© Copyright 2015 by K&L Gates LLP. All rights reserved.
David L. Wochner, PartnerK&L Gates LLP – Washington, DCTel. [email protected]
U.S. Environmental Standards and Regulations for Shale Gas Development
U.S.-China Shale Gas Training ProgramEnvironmental Policy and Technology for Shale Gas DevelopmentDecember 3-4, 2015, Beijing, China
klgates.com 2
Global Oil and Gas Counsel Across Five Continents
US REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Natural gas activities impacted Environmental issues in the upstream natural gas sector Federal role in US shale gas regulation and
management Current issues impacting shale gas development Lessons learned from U.S. shale gas development
klgates.com 3
OIL & GAS INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES IMPACTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION Upstream – extraction and production
Facility siting Facility design Drilling and development activities Long-term operations
Midstream – gathering, processing, and transportation Facility siting and design (pipelines, compressor stations,
dehydration stations, etc.) Long-term operations
Downstream – exports, end uses, electric generation, petrochemical facilities
klgates.com 4
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN THE OIL AND GAS E&PSECTOR Environmental assessment and planning Well pad siting and design / support facility siting and design Well construction – casing and cementing standards Hydraulic fracturing fluid chemical composition & disclosure Water withdrawal – location, amount & conditions Flowback and produced water management (storage, treatment &
disposal) Drill cutting and waste management Surface management of chemicals Emergency and contingency planning / training / response Air emissions (during construction, operations, transportation) Liability issues – for pre-existing conditions on land, releases during
development & operations; stray gas Response to community & environmental group concerns
klgates.com 5
FEDERAL ROLE IN US SHALE GAS REGULATION
Most oil and natural gas well regulation in the United States is focused at state agency level Substantial experience accumulated over many decades in state
environmental and oil & gas management agencies
Historically, there has been relatively limited US federal agency involvement in regulation of upstream oil and gas production
Over the last few years the US federal government is increasingly involved, incrementally regulating and investigating various aspects of unconventional production activities
klgates.com 6
THE AGENCIES – US EPA
Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources – July 2015 Draft Study Indicates that EPA “did not find evidence [of] widespread, systemic
impacts on drinking water resources” from hydraulic fracturing Draft is currently undergoing peer review by the agency’s scientific
advisory board hydraulic fracturing panel The panel has held a series of public teleconferences and meetings -
next one is scheduled for December 3, 2015 Proposed rules/draft guidance regulating air emissions, including
methane and VOCs, from oil and gas sources – August 18, 2015 Establish control techniques guidelines (CTGs) for VOC emissions from
existing oil and gas sources in ozone nonattainment areas Amend the definition of “adjacent” for the purpose of EPA’s
determination whether to aggregate emissions from interconnected oil and gas sources.
