padsite inspection summary report

5100 THOMPSON TERRACE, COLLEYVILLE TEXAS 76034 | F 682.223.1593 | P 682.223.1322

© 2021 MODERN GEOSCIENCES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

WWW.MODERNGEOSCIENCES.COM

DATE

February 2021

PROJECT

20002

PADSITE INSPECTION

SUMMARY REPORT

CALENDAR YEAR 2020

PREPARED FOR

City of Denton

215 East McKinney Street

Denton, Texas 76201

PREPARED BY

______________________________________________

Zachary Tondre, MS, GIT

PROJECT MANAGER

REVIEWED BY

______________________________________________

Kenneth S. Tramm, PhD, PG, CHMM

SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER

PROJECT 20002 | FEBRUARY 2021 | PAGE 2


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1. Project Background ................................................................................................................................. 5

1.2. Program Design ....................................................................................................................................... 5

2. INSPECTION APPROACH ............................................................................................................................. 7

2.1. Ordinance and City Inspection Items ...................................................................................................... 7

2.2. Near‐Equipment Inspection .................................................................................................................... 7

2.3. Fencline Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 9

2.4. Contingency Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 10

2.5. Pre and Post‐Inspection Activities ........................................................................................................ 12

3. INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................13

3.1. City of Denton Padsites (Total in City Limits) ........................................................................................ 13

3.2. First Half 2020 (High, Moderate, and Selected Low Priority) ............................................................... 14

3.3. Second Half 2020 (High Prioirty) ........................................................................................................... 15

4. INSPECTION RESULTS ................................................................................................................................17

4.1. Identified Action Items ......................................................................................................................... 18

4.1.1. First Half 2020 ....................................................................................................................................... 18

4.1.2. Second Half 2020 .................................................................................................................................. 19

4.2. Addressed Action Items ........................................................................................................................ 21

4.2.1. First Half 2020 ....................................................................................................................................... 21

4.2.2. Second Half 2020 .................................................................................................................................. 22

4.3. Outstanding Action Items ..................................................................................................................... 24

4.3.1. First Half 2020 ....................................................................................................................................... 24

4.3.2. Second Half 2020 .................................................................................................................................. 25

5. ACTION ITEM RESULTS (DETAIL) ................................................................................................................27

5.1. Leaks (Methane) ................................................................................................................................... 27

5.1.1. First Half 2020 ....................................................................................................................................... 27

5.1.2. Second Half 2020 .................................................................................................................................. 28

5.2. NORM .................................................................................................................................................... 30

5.2.1. Total NORM Exceedances ..................................................................................................................... 30

5.2.1.1. First Half 2020 ....................................................................................................................................... 30



5.2.1.2. Second Half 2020 .................................................................................................................................. 31

5.2.2. Unlabeled NORM Exceedances ............................................................................................................. 32

5.2.2.1. First Half 2020 ....................................................................................................................................... 32

5.2.2.2. Second Half 2020 .................................................................................................................................. 33

5.3. Fenceline Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 34

5.3.1. First Half 2020 ....................................................................................................................................... 34

5.3.2. Second Half 2020 .................................................................................................................................. 34

5.4. Compliance Monitoring ........................................................................................................................ 35

5.4.1. First Half 2020 ....................................................................................................................................... 35

5.4.2. Second Half 2020 .................................................................................................................................. 35

6. INSPECTION RESULTS (COMPREHENSIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS) ..........................................................37

6.1. Leaks per Well (All Data) ....................................................................................................................... 37

6.2. NORM per Well (All Data) ..................................................................................................................... 38

6.2.1. Total NORM per Well ............................................................................................................................ 38

6.2.2. Unlabeled NORM per Well .................................................................................................................... 38

6.3. Action Items per Well (All Data) ........................................................................................................... 39

6.3.1. Identified Action Items per Well ........................................................................................................... 39

6.3.2. Addressed Action Items per Well ......................................................................................................... 39

6.3.3. Outstanding Action Items per Well....................................................................................................... 40

7. YEAR TO YEAR TRENDING .........................................................................................................................41

7.1. Identified Action Items Per Well ........................................................................................................... 41

7.2. Leaks per Well ....................................................................................................................................... 42

7.1. Unlabeled NORM per Well .................................................................................................................... 43

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................44

8.1. Near‐Equipment Inspection .................................................................................................................. 44

8.2. Fenceline Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 44

8.3. Outstanding Action Items ..................................................................................................................... 44

8.4. Operator Performance .......................................................................................................................... 46

