated the finalized rule. The oil sector includes the “operations from the well to the point of custody transfer to an oil pipeline or other means of transportation to a petroleum refinery.” The natural gas sector includes “all operations from the well to the final end user.” These sectors can generally be separated into four segments: “(1) Oil and natural gas production; (2) natural gas processing; (3) natural gas transmission and storage; and (4) natural gas distribution.” The FIP applies throughout Indian country, except nonreservation areas, unless a tribe or EPA demonstrates jurisdiction for those areas. True minor sources are those that have the potential to emit below the major source threshold by design, while synthetic minor sources are restricted to emissions below the major source threshold by the terms of their permit.
The oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector will use the FIP, not source-specific minor source preconstruction permits, for true minor sources that are subject to the Indian Country Minor NSR Rule, unless there is an applicable EPA-approved program with enforceable requirements to control and reduce air emissions from such sources. EPA believes the “issuance of source-specific permits has the potential to overwhelm the system . . . [, and] a FIP is the most appropriate way of implementing the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule.” The FIP does not apply in areas that are nonattainment for a NAAQS. In nonattainment areas, true minor sources will require either a site-specific minor NSR permit or compliance with a reservation-specific FIP, if one exists. Sources covered by the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR Rule that do not meet all of the eligibility criteria must obtain a site-specific permit prior to beginning construction on or after October 3, 2016. A source owner/operator that does not want to comply with the FIP also has the option to apply for a site-specific permit. True minor sources are generally subject to the applicable provisions of the standard as written at the time construction or reconstruction of the source begins. Major sources continue to be regulated by the more complex NSR permit program. To accommodate the FIP, the Indian Country Minor NSR Rule has been updated.
8) Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines.
Wells and related casing head; tubing head and ‘Christmas tree’ piping; pumps; compressors; heater treaters; separators; storage vessels; pneumatic devices; stationary engines; natural gas sweetening; truck loading; dewpoint suppression skids; natural gas dehydrators; completion and workover processes; gathering pipelines and related components that collect and transport the oil, natural gas and other materials and wastes from the wells or well pads; and natural gas processing plants.
(1) Prior completion of assessment by another federal agency. The owner/operator shall submit to the EPA Regional Office (and to the relevant tribe for the area where the source is located/locating) valid documentation demonstrating that prior Endangered Species Act (ESA) and/or National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance has been completed by another federal agency in connection with the specific oil and natural gas activity operated under this FIP . . . .
(2) Screening procedures completed by the owner/operator. The owner/operator shall submit to the EPA Regional Office (and to the relevant tribe for the area where the source is located/locating) documentation demonstrating that it has completed the screening procedures specified for consideration of threatened and endangered species and/or historic properties and receive written confirmation from the EPA stating that it has satisfactorily completed these procedures. . . .
EPA requires oil and natural gas companies to collect and report GHG emissions data for sources emitting 25,000 metric TPY, or more, of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). The reporting requirements apply to facilities owned or operated by Indian tribes and private oil and gas operations on Indian reservations. During 2015, 2,413 oil and natural gas facilities reported GHG emissions, of which only 534 were onshore production facilities. Most production operations do not exceed the 25,000 ton threshold for reporting. EPA’s data for 2014 shows only two facilities on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation reporting—the Altamont Gas Plant and the Bonanza Power Plant. Beginning January 1, 2016, additional data from gathering and boosting systems, completions and workovers of oil wells using hydraulic fracturing, and blowdowns of gas transmission pipelines must be collected, and this information must be reported beginning March 31, 2017. However, the information concerning GHG emissions from oil and gas production is inadequate for effective policy development. On January 15, 2015, EPA proposed revisions to the GHG reporting rule. On May 12, 2016, EPA issued a Draft Information Collection Request to require oil and natural gas companies to provide the information needed to regulate existing sources of methane emissions, including underground storage facilities that are not currently regulated. On September 23, 2016, EPA issued a second draft Information Collection Request. This could lead to hundreds of thousands of existing oil and gas sources that emit methane being subject to new requirements. The comment period for this information collection effort ended October 31, 2016, and EPA’s proposal has been subject to criticism from the oil and gas industry.
BLM carries out the regulatory duties of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to the 56 million acres of Indian mineral estates based on the Indian Mineral Leasing Act and other laws. Approval of a permit to drill (APD) by the federal land manager (FLM) is normally a prerequisite in Indian Country for a natural gas owner/operator to begin construction oil and natural gas owner/operator beginning construction. This authorization will include a NEPA review by agencies within the Department of the Interior. Under this review process, BLM is typically responsible for authorizing mineral rights and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) authorizes surface activities, such as, preparing the site for well-drilling activities and operating equipment for the production of oil and, or, natural gas. BLM and BIA often enter into agreements designating one agency to take the lead in the NEPA review process regarding the potential impacts of subsurface and surface activities.
