U.S. EPA Proposes Amendments to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOa

On September 11, 2018 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) forwarded proposed reconsideration amendments for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOa (Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities for which Construction, Modification, or Reconstruction Commenced after September 18, 2015) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.  The proposed amendments primarily relate to specific issues for which reconsideration of the June 3, 2016 rule was granted by U.S. EPA:

• Fugitive emissions monitoring requirements at well sites and compressor stations.
• Available exemptions for pneumatic pumps at well sites.
• Certification requirements.
• Application requirements for use of alternative means of emissions limitations (AMEL).

In addition, U.S. EPA is proposing clarifying amendments and implementation improvements with respect to the following:

• Well completion flowback requirements (regarding the location of a separator, and the regulation of screenouts and coil tubing cleanouts).
• The definitions of “capital expenditure” and “Certifying Official.”
• Storage vessel maximum average daily throughput calculations.
• Equipment leaks at onshore natural gas processing plants [where a new exemption for equipment in volatile organic compound (VOC) service less than 300 hours per year is being proposed].
• Recordkeeping and reporting requirements (to streamline and reduce burden to the industry).

For the purpose of this article, we are focusing our attention on the specific issues for which U.S. EPA granted reconsideration.

Fugitive Emissions Monitoring Requirements

The current version of Subpart OOOOa requires owners and operators of well sites and compressor stations to develop and implement a fugitive emissions monitoring plan.  It requires monitoring on a semi-annual basis for well sites and on a quarterly basis for compressor stations, obligating such sites to repair any leaking components within 30 days of detection.

In response to petitions to reconsider these requirements, U.S. EPA is proposing to reduce the frequency of required monitoring at well sites and compressor stations.  In the case of well sites, U.S. EPA is proposing provisions that would allow operators to discontinue fugitive emissions monitoring altogether once all major production and processing equipment is removed (i.e., once the site contains only wellheads).  Prior to that scenario, reduced monitoring is proposed as follows:

• Biennial monitoring for low production well sites (i.e., well sites with a combined oil and natural gas production of less than 15 barrels of oil equivalent per day, averaged over the first 30 days of production).
• Annual monitoring for non-low production well sites.

U.S. EPA is proposing either semi-annual or annual monitoring for compressor stations (where U.S. EPA is specifically seeking comment and supporting information to determine which proposed frequency is most appropriate).

Regarding leak repair requirements, U.S. EPA is proposing a relaxation of the current requirements.  If finalized as proposed, a first attempt at repair would be required to be made within 30 days of leak detection and completion of repairs would be required within 60 days of leak detection.

To increase alignment with existing State programs, U.S. EPA is proposing to allow compliance with certain existing State requirements (e.g., monitoring, leak repair, and recordkeeping requirements) as an alternative to meeting specific Federal fugitive emissions monitoring requirements for well sites and/or compressor stations.  If finalized as proposed, owners and operators would be allowed to base fugitive emissions monitoring and repair plans on requirements from certain states, such as California, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah, in lieu of the requirements in Subpart OOOOa.  The fugitive emissions monitoring requirements of these six states are at least equivalent to, or more stringent than, the fugitive emissions monitoring requirements included in the proposed Federal rule.

U.S. EPA is soliciting comment on the monitoring frequencies discussed above, as well as whether the current rule 60-day deadline for conducting initial fugitive emissions monitoring surveys for well sites and compressor stations should be extended to allow additional time to install equipment.

Pneumatic Pumps

Subpart OOOOa currently provides an exemption from the requirement to route methane and VOC emissions from pneumatic pumps located at “non-greenfield” (i.e., existing) well sites to an existing control device or process on-site.  The exemption currently applies to “non-greenfield” well sites due to the understood technical infeasibility of installing such controls at an existing site.  “Greenfield” (i.e., new) sites, however, are not currently eligible for this exemption based on the assumption that the technical infeasibility of routing emissions could be addressed in advance of developing a new well site, thereby making it technically feasible to install such controls at new sites.

In response to receiving petitions for reconsideration on this issue, U.S. EPA is proposing to expand the technical infeasibility provision to include both new (“greenfield”) and existing (“non-greenfield”) well sites.  U.S. EPA is soliciting comment on circumstances that would make it technically infeasible to control pneumatic pump emissions at new (“greenfield”) well sites.

Certification Requirements

Subpart OOOOa currently requires that a Professional Engineer certify when it is technically infeasible to route methane and VOC emissions from pneumatic pumps to an existing control or process, and when the design and capacity of a closed vent system is sufficient to route emissions to a control device from affected facilities.  In response to petitions for reconsideration on these certification requirements, U.S. EPA is proposing to expand the certification requirements to allow in-house engineers with appropriate expertise to also make the required certifications.