8.5. Program Updates .................................................................................................................................. 46

9. IMPORTANT ACRONYMS...........................................................................................................................48

10. LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS ................................................................................................................50



TABLES

TABLE 1: PROGRAM DESIGN

TABLE 2: NEAR‐EQUIPMENT CRITERIA

TABLE 3: FENCELINE CRITERIA

TABLE 4: PADSITE DATA SUMMARY

TABLE 5: FIRST HALF OF 2020 PADSITE DATA SUMMARY

TABLE 6: FIRST HALF 2020 – OUTSTANDING ACTION ITEM SUMMARY

TABLE 7: SECOND HALF 2020 – OUTSTANDING ACTION ITEM SUMMARY

FIGURES

FIGURE 1: PADSITE LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 2: PADSITE INSPECTION SUMMARY MAP



1. INTRODUCTION

Modern Geosciences (Modern) is pleased to provide this report as a summary of our inspection results for the

City of Denton (City) concerning gas well padsites within the city limits during 2020.

1.1. PROJECT BACKGROUND Modern’s staff has been providing technical support and inspection services to municipalities addressing urban

oil and gas concerns for over a decade. As part of these efforts, our staff has contributed to numerous ordinance

revisions, gas drilling task forces, technical presentations and papers, performed continuous air monitoring

events, inspected thousands of wells across Texas, and aided in the identification of hazardous site conditions

that would have otherwise been left unaddressed.

As part of the City’s desire to enhance its inspection efforts, Modern was asked to provide programmatic

support in 2018 that would ensure enough high‐resolution data was available to the community, operators, and

city staff for prioritization of any repairs or corrective action needed.

1.2. PROGRAM DESIGN

Our inspection program was tailored to meet the City’s project goals of:

Maintaining a comprehensive GIS‐based tracking program for each padsite inclusive of existing

infrastructure (e.g., wells, separators, compressors);

Identifying leaks associated with each padsite in a manner that can be tracked and communicated

efficiently;

Identifying non‐compliance concerns associated with each padsite (e.g., corrosion issues, spills/releases,

unmarked equipment with excessive radiation);

Collection of air monitoring data at padsite fencelines when near sensitive receptors;

Contingency sampling when fenceline data suggested significant environmental impact may affect

neighboring areas; and

A succinct reporting format that provides a clear summary of our findings, highlights outstanding action

items, and allowed integration with the City’s online access to the reports.

To ensure the padsites were adequately evaluated, the City prioritized inspections as low, moderate, and high

based on proximity to sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, residential areas). Padsite inspection efforts include the

performance of a compliance evaluation (e.g., signage, equipment maintenance, fire department access,

landscaping, safety requirements) with additional leak detection efforts to better identify and communicate

potential leaks and/or fugitive emission concerns. A summary of the program design is provided below in Table

1.



TABLE 1 – PROGRAM DESIGN

Inspection Item High Mod. Low Comment

Inspection Schedule

Twice each year x <300’ from sensitive receptor

Once every year x >300’; <1,000’ from sensitive receptor

Once every 2 years x >1,000’ from sensitive receptor

Compliance Inspection

Multiple item checklist x x x Verify existing ordinance requirements are being met

Near‐Equipment Inspection

Leak evaluation x x x Use of Optical Gas Imaging (OGI) per Quad Oa Methodology

Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material

(NORM) evaluation and signage x x x

Radiation Meter (uR/hr ‐ RRC req.); Exceedances noted per RRC

Guidance

Fenceline Inspection

Meteorological data x x Wind Direction, Speed, Barometric Pressure

Total Volatile Organic Compounds (tVOCs) x x Use of PID (ppbv resolution)

Radiation x x Use of Radiation Meter (uR/hr resolution ‐ RRC req.)

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) x x Use of H2S Meter (ppbv resolution ‐ CAA req.)

Methane x x Use of DP‐IR Meter (ppmv resolution)

Particulate matter (PM) x PM2.5 & PM10 (ug/m3 resolution; ~10‐minute dataset)

Noise x Use of Class 1 Microphone with 3 Octave Band (Leq dBA)

Contingency Sampling/ Monitoring Support (*as needed)

Real‐time continuous air monitoring * * * Includes Methane, H2S, Met Data, tVOCs, PM, Ozone

H2S (30‐minute sample) * * * Discrete samples per ASTM to confirm CAA exceedance

Discrete VOC sampling (50+ compounds) * * * Discrete samples per EPA TO‐17M to determine VOC of interest



2. INSPECTION APPROACH

2.1. ORDINANCE AND CITY INSPECTION ITEMS

Prior to project initiation, Modern performs a review of current ordinance and city inspection requirements

(e.g., signage, equipment maintenance, fire department access, landscaping, safety requirements) to be

included in each inspection effort in the form of a city‐approved checklist.