On March 26, 2015, BLM released its final rule concerning hydraulic fracturing activities on tribal lands. This rule updates a regulatory program that has existed for many years. Most of the rule is aimed at protecting land, water, and wildlife from the adverse impacts of fracking, but compliance with the CAA is also required. Indian tribes can request a variance from the provisions if they have an equal or more protective regulation. On February 8, 2016, BLM proposed regulations that would update the provisions that are more than 30 years old concerning natural gas venting, flaring, and royalty free gas. The proposed rule would require oil and gas producers to limit flaring at oil wells on public and tribal lands. They require inspection for leaks and the replacement of outdated equipment that vent large quantities of gas. Venting from storage tanks will have new limits, and best practices must be utilized to limit gas losses when removing liquids from wells. The proposal also clarifies when operators owe royalties on flared gas, and authorizes BLM to set royalty rates above 12.5% of the value of the production. Colorado, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and other plaintiffs, including the Ute Tribe, challenged BLM’s authority to regulate fracking. The Ute Tribe also argued that even if BLM has the authority to regulate fracking on federal land, the power does not extend to land held in trust for Indian tribes. In addition, Republican senators were claiming BLM lacks the authority to regulate methane emissions. On June 21, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming held that BLM lacks Congressional authority to promulgate regulations to regulate hydraulic fracturing and the Fracking Rule is unlawful. The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on June 29, 2016.
The federal government exercises its trust responsibilities in Indian country through the BIA within the Department of the Interior. Much of its work is done through the twelve regional offices. The Western Region, located in Phoenix, Arizona, services approximately 143,000 American Indians in forty-two tribes located in Arizona (excluding the Navajo Nation), Nevada, Utah, and portions of California, Oregon and Idaho. The regions have agencies located in their service area to serve specific tribes.
There are six federally recognized Indian tribes in Utah, and a small band of Colorado’s Ute Mountain Tribe, but only two of the tribes have significant sources of air pollutants. The Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation is located in western Utah and covers approximately 112,000 acres. The Tribe does not appear to have any significant air emission sources. The Skull Valley Indian Community (Goshute) is located in northwestern Utah and is approximately 17,248 acres. As of 2009, there were about 500 Goshutes in the two Goshute Tribes. In 1976, the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes built a rocket motor testing facility that was leased to Hercules, Inc. The facility shut down in the mid-1990s, and there are no existing or planned sources of air pollution on the Skull Valley reservation. However, some of the Skull Valley Goshutes tried to allow their reservation to be used for depositing nuclear waste, which became controversial. The Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation were among the groups opposed to the waste facility. The efforts to site the waste facility were ultimately unsuccessful.
The Paiute Indian Tribe consists of five bands that live on five reservations in Southwestern Utah. The Paiutes lost most of their land and population in the period from the mid-1800s through 1980. Legislation enacted on April 3, 1980, restored some of the land. Today the Paiute Tribe’s reservation has a population of 709 on 32,446 acres scattered through southwestern Utah. There are no emission sources on the reservation other than homes and vehicles, and there are no air regulations.
The Northwestern Band of the Shoshone is located in northern Utah. Their 187 acres is the smallest reservation in Utah. In 2013, the tribe had 431 members. It too appears to have no significant air pollution sources.
The Navajo Nation is the largest Indian reservation in the United States, with over 17 million acres, and is headquartered in Window Rock, Arizona. The tribal lands extend into New Mexico and southeastern Utah. The tribe has over 300,000 members, and 6,000 live in Utah. The Navajo Nation has an environmental protection agency with 65 staff members. The Navajo Nation enacted a comprehensive Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act in 2004. The Navajo Nation EPA has been delegated the authority to administer the part 71, Title V program for major facilities, for which the Navajo Nation has promulgated operating permit regulations. There are currently 13 facilities operating with Title V permits on the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation also has been delegated significant authority over environmental inspections and civil enforcement.
Petroleum development began on the Navajo Nation in the 1920s. In 1933, Congress enlarged the Navajo Nation by adding the Aneth Extension located in southeast Utah. In 1956, oil was discovered in the Aneth field and 577 wells have since been drilled, resulting in the production of 428 million barrels of oil. The field has three units operated by Resolute Energy Corporation, which owns the controlling interest in the field. In 1993, the Navajo Nation Oil and Gas Co., Inc. (NNOGC) was created, and in 1998 it became a federally chartered corporation pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act. NNOGC operates an 87-mile pipeline, distributes and markets fuel, and as of 2012 owns a 10% interest in Resolute’s Greater Aneth Field. Both oil and gas are produced from the Aneth field, but oil production dominates. One of the units, the McElmo Creek Unit, has a PSD permit pending at EPA’s Region 9.