Public comment period is scheduled to close on December 4, 2015
klgates.com 7
THE AGENCIES – US EPA
Amendments to EPA GHG reporting program for oil and gas sources On October 22, 2015, EPA finalized amendments to its GHG
reporting program rules for oil and gas sources Expands the scope of the GHG reporting program to gathering
and boosting systems, completions and workovers of oil wells with hydraulic fracturing, and blowdowns of natural gas transmission pipelines
EPA’s “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule EPA released the final WOTUS rule on May 27, 2015 Industry’s position is that it dramatically expands the definition of
the Clean Water Act jurisdiction to areas that are often dry Highly political and currently subject to significant litigation in
multiple federal trial and appellate courts
klgates.com 8
THE AGENCIES – US EPA
Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category On March 31, 2015, EPA released a proposed rule that would
prohibit the discharge of oil and gas wastewater to POTWs (which is generally consistent with current industry practice)
EPA Response to Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) Petition to add upstream oil and gas operations to Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) under EPCRA EPA’s October 22, 2015 response indicates that it plans to
propose a rule that would make natural gas processing facilities subject to the TRI reporting program, but not other upstream oil and gas sources
klgates.com 9
THE AGENCIES – US EPA
EPA Inspector General Evaluation of EPA and State Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing – July 16, 2015 Office of Inspector General’s final report identifies two issues in
need of improvement by EPA: (1) oversight of permit issuance for hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuels; and (2) a plan for responding to comments on a proposed rule regarding regulation of hydraulic fracturing chemicals
Permitting Guidance for oil and gas hydraulic fracturing activities using diesel fuels Final guidance released on February 11, 2014
klgates.com 10
THE AGENCIES – US EPA
Study of induced seismicity related to underground injection disposal wells – February 6, 2015 EPA announced in January 2012 it was preparing a
“considerations document” of induced seismicity issues, focusing on well sites in West Virginia, Arkansas, and Texas
EPA Inspector General Evaluation of Efforts to Address Methane Emissions From Natural Gas Distribution Pipelines – July 25, 2014 Final report evaluates what actions EPA has taken to reduce
methane emissions from leaking distribution pipelines and recommends the agency consider whether further regulations are needed
Also suggests EPA work with the PHMSA to deal with methane leaks
klgates.com 11
THE AGENCIES – US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
"Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future" – Spring 2011 President Obama directed the DOE Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
(SEAB) Natural Gas Subcommittee to make recommendations to improve the safety and environmental performance of natural gas hydraulic fracturing
The Subcommittee issued a report on August 18, 2011, recommending actions that federal and state agencies and industry should be taking to ensure safer operating practices
SEAB Task Force on FracFocus 2.0 – March 2014 Major recommendations include modifying FracFocus to accept
“systems” disclosure and commissioning a third party audit FracFocus accommodated many of the recommendations and
FracFocus 3.0 was announced on February 26, 2015 DOE consideration of unconventional production in LNG export
proceedings
klgates.com 12
THE AGENCIES – US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BLM Rules on Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal Lands BLM’s final rules regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal lands were
published in the federal register on March 26, 2015 Focus is on disclosure of chemicals used in the fracturing process,
wellbore integrity and water use and disposal of flow back water On September 30, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Wyoming issued an order preliminarily enjoining BLM’s rules On November 27, 2015, Environmental groups appealed the court’s
order issuing the injunction to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Participation of U.S. Geological Survey in the interagency hydraulic
fracturing coordinating programs with DOE and EPA Venting and flaring
BLM has announced plans to develop new regulations on the conditions under which venting and flaring of gas production may be authorized during drilling or production operations on federal lands
klgates.com 13
THE AGENCIES – FERC
FERC has jurisdiction over the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines and LNG import and export facilities
The Sierra Club and several national and local environmental organizations have challenged repeatedly FERC’s failure to consider alleged impacts of upstream hydraulic fracturing activities when it is conducting an environmental review of midstream (pipelines) and downstream (LNG terminals) infrastructure They allege that FERC improperly failed to consider upstream “induced”
environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing due to increased demand for natural gas for shipping on pipelines or exports through coastal facility
More generally, NGOs have increasingly targeted FERC with protests and letter-writing campaigns
klgates.com 14
THE AGENCIES – MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES
Department of Homeland Security Evaluating whether to allow barges carrying wastewater from hydraulic
fracturing on U.S. rivers Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has called for a wider study of potential public health effects of natural gas development
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) participated in the analysis of groundwater samples from oil and gas incidents Wyoming and Pennsylvania and issued health consultations for the sites
Department of Agriculture George Washington National Forest included in its draft Forest Plan a
ban on horizontal drilling Securities and Exchange Commission
In August 2011, the SEC began requesting information from publicly-traded natural gas companies regarding hydraulic fracturing chemicals
klgates.com 15
CONTINUING AND EVOLVING ISSUES What is appropriate role of federal vs state government?