Alternative Means of Emissions Limitations

Subpart OOOOa currently includes provisions for an owner or operator to apply for an alternative means of emissions limitations (AMEL) if they wish to use alternative work practices to accomplish emissions reductions that are equal to or greater than emissions reductions associated with a work practice specified in Subpart OOOOa.  In response to receiving petitions on these provisions, U.S. EPA is proposing to streamline the process by which AMELs are requested, by allowing individual AMEL applications to request use of the same technology for multiple sites.  If finalized as proposed, AMEL applicants would also be allowed to work with manufacturers, vendors, or trade associations to apply for an AMEL that incorporates the use of emerging technologies.  Finally, AMEL applicants would be allowed to supplement field data with test data, modeling analyses, and other documentation as long as seasonality is addressed.

The proposed amendments were published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2018. U.S. EPA is accepting comments for a period of 60 days thereafter (i.e., comments are due by December 17, 2018).  Interested parties may use one of the methods below to submit written comments:

• Online: regulations.gov, search for the Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483, click on “Comment Now!”
• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
• Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID. No. EPAHQ-OAR-2017-0483.
• Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.

If you have questions about how these actions could affect your operations, what your next steps should be, or if you need assistance in the preparation of comments, please reach out to me at (610) 933-5246 x155, or at cchinofsky@all4inc.com.

TCEQ Unveils New Tool to Streamline Air Quality Modeling

A theme of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Autumn Conference (Conference) held on October 9^th and 10^th was the introduction of air permitting “tools” designed to streamline the air permitting process for both TCEQ and permit applicants.  These “tools” extended all the way into the air quality modeling arena with the roll out of the Electronic Modeling Evaluation Workbook (EMEW).  The intention behind the EMEW is to take the place of an Air Quality Analysis (AQA) report and an air quality modeling protocol as well as require applicants to provide all the necessary information in a standard format with none of the “fluff”.  The EMEW is a Microsoft Excel-based workbook that contains tabs for modeling related options that are required as part of minor New Source Review (NSR) permitting in TX.  The EMEW closely follows TCEQ’s APDG 6232 Guidance Document (i.e., Air Quality Modeling Guidelines) that was recently updated (September 2018) to incorporate amendments to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W (The Guideline on Air Quality Models).  However, as even TCEQ admitted at the conference, there is no regulatory basis for the requirement to submit an EMEW in place of a tradition AQA report.

Conversation at the Conference centered around another “request” of TCEQ related to the use of the EMEW.  TCEQ is requesting that an EMEW be submitted with a minor NSR permit application including “preliminary” air quality modeling results starting June 1, 2019 in lieu of an AQA Report or air quality modeling protocol.  Anybody that has worked on air quality modeling knows that submitting air quality modeling results with what essentially qualifies as an air quality modeling protocol, is not the usual flow of an air quality modeling project.  Typically, an air quality modeling protocol is submitted to gain approval of the emissions calculations and technical approach used in the air quality modeling analysis.  Submittal of results with the initial EMEW and minor NSR application will inevitably lead to additional modeling runs if the TCEQ finds any revisions that are necessary as part of their review of the EMEW and minor NSR application.  TCEQ’s justification for submittal of preliminary modeling results with the EMEW is to identify any “project stoppers” or major project changes that would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable air quality modeling standards before time is spent reviewing the minor NSR application.

However, as an optimistic person, hopefully any additional time spent utilizing the new EMEW will be offset by less back and forth with TCEQ and not having to develop a AQA report.  For this reason, I applaud TCEQ’s efforts to streamline the air permitting process and look forward to utilizing the EMEW on my next air quality modeling project.  For permit applicants my recommendation is to plan ahead and expect to address the detailed emissions source characteristics for your next project even earlier in the process.  If you have any questions about the EMEW or would like ALL4 to assist with your next air quality modeling project, please reach out to me at (281) 937-7553 extension 118 or ddix@all4inc.com.

TCEQ Top 5 Pitfalls of NSR Permitting

As the leaves begin to turn, and cooler weather rolls in, it’s clear that change is in the air.  This was not only true of the seasons but also the announcements at the 2018 Autumn Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Conference held in Austin, Texas on October 9-10th.  The conference provided some quality reminders about the air permitting process that can benefit everyone – be sure to check out Thomas’ conference recap on New Source Review (NSR) permitting.

New Source Review (NSR) permitting can be tricky to understand, but even trickier to organize, especially the public notice (PN) portion.  The subject of the necessity of certain public notice aspects of the permitting process came up at the conference but were quickly dissolved since the notice is foundational to the process.  There may come a time when these rules change, but for now we should all hold on to our relationships with the local newspaper and sign makers. Outside of public notice, there are many other parts to the NSR permitting process.  The TCEQ dove into the process in general and highlighted the top 5 problems that come across TCEQ’s desks.  Below is a compiled list of these top 5 pitfalls and some tips on how to avoid them.