2.2. NEAR‐EQUIPMENT INSPECTION

During each inspection, Modern performed an Audio, Visual, and Olfactory (AVO) field inspection, as well as

recording monitoring results with the use of optical gas imaging systems (e.g., FLIR cameras) to identify leaks

and radiation meters to confirm conditions at accessible equipment. During oil and gas production, scale can

collect within equipment and concentrate until radiation levels exceed applicable regulatory criteria. This is

generally referred to as Technologically‐Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM).

A goal of near‐equipment inspection activities is to evaluate the operational condition of well heads, well

connections, flanges, valves, pumps, well head fluids (i.e., corrosion inhibitors), production piping, visible system

pressure gauges, separator systems, secondary containment integrity, above‐ground storage tanks (i.e., thief

hatch, ventilation), fluid disposal transfer points, compressor systems, chemical storage areas, and note any

obvious signs of staining, spills, or releases.

View of OGI efforts during a padsite inspection event.

Example of leaking pressure control valve (e.g., Enardo) from a tank battery system.



Example of discrete NORM evaluation. Example of tagged equipment in need of repair

or replacement.

Our leak definitions are set at either positive visual observation with the OGI equipment, or if applicable, direct

measurement for quantification. A summary of near‐equipment criteria is provided below.

Notes:

1‐ Utilizes the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) recommended leak definition within their December 4, 2015 response to EPA Docket No. EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐2010‐0505 – “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources,” dated September 18, 2015 (80 FR 56593). Also represents 20% of the Lower Explosive Limit. A lower leak definition and additional inspection and reporting may be required at facilities subject to 40 CFR §60 Subpart OOOOa. Documented continuous low‐bleed components (<6 scf/hr) and intermittent emissions from properly functioning pneumatic devices are not considered leaks for the purposes of this inspection.

2‐ The Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) regulates NORM under 16 TAC §4 (Environmental Protection, Subchapter F, Oil and Gas NORM). Subchapter F establishes the requirements for oil and gas NORM waste disposal for the purpose of protecting public health and the environment. NORM‐contaminated equipment is defined in Subchapter F as “equipment that, at any accessible point, exhibits a minimum radiation exposure level greater than 50 µR/hr including background radiation level.” When identified, the equipment suspected of being NORM‐containing will be communicated to the City and operator(s) to allow further inspection and where appropriate, compliance with RRC signage and management requirements.

The leak/exceedance references represent non‐ambient conditions that would typically indicate a significant

contribution of COC emissions from the inspected equipment. Normal intermittent operation of pneumatic

equipment would not be considered a leak. If a continuous leak is identified, and operator granted permission,

leaks are tagged to allow easy identification after the field event. When a leak is associated with a low‐bleed

device, we will request manufacturer documentation so this is recorded in the report and not reported as a leak.

TABLE 2 – NEAR EQUIPMENT CRITERIA

Constituent: Methane NORM

At Release: 10,000 ppmv 1 50 µR/hr 2

Equipment: OGI Camera Radiation Meter

Resolution: 3,000‐10,000 ppmv 1 µR/hr



The OGI system is verified in the field prior to leak detection screening using a known standard to confirm

methane leak detection goals are met. In general, this includes verification at both three (3) and 10 meters if

screening will be performed within these distances. Additionally, all other equipment used for near‐equipment

is calibrated per manufacturer specifications and verified daily prior to inspections.

2.3. FENCLINE MONITORING

During the inspection events for moderate and high priority sites Modern evaluated both apparent up and

downwind conditions at the padsite fenceline to allow record of site conditions in our final report. Inspection

efforts include an evaluation of methane concentrations, radiation, hydrogen sulfide, and total VOCs for

moderate and high priority sites. For high priority sites, noise and particulate matter monitoring is also included.

Equipment is calibrated per manufacturer specifications and verified daily prior to inspections.

View of fenceline screening for hydrogen sulfide. Example of noise monitoring during fenceline screening activities.

View of particulate sampling during fenceline screening.

View of tVOC monitoring during fenceline screening activities.



A summary of fenceline monitoring criteria is provided below.

Notes:

1‐ Represents half of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) 8‐hour threshold limit value (TLV) of 1,000 ppmv (0.1% by volume) set for potential cardiac sensitization and central nervous system depression.