What issues warrant uniformity or a floor of regulatory standards? What issues require flexibility to address differing conditions across
nation and geologic regions? What is appropriate role of local vs. state government? What is role of government standards vs. industry best practice
development? The long process for statutory and regulatory enactments
Legal challenges to authority of agencies to consider and regulate shale gas-related issues
Nexus between shale gas development and need for infrastructure to take that gas to market
klgates.com 16
LESSONS FROM NORTH AMERICA & OTHER REGIONS Shale gas development is a progressive learning / adaptive
management process No regulations are perfect Environmental analysis / risk management require application of
both common sense and cumulative experience The public is a major stakeholder Industry’s reputation rests on the performance of every player –
embracing best practices is essential Integrated, comprehensive, and predictable environmental
regulations are critical to successful and environmentally beneficial development
klgates.com 17
Questions?
ADDITIONAL REGULATORY MATERIALS
klgates.com
Well Pad & Support Facility Siting
klgates.com
TYPICAL WELLPAD
21
klgates.com
WELL PAD SITING FOR UNCONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS Average well pad = ~5 acres
(2000 m²), 2-3 acres after drilling Multiple wells – 4-8+ per
well pad State regulated
Laterals = 1.6-2.5 km Surface area impact is small
fraction of area tapped Lateral location, direction and
distance depend on formation characteristics
Horizontal drilling design gives some flexibility in well pad siting and impact avoidance
Access roads, gathering lines22
klgates.com
SITING CONSTRAINTS
Federal law constraints Wetlands & “waters of the United States” - Clean Water Act §404 Endangered Species Act – designated habitats and avoidance of “takes”
States: Most establish siting constraints and setbacks from sensitive uses, with
provision for variances and exceptions under certain circumstances Examples:
1000 ft. from a water well, surface water intake, reservoir 200 ft. from a public park, forest, game land or wildlife area Areas that will impact threatened or endangered species 100 ft. from wetland > 1 acre in size Not in floodplain without variance and special designs 200/500 ft. from a building, absent landowner consent
Other issues Identification of closed / abandoned wells in area
23
klgates.com
Facility Design and Construction
WELL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Casing & cementing – the most
critical element Example of modern standards = PA:
25 Pa. Code §§78.81-78.87 Casing and cementing plan for
every well Casing pipe standards Surface hole drilled on air,
freshwater, or freshwater based drilling fluid
Multi-string casing: conductor pipe; surface casing; intermediate casing; production casing
Surface casing to 50 ft. below fresh groundwater, cemented back to surface
Centralizers required every 150 ft.
Where cement circulation lost, additional casing strings required
Cement compressive strength standards (1200 psi in 72 hrs.)
25
WELL PAD DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
Requirements for erosion & sedimentation control plans and permits Partial exemption in Federal Clean Water Act § 402(l)(2) for discharges
composed entirely of stormwater from oil and gas exploration, production, processing and transmission operations which “are not contaminated by contract with, and do not come into contact with, ay overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct or waste products ….”
State permitting mandates exceed CWA (E.g., 25 Pa. Code Ch. 102) State regulations
Impoundment design and lining systems Containment for tanks and chemical storage
Federal regulations Mandates of Federal Clean Air Act §112(r) “general duty” clause Oil Pollution Control Act – requirements for SPCC plans and
containment around tanks storing “oil”
klgates.com 26
klgates.com
Chemical Use & Disclosure
klgates.com
CHEMICAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS IN U.S.