Incomplete application

We all get caught up in a new task and lose track of work, but this pitfall is more concerned with submitted applications that are missing key information such as plot plans, Table 1-A emission point summary, and even certain formatting requirements.  There are lots of little parts to the application, so the best option is to read through the PI-1 and PI-1R instructions before, during, and after preparing an application.  Also starting early and staying organized head off a ton of problems.

Emissions calculations

Permit reviewers receive these calculations and must recreate them for verification.  TCEQ must be provided with detailed instructions and information on all the sources used to complete the emissions calculations.   Providing accurate, detailed information will make their lives easier and the review process more efficient.  Small reminders: use scientific notation (no zeros!) and be ready to submit your spreadsheets electronically if asked.

Public notice errors

There are many steps to this portion (as we already alluded to), but every detail is in the notice letter received from the TCEQ. Read it carefully!  Always check the school districts for a bilingual program before beginning the process, and when calling around to public sign makers and posting locations, remember that this process isn’t new.  Usually someone working at these locations has been through it before, so keep asking around until you find the experienced ones.  Lastly, pay close attention to the timelines. The deadlines come up quickly and need to be addressed early.

Unfamiliarity with permitting

TCEQ’s suggestion for this one was a bit brutal.  Essentially, you can get familiar, or consider hiring someone who is qualified and experienced… like ALL4.  Whether you are entirely unfamiliar, or a seasoned professional who just doesn’t have time, we are here to help.

Response times

The final pitfall is one that catches us in every aspect of life: deadlines.  Our tip to you is to stay organized.  Put the deadlines on your calendar, in a spreadsheet, or anywhere you will frequently check on them. It’s simple to say, but the execution is rarely as smooth.

The last bit of advice is that the TCEQ is always available for phone calls.  Every speaker at the event offered their desk phone number and to respond to any questions or concerns with their topic. Don’t be afraid to pick up the phone and give them a call.  And if this is all too much…. give your friends at ALL4 a call because air quality compliance is clearly our business.  Please contact me at (281) 937-7553, extension 304 or rhenn@all4inc.com of you have any questions.

TCEQ Air Quality 101 Blog Series – News on NSR Permitting from the TCEQ Autumn Conference

I recently attended the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Autumn Environmental Conference and Expo (Conference) and attended the Air Permits Division (APD) presentations.  During the event, the APD proudly announced they are focusing on streamlining the air permitting process by providing more efficient tools for applicants known collectively as Direct Assistance Guidance (DAG).  One such tool unveiled at the Conference that generated much discussion was the New Source Review Application Workbook (NAW).

In preparing the NAW, TCEQ staff identified and compiled the various (and sometimes complex) steps of the New Source Review (NSR) permitting process and into a tool to with the intent of expediting the NSR permitting process for both the APD and permit applicants.  The new NAW has combined the General Application Form and Instructions PI-1 (TCEQ Form-10252), Emission Point Summary – Table 1(a) (TCEQ Form – 10153), and Certification of Estimated Capital Cost and Permit Application Fee – Table 30 (TCEQ Form-10196) into a single Excel workbook.   Applicants use of the NAW tool will improve the permit application process experience for the APD and permit applicants by providing a consistent format for submittal with less data entry.  The use of the NAW will focus applicant and reviewer on the necessary documentation, which will result in quicker APD review, and fewer deficiencies to slow the process.  This use of the workbook is anticipated to shorten the review significantly so the TCEQ can move towards more e-permitting for NSR applications and increased utilization of the Senate Bill 1045 (85th Texas Legislature, 2017) Public Notice (PN) consolidation.  This bill expedites the permitting process by allowing the first and second PNs to be combined into a single PN for NSR applications.  This would enable a NSR application to be deemed administratively and technically complete and would allow the Executive Director (ED) to generate a draft permit within 15 days of receipt of an application.

The NAW also includes provisions to guide applicants through the TCEQ Three-Tier Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis using frequently permitted units.   Additionally, the NAW includes steps to guide the applicants toward the applicable monitoring requirements and regulations that will apply to their site.  The NAW also consolidates permits by rule (PBR) and standard permits into a single document that will last for the life of the permit.  The APD intends to maintain the NAW and update it, as needed for each amendment.

The NAW was made available October 1^st, 2018 on TCEQ’s website, but is not officially required to be used in a permit application until June 1^st, 2019.  In the interim, we can assist clients in switching to the new workbook or starting in the new workbook from scratch.  Please contact us if you have any questions.