2‐ Consistent fenceline concentrations of 0.1 ppmv or more could indicate a potential off‐site air quality exceedance of applicable TCEQ Air Monitoring Comparison Values (AMCVs) or Effect Screening Levels (ESLs). Further sampling will be needed to confirm the individual compounds present and direct regulatory comparison.

3‐ Indicative of possible 30 TAC §112.31 (30‐min avg.) exceedance of 0.08 ppmv. Further sampling will be needed to confirm the 30‐minute average and allow direct regulatory comparison.

4‐ EPA average background criteria established under Document No. 402‐R‐08‐005; April 2008. Reported background ranged from 10 µR/hr to 85 µR/hr. Elevated fenceline observations may require further screening to confirm attenuated levels near sensitive receptors.

5‐ National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter (PM) PM2.5. Further monitoring will be needed to confirm if a continuous average (24‐hr, 3yr) exceedance is indicated. Elevated PM2.5 can also be indicative of elevated semi‐volatile organic compounds or other emission products that may be present. Individual COC monitoring required for comparison with AMCVs or ESLs.

6‐ NAAQS for PM10. Further monitoring will be needed to confirm if a continuous average (24‐hr, 3yr) exceedance is indicated.

7‐ A‐weighted Leq criteria consistent with the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN) “Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land‐Use Planning and Control” maximum level for “acceptable” uses. Other permit‐specific criteria may be applicable. Modern’s sound sampling event represents only a short period at the boundary nearest an enclosed structure. Further attenuation may be present if the sampling point is adjusted. Completed using a Class 1 microphone with 3‐octave bands allowing further detail if needed. Further monitoring will be needed to confirm if average sound conditions exceed applicable criteria.

2.4. CONTINGENCY SAMPLING

In addition to the items above, Modern is able to provide contingency sampling for individual VOCs, hydrogen

sulfide, and deploy real‐time monitoring stations for multiple constituents when fenceline screening suggests a

concern or when directed by the City. If field monitoring with discrete sampling at the fenceline identifies

conditions indicative of elevated COCs, Modern will collect a time‐weighted sample for evaluation of VOCs using

EPA Method TO‐17, hydrogen sulfide using ASTM Method D5504, and/or deploy real‐time air monitors.

For discrete VOC sampling, Modern uses conditioned thermal desorption tubes to collect an upwind and

downwind air sample. A calibrated pump connected to the tube is used to allow collection of a representative

sample. The air is sampled at a rate of 100 ml/min for up to 20 minutes. The sampling tube is affixed to a static

sample point to allow collection of air from approximately five feet six inches (5.5’) above ground (breathing

zone). The sampling systems (e.g., pumps, tubing, attachments) are evaluated before and after each sampling

TABLE 3 – FENCELINE CRITERIA

Methane tVOCs H2S NORM PM2.5 PM10 Noise

Fenceline: 500 ppmv 1 0.1 ppmv 2 0.08 ppmv 3 20 µR/hr 4 35 µg/m3 (5) 150 µg/m3 (6) 65 dBA 7

Equipment: DPIR Meter PID H2S Meter Radiation Meter

Particulate Meter

Particulate Meter

Sound Meter

Resolution: 1 ppmv 0.001 ppmv 0.003 ppmv 1 µR/hr 1 µg/m3 1 µg/m3 1 dBA



event to ensure sample integrity is maintained. Upon completion of the sampling event, the tubes are placed in

a sealed inert container and placed on ice and sampling information (e.g., tube serial number, sample ID, time,

flow rate) is recorded on the chain of custody. The sampling and monitoring efforts are performed in

accordance with applicable elements of EPA Method TO‐17.

Following sample collection, the thermal desorption tubes are analyzed by Modern using a gas

chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) and thermal desorber to allow identification and quantification of

individual chemicals of concern. All analyses are performed in accordance with Modern’s internal Quality

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) governing sample analysis procedure.

Additionally, Modern reviews the resulting chromatograms of each sample using both the National Institute of

Standards (NIST) Library and the Automated Mass Spectral De‐covolution and Identification Software (AMDIS)

library to further evaluate any Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) not within the current calibration library.

Example air sampling using TD tubes for VOC analysis

Example chromatogram with upwind (blue) and downwind (red) samples.

View of air quality monitors being calibrated prior to field deployment.

Example view real‐time air quality monitoring data. H2S, Ozone, PID result shown in ppmv.