Chemical disclosure requirements Hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure primarily governed by state
laws Federal Emergency Planning & Community Right to Know Law
rules for hazardous chemicals present at sites > certain quantities EPA Toxic Substances Control Act
EPA granted and denied in part an NGO petition under TSCA May 2014 ANPRM – range of options under §8 re disclosure of chemicals used
in hydraulic fracturing
Balancing competing concerns: Public trust and disclosure of risks Information needs of environmental agencies and medical
professionals to manage and address risks or release events Service company concerns for protection of intellectual property
(proprietary recipes and practices)
28
klgates.com
EVOLVING STATE CHEMICAL DISCLOSURE LAWS
Some states (e.g., Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas) require chemical information disclosure to public via www.FracFocus.org Chemical Disclosure Registry or similar website Pennsylvania plans to transition away from FracFocus to a new state-
run online database by June 2016 Other states – information submitted only to state regulatory agency What must be disclosed:
Most: list of chemical ingredients in hydraulic fracturing fluid (CAS #)
Some: submission of material safety data sheets Some: maximum concentration or range of concentrations Exceptions: chemicals not disclosed to operator by mfg, vendor
or service providers, chemicals not intentionally added, chemicals that occur incidentally or unintentionally present in trace amounts
29
klgates.com
CHEMICAL DISCLOSURE (CON’T)
When disclosures required: Before fracturing treatment, planned chemical use (a few states) After treatment, actual chemical use – 20-60 days after
completion (majority of states) But: emergency planning rule may separately require certain
disclosures to state and local emergency agencies Trade secret protections:
May limit disclosure to agency May require disclosure to agency but limit disclosure to public
(with exceptions for disclosure to medical personnel) Useful reference: Congressional Research Services, Hydraulic
Fracturing: Chemical Disclosure Requirements (June 2012)
30
klgates.com
Chemical disclosure requirements in eastern statesPennsylvania West Virginia Ohio
What must be disclosed Chemical additive information (trade name, CAS#, max concentration, volume of base fluid)
Before: list of anticipated additivesAfter: list of additives actually used, max concentrations, etc. with completion report
Trade name, supplier, and total volume of all substances, including max concentration and CAS# of chemical additives
When Within 30 days of well completion, with completion report
Within “reasonable time” of completion, with completion report
Within 60 days of completion, with well log / completion report
Public disclosure Must submit chemical disclosure registry form on FracFocuswithin 60 days of HF
Disclosure through FracFocus
Disclosure through FracFocus
Trade secret / proprietary information protection
Need not be disclosed except for limited disclosure to health professionals and persons responding to spill or release
Need not be disclosed except for limited disclosure to health professionals and WVDEP during investigation
Trade secrets need not be disclosed except for limited disclosure to health professionals
References 58 Pa.C.S. §3222(b.1), 3222.1; 25 Pa. Code §78.122
W.Va. Code §22-6A-7(e)(5); WVCSR 35-8.
Ohio Rev. Code §1509.10
31
klgates.com
Water Withdrawal & Consumption
klgates.com
WATER RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SHALE DEVELOPMENT 1-5+ million gallons for each well
25-30% of water emerges as flowback water (much of that in relatively short time period)
Water withdrawn and staged; not drawn all at one time Opportunity to reuse return flow
In NE US, ~ 80% of flowback reported to be reused Still, significant supplemental water required for makeup
From an overall perspective, water requirements for shale gas development are comparatively modest Total of all wells < 1 major power plant; < ½ use of golf courses
But concerns regarding – Impacts to small local streams Cumulative impacts of many withdrawals in a watershed Maintaining a baseline low flow (seasonal impacts)
33
klgates.com
APPROACHES TO WATER RIGHTS AND WITHDRAWALS Combination of common law (riparian rights in East, prior appropriation