The Navajo Nation issued a part 71 permit to the Resolute Natural Resources Company on July 30, 2007, which expired July 30, 2012. Resolute submitted a timely permit renewal application and is allowed to continue to operate under their existing permit. On August 16, 2012, EPA promulgated rules on oil and gas operations, and on December 31, 2014, the Agency issued final revisions to the rules. Resolute expects that they will need to modify their operations in order to comply, which will entail increased capital and operating costs.
The Uintah and Ouray Reservation is located in the Uintah Basin in northeastern Utah, approximately 150 miles east of Salt Lake City. The Northern Ute Tribe (Utes) resides on the reservation. It is comprised of three bands: the White River Band, the Uncompahgre Band, and the Uintah Band. The reservation was the original home of the Uintah Band, but later the Whiteriver Band and the Uncompahgre Band were removed from Colorado and settled in the present Uintah and Ouray Reservation. There are 2,970 Ute Indians, with over half the members living on 1.3 million acres of trust land.
The Uintah and Ouray Reservation covers 4.5 million acres in Utah, which makes it the second largest Indian Reservation in the United States. The Reservation contains land owned by the Northern Ute Tribe, Ute Indian Allocated lands, lands jointly managed by Ute Indian Tribe and Ute Distribution Corporation, privately owned lands, and federal mineral estates. In the Uintah Basin, the Ute Indian Tribe controls about one-third of the mineral estates underlying the surface estates owned by the Tribe.
The Ute Indian Tribe leases about 400,000 acres for oil and gas development, which results in about 7,000 wells producing 45,000 barrels of oil and 900 million cubic feet of gas per day. In the Uintah Basin approximately three-quarters of the gas production and half the oil production is from Indian country. In 2014, the Ute Indian tribe announced a plan to build a 1,000 megawatt natural gas fired electric generating plant on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation to utilize the available fuel. Oil and natural gas wells are regulated by BLM based on the Indian Mineral Leasing Act, with regulations that are uniform for all federal lands. This means that drilling permits are subject to BLM’s forty-nine-step process and a fee of $6,500 or more for each well. For this reason, some tribal leaders believe much of the growth in oil and gas production in Utah has occurred on state or private lands, which is an issue of concern to the Utes.
The Northern Ute Indian Tribe has TAS status. However, EPA issues the Title V operating permits on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. There are ten Title V permits on the reservation, which is about 20% of the permits issued nationwide. There are nine operating permits for the gas industry; eight are for compressor stations. There are no PSD permits for oil and gas industry sources, despite the reservation’s importance in the production of this energy resource. Because the Basin has not yet been designated nonattainment for ozone, there are no nonattainment new source review permit requirements. There are five synthetic minor source permits. There are no general permits. The CAA requirements aimed at major sources are of limited applicability because the oil and gas industry minimizes the sources subject to the requirements; thus, emissions from existing oil and gas wells have been largely unregulated.
To determine whether a source is major for a determination under the Title V operating permit program, or the PSD or NSR nonattainment programs, the emissions from multiple wells are aggregated for the purpose of regulation if they are physically adjacent. By separating wells the oil and gas industry avoids aggregation. EPA attempted to regulate wells based on their functional relatedness, but EPA lost in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Its efforts to limit the decision to the Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction also failed. EPA in 2016, as previously discussed, announced a new source determination rule that would aggregate wells within one-quarter of a mile.
The Uintah Basin, is located in northeast Utah. The Uinta Mountain range is to the north and the Book and Roan Cliffs is to the south. The Wasatch Range is to the west, and the Piceance Basin in Colorado is to the east. The Basin’s altitude begins at approximately 4,800 feet above sea level. Duchesne and Uintah Counties make up nearly all the Basin. The Uintah Basin is the center of the state’s oil and gas industry; in 2014, there were approximately 8,000 gas wells and 2,000 oil wells in operation. The oil wells are mostly located in Duchesne County, and the gas wells are mostly located in Uintah County. There are also about 1,000 coalbed methane wells and conventional wells in Carbon County. Approximately two-thirds of the active oil and gas wells, three-quarters of the gas production, and half of the oil production are located in Indian country.
During the summer, atmospheric ozone levels in the western United States approach the ozone NAAQS even in remote rural areas.Rural ozone air pollution has not been the subject of much study. It was only since 2010 that high ozone levels in the winter were found in the Upper Green River Basin in Wyoming and in the Uintah Basin. With the rapid increase in oil and gas production in the rural west, and the associated air pollution, winter ozone has become a subject of increased monitoring and research projects.