2.5. PRE AND POST‐INSPECTION ACTIVITIES Modern coordinates with each operator prior to the inspection so a representative can be available to address

leaks and allow immediate re‐inspection when they are present. Additionally, Modern communicates the results

of the inspection with the operators so any corrective action completed after the inspection, within

approximately two (2) weeks, can be recorded in the final report.

An individual padsite inspection report was prepared for each padsite with the results of the inspection, figure

with equipment inspected (unique identifiers), photographs of leaking equipment (e.g., OGI pictures), graph of

noise (sound pressure) results and pure‐tone evaluation (spectral analysis), and notation of Action Items

requiring further attention. Any outstanding issues identified, including ordinance deficiencies, leaks still

requiring attention, required NORM labels, etc., are summarized in Modern’s inspection reports as “Outstanding

Action Items.”

View of leak repairs being confirmed during field inspection efforts.

Example report figure depicting equipment, wind direction, and fenceline monitoring points.

Example Noise monitoring summary graph with threshold limit (red) and average level (solid black line).

Example particulate matter summary chart from a padsite inspection report.



3. INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY

Modern was selected to perform inspections on 276 wells and associated production equipment located on 147

individual padsites in Denton, Texas. The nine (9) operators in Denton’s city limits include:

Atmos Energy Corporation (Atmos);

Devon Energy Corporation (Devon);

EagleRidge Operating LLC (EagleRidge);

Endeavor Energy Resources LP (Endeavor);

Bedrock Energy Partners, LLC (Bedrock; Formerly EnerVest Operating, LLC; EnerVest);

Hillwood Energy (Hillwood);

Krocan Energy Corporation (Krocan);

Sage Natural Resources (Sage); and

XTO Energy Inc. (XTO).

A summary of padsite information is provided below (Table 4) and presented on Figure 1 (attached).

Additionally, Modern has provided individual Padsite Inspection Reports for each padsite with details from

the near‐equipment inspection results, fenceline monitoring results, and supporting optical gas imaging

photos, figures, and Identified Action Items. These are available through the City website directly.

3.1. CITY OF DENTON PADSITES (TOTAL IN CITY LIMITS)

TABLE 4 – PADSITE DATA SUMMARY

Operator Number of padsites Number of natural

gas wells

Number of

separators Number of ASTs

Atmos 6 8 0* 0*

Devon 28 61 61 58

EagleRidge 55 92 105 123

Endeavor 6 10 14 25

Bedrock 23 50 60 67

Hillwood 5 14 15 18

Krocan 3 3 3 4

Sage 19 36 25 38

XTO 2 2 2 4

Total: 147** 276 285 337

*Atmos wells are not technically production wells as they are utilized for storage only and do not need

extensive separators and AST systems.

**The summary presented above represents Modern’s most updated estimates following second half

inspections.



3.2. FIRST HALF 2020 (HIGH, MODERATE, AND SELECTED LOW PRIORITY)

This report provides a summary of Modern’s findings for the first half of 2020. Padsite inspections were

performed between March and April 2020.

TABLE 5 – FIRST HALF OF 2020 PADSITE DATA SUMMARY


gas wells

Number of


Atmos 6 8 0 0

Devon 15 33 33 22


Endeavor 6 10 14 25

Bedrock 23 50 60 67

Hillwood 5 14 15 18

Krocan 3 3 3 4

Sage 19 36 25 38

XTO 2 2 2 4

Total: 124* 222 226 270

*Does not include low priority padsites to be inspected in 2021.

3%

22%

33%

4%

18%

5%

1% 13%

1%

Wells by Operator (Total)

Atmos (8)

Devon (61)

EagleRidge (92)

Endeavor (10)

Bedrock (50)

Hillwood (14)

Krocan (3)

Sage (36)

XTO (2)



3.3. SECOND HALF 2020 (HIGH PRIOIRTY) This report provides a summary of Modern’s findings for the second half of 2020. Padsite inspections were

performed in October 2020.

TABLE 5 – SECOND HALF OF 2020 PADSITE DATA SUMMARY


gas wells

Number of


Atmos 0 0 0 0

Devon 0 0 0 0


Endeavor 4 5 6 11

Bedrock 9 29 35 45

Hillwood 0 0 0 0

Krocan 0 0 0 0

Sage 2 2 2 1

XTO 0 0 0 0

Total: 33* 70 82 100

*Only includes high priority padsites.