in West) with increasing shift to regulatory approaches Example: Pennsylvania - requirement for Water Management Plan
approval by PA Dept. of Environmental Protection Identification of sources (by sub-basin) Specific impact questions for each type of source (streams,
groundwater, treated effluent, etc.) Monitoring plan and water withdrawal reporting requirements
Regional regulation in some basins Example: Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Project approval for all shale gas wells Review of both withdrawal and consumptive use Pass-by flow policy based on seasonal stream flow patterns
and % exceedance flow values. Encouragement of shared use and recycling
34
klgates.com
KEY ISSUES IN WATER WITHDRAWAL MANAGEMENT Cumulative impact considerations – coordination of withdrawals by
multiple operators potentially impacting same waterbody or watershed
Pass-by flows – when should withdrawals be suspended during low flow periods in order to preserve water for downstream users and in-stream needs (wastewater assimilation and aquatic life) SRBC passby flow policy
West Virginia Water Withdrawal Guidance Tool
Policies and practices to encourage use of “non-fresh” water sources (such as treated wastewater effluent)
Policies and practices to encourage flowback and produced water reuse and recycling
35
klgates.com 36
PENNSYLVANIA WATER WITHDRAWAL REGULATION
Pennsylvania water management plans (58 Pa.C.S. §3211(m))
Oil & gas operator must submit to PaDEP showing sources to be used, and measures to protect environment and other uses
PaDEP review considers quantity, withdrawal rate, timing and passby flow conditions to determine that plan (1) will avoid adverse impact upon quantity and quality of water available to other users; (2) maintain existing uses of water source; (3) not cause adverse impact to water quality in watershed as a whole; and (4) include a reuse plan for fluids used to fracture wells
SRBC, DRBC approved withdrawals are presumed to meet criteria
Section 3211(m)(4) declares that compliance with a DEP-approved water management plan “shall be deemed to satisfy the laws of this Commonwealth.” (Signal – common law restrictions on place of use may be trumped)
klgates.com 37
WEST VIRGINIA & OHIO WATER WITHDRAWAL REGULATION West Virginia water management approach (W.Va.CSR 35-8-1 et seq.)
Water management plan required if withdrawals for drilling, fracturing or stimulation of a well will exceed 210,000 gallons in any month Identify source, location and amount of anticipated withdrawals & downstream uses Demonstrate sufficient in-stream flow will be available downstream of withdrawal.
Sufficient in-stream flow is maintained when pass-by flow protective of identified stream use is preserved
WVA Water Withdrawal Guidance Tool – provides real-time data to determine suitability of conditions for withdrawal
Ohio water withdrawal regulation (Ohio Rev. Code §1501.32 et seq.) New requirement for ground and surface water source identification in gas well
applications (Ohio Rev. Code §1509.06(A)(8)(a)) Withdrawal permit program administered by ODNR for Diversions out of Ohio
Basin > 100,000 gpd Withdrawals statewide that would result in a new or increased consumptive use
> 2 mgd averaged over any 30-day period New or increased capacity for withdrawal in Lake Erie watershed ≥ 1 mgd;
withdrawal capacity in high quality waters in Lake Erie watershed ≥ 100,000 gpd (Ohio Rev. Code §1522.12)
klgates.com 38
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION (SRBC)
Project review (18 CFR §§ 806.1-806.16, 806.22) Any withdrawal or consumptive water use for shale gas well Any import of water into basin or export of water from basin Approval by rule process for consumptive uses Streamlined process for water sharing
Recent developments New approach to low flow protection / setting passby flow
conditions Proposed rule restricting withdrawals in headwater streams
(watersheds < 10 sq. mi.) (77 Fed. Reg. 75915 (Dec. 26, 2012)) Basinwide consumptive use study launched to evaluate
cumulative water use and availability by subbasin, targeted for completion in December 2015(http://www.srbc.net/planning/cwuas.htm)
klgates.com
SRBC’s low flow protection policy & technical guidance1
Old approach – use of Pennsylvania Instream Flow Model for most cold water fish streams; 20% of average daily flow for other streams
