Energy & Environmental Law Blog : Energy & Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease Law Firm : Oil, Gas & Green Technology

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has announced that it is proposing new rules to amend the air emissions regulations that govern oil and gas facilities.  "The rule proposal updates administrative and technical requirements, and includes enforceable monitoring, sampling, and record keeping requirements. This proposal helps the agency make certain that oil and gas facilities are properly operated and maintained, in order to continue to ensure that public health is protected."  Until those rules are formally published next week, however, their precise scope and burdens remain unclear.

• Email This
• Print

U.S. EPA is proposing to add emissions sources to its mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting program, including onshore petroleum and natural gas production, processing, transmission and storage facilities (see here).  Its rationale:  "Fugitive and vented GHG emissions from this industry (i.e., the petroleum and natural gas industry sector) are the second largest source of human-made methane emissions in the United States *** and represent a critical addition to the emissions data that EPA is already collecting under other parts of the MRR [Mandatory Reporting Rule]."

Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year would be captured in the program.  Notably, "[d]ue to the unique characteristics of these industry segments, the proposed definition of 'facility' for onshore and offshore petroleum and natural gas production, and natural gas distribution differ from the definition of facility applied in the remainder of the MRR."  For production facilities, the relevant definition proposed by EPA:

Onshore petroleum and natural gas production facility means all petroleum or natural gas equipment associated with all petroleum or natural gas production wells under common ownership or common control by an onshore petroleum and natural gas production owner or operator located in a single hydrocarbon basin as defined by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists which is assigned a three digit Geologic Province Code. Where an operating entity holds more than one permit in a basin, then all onshore petroleum and natural gas production equipment relating to all permits in their name in the basin is one onshore petroleum and natural gas production facility.

A public hearing has been scheduled for April 19, 2010, in Arlington, VA.  The comment period will be open for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.

[Update:  The notice has now been published in the Federal Register, which can be viewed here.  The related notice regarding CO2 sequestration can be found here.  (Moved up.)]

• Email This
• Print

The Dallas Morning News is reporting on claims made by researchers that mobile methane detectors have found plumes near natural gas facilities located in Barnett Shale counties.  Looks like they may be centered around compressor stations.

• Email This
• Print

U.S. EPA has published notice of a proposed consent decree with WildEarth Guardians and San Juan Citizens Alliance filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under citizen suit provisions of the Clean Air Act (WildEarth Guardians, et al. v. Jackson, No. 1:09– CV–00089–CKK).  Among other things, if approved it would require EPA to address the need for new source performance standards (NSPS) and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the Oil and Natural Gas production source category.

You can get a copy of the proposed decree here (EPA–HQ–OGC–2009–0918).

• Email This
• Print

We are moving towards greater regulation of emissions from oil and gas exploration and production operations, according to this article in The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel.  That looks quite possible.

• Email This
• Print

Back on December 19, 2008, USEPA issued a final rule revising the requirements of the major NSR program regarding the treatment of fugitive emissions (‘‘Fugitive Emissions Rule’’). 73 FR 77882.  The final rule required fugitive emissions to be included in determining whether a physical or operational change results in a major modification only for sources in industries that have been designated through rulemaking under section 302(j)of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The final rule amended all portions of the major NSR program regulations: Permit requirements, the PSD program, and the emission offset interpretive ruling.  On February 17, 2009, the Natural Resources Defense Council submitted a petition for reconsideration of the December 2008 final rule.  On April 24, 2009, USEPA responded to the February 17, 2009 petition indicating they were convening a reconsideration proceeding for the inclusion of fugitive emissions and granting a 3-month administrative stay of the rule contained in the PSD program.  The letter also indicated that USEPA would publish a notice of proposed rulemaking‘ ‘in the near future’’ to address the specific issues for which they were granting reconsideration.  The administrative stay of the Fugitive Emissions Rule became effective on September 30, 2009. See 74 FR 50115.  

USEPA’s authority under section 307(d)(7)(B) to stay a rule or portion thereof solely under the Administrator’s discretion is limited to 3 months.

USEPA announced today (December 11, 2009, 74 FR 65692) they were making an interim final determination to provide an additional stay for 3 months.  The 3-month stay that began on September 30, 2009 is to expire on December 30, 2009.  At that time, facilities would be required to comply with the final rule as published [73 FR 77882] unless an additional stay is set in place.  USEPA has now indicated its intent to publish a notice in the near future that will propose an additional stay of the Fugitive Emissions during the time period while USEPA reconsiders the rule. Since that proposed rule has not yet been published, any resulting final action that EPA takes will likely occur after December 30, 2009.
 

• Email This
• Print

We've noted before the concerns raised about air pollution from E&P operations in the shale plays (see here, e.g.).  The Dallas Morning News has a good summary article observing that the issue has not gone away, noting a call for a moratorium on permits in the Barnett Shale.

• Email This
• Print

We've noted before the concerns raised about air pollution from E&P operations in the shale plays (see here, e.g.).  The Dallas Morning News has a good summary article observing that the issue has not gone away, noting a call for a moratorium on permits in the Barnett Shale.

• Email This
• Print

Environmental Protection Agency has proposed stronger National Ambient Air Quality Standards for nitrogen dioxide. The proposed rule establishes, for the first time, a one-hour NO2 standard at a level between 80 – 100 parts per billion (ppb) and adds additional monitoring requirements for areas within 50 meters of major roads in cities with at least 350,000 residents.

• Email This
• Print