4%

15%

30%

4%

23%

6%

1%16%

1%

Wells by Operator (1st Half)

Atmos (8)

Devon (33)

EagleRidge (66)

Endeavor (10)

Bedrock (50)

Hillwood (14)

Krocan (3)

Sage (36)

XTO (2)



49%

7%

41%

3%

Wells by Operator (2nd Half)

Atmos (NA)

Devon (NA)

EagleRidge (34)

Endeavor (5)

Bedrock (29)

Hillwood (NA)

Krocan (NA)

Sage (2)

XTO (NA)



4. INSPECTION RESULTS

The following presents a summary of Modern’s inspection results for 2020. Any item requiring corrective action by the operator is referred to as an Action Item. This may include signage for compliance, fencing issues, leaks, fenceline data exceeding applicable air quality criteria, etc. There are three categories of Action Items: Identified Action Items – These are any compliance item or inspection/monitoring exceedance noted in

the field by Modern. Includes all leaks, NORM exceedances, or other issues that requires corrective

action by the operator;

Addressed Action Items – These are the Identified Action Items that were either addressed during our

field inspection by the operator when found or reported to Modern by the operator to have been

addressed after the inspection and before reporting; and

Outstanding Action Items – These are items that remained unaddressed by an operator as of the time

of our reporting to the City in our padsite‐specific reports.

Completed Action Items – Outstanding Action Items that were addressed by the operator to the

satisfaction of the City Inspector following Modern’s inspection are noted for this report.

Addressed and Outstanding Items receive follow up inspections by City staff and/or Modern until each item

has been addressed to the satisfaction of the City.



4.1. IDENTIFIED ACTION ITEMS

4.1.1. FIRST HALF 2020

A total of 157 Identified Action Items were noted.

Identified Action Items per Type by Operator

The above graphic provides a summary of the number of Identified Action Items per type for each operator.

11%

40%

1%

23%

3%

4%

13%

5%

Identified Action Items by Operator

Atmos (0)

Devon (17)

EagleRidge (63)

Endeavor (2)

Bedrock (36)

Hillwood (5)

Krocan (6)

Sage (21)

XTO (7)

0 20 40 60 80

Atmos (0)

Devon (17)

EagleRidge (63)

Endeavor (2)

Bedrock (36)

Hillwood (5)

Krocan (6)

Sage (21)

XTO (7)

4

31

1

33

1

17

2

1

2

11

29

1

3

4

6

1

5

1

1

1

2

Number of Identified Action Items per Type by Operator

Leaks (89)

NORM (3)

Corrosion (60)

Secondary Containment (2)

Fencing (1)

Lanscaping (2)



4.1.2. SECOND HALF 2020

A total of 37 Identified Action Items were noted.

57%

2%

38%

1%1%1%

Identified Action Items by Type

Leaks (89)

NORM (3)

Corrosion (60)

SecondaryContainment (2)

Fencing (1)

Lanscaping (2)

43%

46%

11%

Identified Action Items by Operator

Atmos (NA)

Devon (NA)

EagleRidge (16)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (17)

Hillwood (NA)

Krocan (NA)

Sage (4)

XTO (NA)



Identified Action Items per Type by Operator

The above graphic provides a summary of the number of Identified Action Items per type for each operator.

0 5 10 15 20

Atmos (NA)

Devon (NA)

EagleRidge (16)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (17)

Hillwood (NA)

Krocan (NA)

Sage (4)

XTO (NA)

9

15

4

2

7

Number of Identified Action Items per Type by Operator

Leaks (28)

NORM (2)

Corrosion (7)


Fencing (0)

Lanscaping (0)

76%

5%

19%

Identified Action Items by Type

Leaks (28)

NORM (2)

Corrosion (7)


Fencing (0)

Lanscaping (0)



4.2. ADDRESSED ACTION ITEMS


Of the 157 Identified Action Items noted, a total of 87 were noted as Addressed Action Items once corrected during our field inspection or reported as corrected prior to our reporting.

Addressed Action Items per Type by Operator

The above graphic provides a summary of the number of Addressed Action Items per type for each operator.

20%

2%

39%6%

7%

18%

8%

Addressed Action Items by Operator

Atmos (0)

Devon (17)

EagleRidge (0)

Endeavor (2)

Bedrock (34)

Hillwood (5)

Krocan (6)

Sage (16)

XTO (7)

0 10 20 30 40

Atmos (0)

Devon (17)

EagleRidge (0)

Endeavor (2)

Bedrock (34)

Hillwood (5)

Krocan (6)

Sage (16)

XTO (7)

4

1

32

1

13

2

1

2

11

1

2

4

6

5

1

1

Number of Addressed Action Items per Type by Operator

Leaks (53)

NORM (3)

Corrosion (29)


Fencing (1)

Lanscaping (0)




Of the 37 Identified Action Items noted, a total of 30 were noted as Addressed Action Items once corrected during our field inspection or reported as corrected prior to our reporting.