New approach – tiered arrangement, with watersheds classified into aquatic resource class (ARC) based on area, with monthly exceedance values
ARC Description Drainage Area (mi2)
De minimis threshold
Passby flow
1 Headwaters ≤ 10 None Monthly P702 Creeks 10-50 5% monthly P95 Monthly P753 Small rivers 50-200 5% monthly P95 Monthly P804 Medium tributary rivers 200-1000 5% monthly P95 Monthly P855 Medium mainstem rivers 1000-5000 10% monthly P95 Monthly P906 Large Rivers ≥5000 10% monthly P95 Monthly P95
1 http://www.srbc.net/policies/lowflowpolicy.htm
39
klgates.com
Wastewater Management
klgates.com
THE FLOWBACK/WASTEWATER CHALLENGE
~ 1-5 million gallons required for a frac job; 25-30% of water emerges as flowback water (much of that in relatively short time period)
Need to develop representative characterization of flowback and produced waters Example: Marcellus Shale flowback water contains 4-25% salts
(TDS typically exceeds 100,000 mg/l) Other constituents: barium, strontium, naturally occurring radioactive
materials (NORM), oil and gas, trace amounts of chemicals added during hydraulic fracturing
Some flowback (wet gas areas) contains condensate / natural gas liquids
41
klgates.com
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE (CON’T)
Need to store and manage to avoid releases Lined impoundments Frac tanks Types of secondary containment
TDS is hard to remove economically Streams have limited assimilative capacity Options:
Evaporation (in dry areas, such as Texas) Reverse osmosis (lower TDS water) or evaporation/crystallization
(higher TDS water) Underground injection of brine
Industry’s rapidly evolving solution => recycling and reuse of flowback and produced water in subsequent operations Requires provisions for storage, treatment, blending and
coordinated operations
42
A MATRIX OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
Water quality laws and regulations Federal Clean Water Act State counterpart water quality laws
“Solid waste” laws and regulations Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) – hazardous
waste regulation under Subtitle C; other waste regulation under Subtitle D
State waste laws – e.g., Pa. Solid Waste Management Act Safe Drinking Water Act – underground injection control program State oil and gas laws
klgates.com 43
FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT
Structure: Regulates discharge of “pollutants” via a “point source” to “navigable
waters of the United States” through the NPDES permit system Under CWA §§ 301, 306, 307, EPA sets national technology based
treatment standards (referred to as “effluent limitation guidelines) Under CWA § 303, states must designate protected uses of streams
and establish instream water quality criteria to protect such uses States (or EPA) issue permits for discharges from point sources,
establishing effluent limits based on the more stringent of technology-based limits or limits to protect instream water quality (“water quality based effluent limits”)
Standards: Produced water and drilling fluids may not be discharged to navigable
waters from a well site (EPA ELG, 40 C.F.R. Part 435) Off-site disposal through centralized treatment works allowed – treatment
standards set EPA proposed rule would prohibit discharge of oil and gas waste water to
POTWs (80 Fed. Reg. 18557 (Apr. 7, 2015))
klgates.com 44
EXAMPLE OF RECENT STATE REGULATION –PENNSYLVANIA
TDS Discharge Limitations: 25 Pa. Code §95.10 (published Aug. 21, 2010) Treatment requirements for new and expanding loadings of total
dissolved solids (TDS) Wastewater source reduction strategy (maximizing reuse) required for
natural gas operations by 8/22/2011 New discharges from natural gas operations allowed only through
centralized treatment facilities with strict discharge limits (500 mg/l TDS, 250 mg/l Chlorides, 10 mg/l Barium and Strontium)
Continuing debate concerning potential Ch. 93 instream water quality criteria for Chlorides for aquatic life protection
45
Underground injection of flowback or treatment residuals
Safe Drinking Water Act – Underground Injection Control (UIC) program Federal Energy Policy Act amendment excludes
from definition of “underground injection” the “underground injection of fluids or propping agents … pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas or geothermal production activities.” 42 U.S.C. §300h(d).