The chemistry of winter ozone formation differs from summer ozone formation, and is only now relatively complete, but further research is needed to develop valid predictive models. An important precursor appears to be carbonyl emissions, such as aldehyde, keytone, and ester, emitted by oil and gas operations, especially when a well is drilled. The primary cause of high ozone concentrations is wintertime temperature inversions, but clouds, wind, snow depth, and the reflectivity of snow affect ozone concentrations. During inversion conditions in the winter of 2013–2014 the then 8-hour ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) average was exceeded at 12 of 18 monitoring locations in the Uintah Basin. The ozone standard is now 70 ppb. However, during the winter of 2012, one of the warmest winters on record, the ozone levels did not exceed the standard.
The high ozone levels led the Northern Ute Indian Tribe’s Air Quality Department to work in cooperation with EPA, the National Park Service (NPS), and Utah to monitor ozone at locations in the Uintah Basin. Utah’s Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has monitors in Roosevelt, Vernal, and Fruitland. The National Park Service has monitors in Dinosaur National Park and maintains a monitoring station in Rangely with BLM. In addition, Utah’s Division of Air Quality has a partnership with industry to evaluate the impact of oil and gas development on air quality.
EPA and the Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation have regulatory authority for air pollution control in Indian country. BLM has responsibility for permitting and overseeing 11,000 oil and gas operations in the Uintah Basin. On the nonfederal lands in the Basin, DAQ handles the permitting of oil and gas operations that is coordinated with the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (DOGM), which regulates oil and gas activities through the use of drilling permits. New or modified sources subject to DAQ/DOGM’s authority must obtain an approval order to ensure there is no increase in the ozone level in the Basin. Sources subject to Utah’s regulation that emit less than five TPY of any criteria pollutant, or less than 500 pounds of any single hazardous air pollutant, or less than 2,000 pounds of all hazardous air pollutants are not subject to the NSR program. Many emission sources in the oil and gas industry are below this de minimis threshold for NSR permitting. Moreover, information concerning oil and gas operations has been inadequate for effective regulation.
The State of Utah and the Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation are participating in the Ozone Advance program to reduce emissions of ozone precursors with the primary focus being VOC emission reductions to avoid the designation of Basin as an ozone nonattainment area. This is unlikely to succeed. Uintah County is expected to be designated a moderate nonattainment area, and Duchesne County is expected to be designated a marginal nonattainment area based on the 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. This will require SIP revisions to impose more stringent requirements on existing sources. The requirements will include the need to install reasonably available control technology at existing sources, and EPA announced the release of draft control techniques guidelines to control VOCs on September 18, 2015. On October 1, 2015, EPA lowered the ozone standard to 70 ppb, which is expected to lead to additional emissions controls on existing sources including existing oil and gas operations.
While EPA and Utah work to reduce emissions from oil and gas operations in the Uintah Basin, BLM is dealing with a proposal by Crescent Point Energy, a Canadian company, that is seeking approval to drill up to 3,925 wells in a 35-mile swath across the basin. The project will include 863 miles of new roads, 170 miles of cross-country pipelines, five saltwater disposal wells, five facilities to treat “produced” waste water, four gas-processing plants, and other support facilities.
Environmental law applicable to Indian lands is similar to the laws applicable throughout the nation, but with significant differences. States play a very limited role in regulating sources of emissions in Indian lands. EPA has the major responsibility for controlling air pollution, but its efforts to date are inadequate. The CAA gives tribes the power to regulate air pollution, but only a few tribes, such as the Navajo Nation, have the resources to utilize this power. Voluminous federal regulations take aim primarily at new sources, while existing sources have much less oversight, although this may be changing. The inability of the federal and state governments to effectively aggregate oil and gas operations in order to impose major source requirements has left important sources of rural air pollution minimally regulated. The new and pending regulations as well as the potential designation of lands used for oil and gas production as nonattainment areas may bring needed controls. However, trying to regulate effectively an industry suffering from effects of low energy prices will be a challenge.
Arnold W. Reitze, Jr. is Professor of Law at The University of Utah and member of the Utah Air Quality Board. Research assistance was provided by J.D. candidate Sheena Christman. This research was supported by the Albert and Elaine Borchard Fund for Faculty Excellence. The author wishes to thank John Ruple, Esq. and Dean Suagee, Esq. for their helpful comments.
at 18,110–11 (incurable formatting error – this and the other Region 10 Tribes’ FIPs are properly cited as “Id.,” rather than “1.,” referring to 70 Fed. Reg. 18,074 (Apr. 8, 2005) ).

References: § 1151
 V. 
 § 51
 § 49
 § 49
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 52