61%

4%

33%

1% 1%

Addressed Action Items by Type

Leaks (53)

NORM (3)

Corrosion (29)


Fencing (1)

Lanscaping (0)

30%

57%

13%

Addressed Action Items by Operator

Atmos (NA)

Devon (NA)

EagleRidge (9)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (17)

Hillwood (NA)

Krocan (NA)

Sage (4)

XTO (NA)



Addressed Action Items per Type by Operator

The above graphic provides a summary of the number of Addressed Action Items per type for each operator.

0 5 10 15 20

Atmos (NA)

Devon (NA)

EagleRidge (9)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (17)

Hillwood (NA)

Krocan (NA)

Sage (4)

XTO (NA)

9

15

4

2

Number of Addressed Action Items per Type by Operator

Leaks (28)

NORM (2)

Corrosion (0)


Fencing (0)

Lanscaping (0)

93%

7%

Addressed Action Items by Type

Leaks (28)

NORM (2)

Corrosion (0)


Fencing (0)

Lanscaping (0)



4.3. OUTSTANDING ACTION ITEMS


Of the 157 Identified Action Items, a total of 70 remained as Outstanding Action Items since they were not corrected during our field inspection or reported as corrected prior to our reporting.

Outstanding Action Items per Type by Operator

The above graphic provides a summary of the number of Outstanding Action Items per type for each operator.

90%

3%7%

Outstanding Action Items by Operator

Atmos (0)

Devon (0)

EagleRidge (63)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (2)

Hillwood (0)

Krocan (0)

Sage (5)

XTO (0)

0 20 40 60 80

Atmos (0)

Devon (0)

EagleRidge (63)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (2)

Hillwood (0)

Krocan (0)

Sage (5)

XTO (0)

31

1

4

29

1

1

12

Number of Outstanding Action Items per Type by Operator

Leaks (36)

NORM (0)

Corrosion (31)


Fencing (0)

Lanscaping (2)




Of the 37 Identified Action Items noted, a total of 7 remained as Outstanding Action Items since they were not corrected during our field inspection or reported as corrected prior to our reporting.

52%44%

1% 3%

Outstanding Action Items by Type

Leaks (36)

NORM (0)

Corrosion (31)


Fencing (0)

Lanscaping (2)

100%

Outstanding Action Items by Operator

Atmos (NA)

Devon (NA)

EagleRidge (7)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (0)

Hillwood (NA)

Krocan (NA)

Sage (0)

XTO (NA)



Outstanding Action Items per Type by Operator

The above graphic provides a summary of the number of Outstanding Action Items per type for each operator.

0 2 4 6 8

Atmos (NA)

Devon (NA)

EagleRidge (7)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (0)

Hillwood (NA)

Krocan (NA)

Sage (0)

XTO (NA)

7

Number of Outstanding Action Items per Type by Operator

Leaks (0)

NORM (0)

Corrosion (7)


Fencing (0)

Lanscaping (0)

100%

Outstanding Action Items by Type

Leaks (0)

NORM (0)

Corrosion (7)


Fencing (0)

Lanscaping (0)



5. ACTION ITEM RESULTS (DETAIL)

5.1. LEAKS (METHANE)


A total of 89 individual leaks (methane) were identified during Modern’s padsite inspection activities.

Leaks per Equipment by Operator

The above graphic provides a summary of the number of leaks (methane) identified for typical padsite equipment for each operator. Total leaks identified for each operator are provided in the legend. Leaks identified at operational low bleed components or related to normal equipment function are not included in leak totals. “Other” indicates ancillary pieces of equipment including additional sales piping and compressors. Please see individual padsite inspection reports for the specific equipment noted with a leak and corresponding OGI images. Any leaks not addressed during field inspections or noted as repaired by the operator (Addressed Action Items) are individually noted in the Outstanding Action Items (Table 7).

0 10 20 30 40 50

Wells

Separators

ASTs

Other

1

2

1

2

10

16

3

1

2

9

22

1

2

5

10

1

1

Number of Leaks per Equipment by Operator

Atmos (0)

Devon (4)

EagleRidge (31)

Endeavor (1)

Bedrock (33)

Hillwood (1)

Krocan (0)

Sage (17)

XTO (2)




A total of 28 individual leaks (methane) were identified during Modern’s padsite inspection activities.