But wells used for disposal of brine or waste require UIC permits
Permit program administered by EPA or by authorized state (holding “primacy”)
46
UIC (CON’T)
Federal standards (40 C.F.R. Part 146) Class II UIC wells = wells used for disposal of fluid brought to
surface from conventional oil and gas production Requires evaluation of potential impacts within area of endangering
influence (§146.6) Plan for corrective action to prevent fluid movement into drinking
water sources (§144.55, 146.7) Identification of all wells within area of review penetrating formations
affected by pressure increase Demonstration of mechanical integrity Specific construction standards (casing, cementing, logging,
testing) (§146.22) Detailed monitoring requirements (§146.23)
47
UIC (CON’T) Pennsylvania
Regulated under 25 Pa. Code §78.18 – provides for permitting of disposal or enhanced recovery wells via Oil & Gas Act well permit
Must submit to DEP a copy of UIC permit and application submitted to EPA under Part 146
Requires control and disposal plan meeting requirements of 25 Pa. Code §91.34
West Virginia Class II permit required under W.Va. Code R. §47-13-13.3
New York Div. of Mineral Resources regulates drilling, operation of brine disposal
wells under NY Envtl. Conservation Law §23-0305(14) DRBC
DRBC invokes project review jurisdiction over UIC wells in the Delaware Basin
48
Waste Management
FEDERAL VS. STATE “WASTE” REGULATION Federal RCRA: Produced water and drilling fluids are exempt
from regulation as “hazardous waste” (unused fracturing fluids and hydraulic fluids are not exempt)
State waste management: Typically applies to both hazardous and non-hazardous waste Definition of “solid waste” – includes solid, liquid and
contained gaseous material that is discarded Drill cuttings / wastes subject to state management and
disposal standards Example: PA oil and gas regulations – requirements for waste
management plan PA residual waste management regulations
Current issues: appropriate methods of waste management / TENORM concerns
klgates.com 50
klgates.com
AIR EMISSIONS
klgates.com
AIR EMISSIONS
Sources: Fugitive emissions from piping or tank leaks – VOCs, BTEX
(controlled by flares and vapor recovery units) Tanks, pits or ponds (condensate separation) - VOCs Drilling rig engines (diesel engines) – NOx, CO Compressor station engines – NOx, formaldehyde (controlled
by ultra lean burn engines and oxidizers) Dehydration facilities – small quantities of ethylene glycol
Regulations Complex interplay between federal and state rules
52
AIR EMISSION ISSUES
Emission regulation depends on total emissions from facility, and whether facility qualifies as a “major source”
“Major source” definition refers to any source or group of stationary sources “within a contiguous area” and “under common control” 42 U.S.C. §7661(2) (See Pa. definition of “facility” - §121.1)
“Major source” emission thresholds differ depending upon the pollutant, the nature of the source, the area’s attainment status, and the regulatory program at issue
Implication: When will natural gas production / processing facilities (including compressor stations) be considered a single “facility” for determining “major source” status?
53
AIR EMISSION ISSUES – “AGGREGATION”
Current EPA Regulations – 3 requirements:(1) Same industrial grouping (same two digit SIC code)(2) Under common control of same entity(3) Contiguous or adjacent properties
EPA Guidance: Consider both distance and “functional interrelatedness” / “functional
interdependence” to determine adjacency (no formula or bright lines)
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals – Summit Petroleum v. EPA (2012): Do not consider “functional interrelatedness” – only distance EPA attempted to limit the effect of Summit Petroleum to the Sixth
Circuit (KY, MI, OH, TN), but this position was rejected by the D.C. Circuit in NEDACAP v. EPA (May 2014)
In response, EPA has proposed new rules defining “adjacency” specifically for the oil and gas sector – two “co-proposals”:(1) Adjacent if on sites located within ¼ mile of one another(2) Adjacent if separated by less than a ¼ or “if there is an exclusive
functional interrelatedness”
54
NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR)
Pre-construction permit requirements that apply to “major stationary sources” of “regulated NSR pollutants” New major sources “Major modifications” to “major stationary sources”
Regulated NSR pollutants include: The 6 criteria pollutants (PM, ground-level ozone, carbon
monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, lead) Other pollutants “subject to regulation” under the CAA Supreme Court in UARG v. EPA (2014): GHG emissions alone cannot trigger major source permitting
requirements, but are subject to best available control technology (BACT) requirements if emissions of another pollutant exceeds major source thresholds
55
NSR IN NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS
Applies to sources that exceed major source thresholds for one or more of the 6 criteria pollutants, if the source is in an area that is in non-attainment for that pollutant Major source = potential to emit ≥100 tpy of a regulated NSR pollutant; 50
tpy of VOCs or 100 tpy of NOx in most areas of PA (25 tpy of VOC or NOx in SE PA) [more stringent in portions of NE corridor]
Must implement Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) + obtain offsets for VOC or NOx emissions
Permit required before commencement of any construction
56
NSR IN ATTAINMENT AREAS - PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
Pre-construction permit required for major sources
Emissions impact analysis
May well require ambient monitoring for up to 1 year
Modeling to show cumulative emissions will not cause NAAQS exceedance
Class 1 area impact analysis
Mandate for use of best available control technology (BACT)
Not quite as stringent as LAER
57
OPERATING PERMITS
Major stationary sources must also apply for and maintain Title V operating permits
Compiles all requirements that apply to a facility in one federally enforceable permit
More onerous recordkeeping than otherwise would apply
Must be renewed every five years
No new substantive emissions controls
Biennial certification required
Minor sources still must comply with state requirements
State technology standards
PA Best Available Technology (25 Pa. Code §127.12(a)(5))
Some states require pre-construction and/or operating permits for oil and gas facilities as well
58
AIR STANDARDS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) EPA also regulates hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) Examples: BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl benze, xylene);
formaldehyde National Emissions Standards for HAPs (NESHAPs) apply to
specific categories of sources Both new and existing sources Area sources v. major sources HAP emissions are not aggregated – CAA § 112(n)(4)
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) EPA promulgates NSPS that apply to categories of sources
imder CAA § 111(b) NSPS apply only to new, modified, and reconstructed
sources59
NESHAPS AND NSPS FOR THE OIL AND GAS SECTOR
Issued in 2012, minor amendments in 2013, 2014, and 2015
Directly regulates VOCs, achieves reductions in GHGs as a co-benefit
NSPS – 40 C.F.R. Part 60 Subpart OOOO (“Quad O”) Requires “green completions” at natural gas wells beginning January 1,
2015 Also regulates emissions of VOCs from:
Compressors and pneumatic controllers in the production & processing segments
Storage vessels in the production, processing, transmission, and storage segments
Leaking components (and SO2 emissions) at processing plants NESHAPs (Part 63 Subpart HH & HHH) apply to glycol dehydrators,
storage vessels, and equipment leaks at processing plants
60
NEW EPA METHANE AND VOC PROPOSALS Proposed NSPS for Methane and VOCs
Update to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOO (“Quad-O”) Would directly regulate methane emissions Would impose requirements on new categories of sources, including
hydraulically fractured oil wells and natural gas compressor stations Would impose leak detection and repair (“LDAR”) requirements on well
sites, gathering/boosting stations and compressor stations Would apply only to new/modified/reconstructed sources
Draft Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) Would apply to existing oil and gas sources in ozone non-attainment
areas (including all of Pennsylvania) Includes Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT)
recommendations for controlling VOCs from covered sources Once finalized, states would be required to develop rules imposing
RACT on existing oil and gas facilities Potential future regulation under CAA §111(d)(1)
61
GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) REPORTING RULES
40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart W
Reports due annually on March 31
Applies to “facilities” that emit 25,000 metric tons of CO2e / year 25,000 metric ton threshold includes emissions from stationary fuel
combustion, equipment leaks, vented sources, and flares
Should not aggregate emissions from compressor stations along a single transmission pipeline (40 C.F.R. §98.6)
But should aggregate emissions from all well pads owned or operated by same entity in a single hydrocarbon basin (40 C.F.R. §98.238)
EPA finalized revisions to Subpart W in October 2015 that add reporting requirements for gathering and boosting systems, oil wells, and transmission pipeline blowdowns
62
klgates.com 63
Thank You
David L. Wochner, Partner
K&L Gates LLP1601 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006202.778.9014