Leaks per Equipment by Operator

The above graphic provides a summary of the number of leaks (methane) identified for typical padsite equipment for each operator. Total leaks identified for each operator are provided in the legend. Leaks identified at operational low bleed components or related to normal equipment function are not included in leak totals. “Other” indicates ancillary pieces of equipment including additional sales piping and compressors. Please see individual padsite inspection reports for the specific equipment noted with a leak and corresponding OGI images.

5%

35%

1%

37%

1%

19%

2%

Leaks by Operator

Atmos (0)

Devon (4)

EagleRidge (31)

Endeavor (1)

Bedrock (33)

Hillwood (1)

Krocan (0)

Sage (17)

XTO (2)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Wells

Separators

ASTs

Other

1

8

4

7

4

1

2

1

Number of Leaks per Equipment by Operator

Atmos (NA)

Devon (NA)

EagleRidge (9)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (15)

Hillwood (NA)

Krocan (NA)

Sage (4)

XTO (NA)



Any leaks not addressed during field inspections or noted as repaired by the operator (Addressed Action Items) are individually noted in the Outstanding Action Items (Table 7).

32%

54%

14%

Leaks by Operator

Atmos (NA)

Devon (NA)

EagleRidge (9)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (15)

Hillwood (NA)

Krocan (NA)

Sage (4)

XTO (NA)



5.2. NORM

5.2.1. TOTAL NORM EXCEEDANCES

5.2.1.1. FIRST HALF 2020

A total of 63 individual pieces of equipment (e.g., well, separator, AST) were identified during Modern’s padsite

inspection activities that exceeded the RRC criteria for additional management and controls. When operational,

this can be addressed through proper labeling and/or signage.

Total Norm Exceedances per Equipment by Operator

The above graphic provides a summary of the number of NORM exceedances observed, both labeled and

unlabeled, for typical padsite equipment for each operator. “Other” indicates ancillary pieces of equipment

including additional sales piping and compressors.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Labeled Wells

Unlabeled Wells

Labeled Separators

Unlabeled Separators

Labeled ASTs

Unlabeled ASTs

Labeled Other

Unlabeled Other

1

1

1

2

3

7

16

3

10

7

2

1 2

1

3

1

1

1

Number of Total NORM Exceedances per Equipment by Operator

Atmos (0)

Devon (2)

EagleRidge (3)

Endeavor (26)

Bedrock (22)

Hillwood (1)

Krocan (2)

Sage (7)

XTO (0)

3%

5%

41%

35%

2%3% 11%

Total NORM Exceedances by Operator

Atmos (0)

Devon (2)

EagleRidge (3)

Endeavor (26)

Bedrock (22)

Hillwood (1)

Krocan (2)

Sage (7)

XTO (0)



5.2.1.2. SECOND HALF 2020

A total of 40 individual pieces of equipment (e.g., well, separator, AST) were identified during Modern’s padsite

inspection activities that exceeded the RRC criteria for additional management and controls. When operational,

this can be addressed through proper labeling and/or signage.

Total Norm Exceedances per Equipment by Operator

The above graphic provides a summary of the number of NORM exceedances observed, both labeled and

unlabeled, for typical padsite equipment for each operator. “Other” indicates ancillary pieces of equipment

including additional sales piping and compressors.

0 5 10 15 20

Labeled Wells

Unlabeled Wells

Labeled Separators


Labeled ASTs

Unlabeled ASTs

Labeled Other

Unlabeled Other

1

1

3

9

5

1

9

1

7

1

2

Number of Total NORM Exceedances per Equipment by Operator

Atmos (NA)

Devon (NA)

EagleRidge (1)

Endeavor (13)

Bedrock (26)

Hillwood (NA)

Krocan (NA)

Sage (0)

XTO (NA)

2%

33%

65%

Total NORM Exceedances by Operator

Atmos (NA)

Devon (NA)

EagleRidge (1)

Endeavor (13)

Bedrock (26)

Hillwood (NA)

Krocan (NA)

Sage (0)

XTO (NA)



5.2.2. UNLABELED NORM EXCEEDANCES

5.2.2.1. FIRST HALF 2020

A total of three (3) NORM exceedances were not properly labeled when identified during Modern’s inspection.

Unlabeled Norm Exceedances per Equipment by Operator

The above graphic provides a summary of the number of unlabeled NORM exceedances observed for typical

padsite equipment for each operator. “Other” indicates ancillary pieces of equipment including additional sales

piping and compressors.

All NORM exceedances were noted as Addressed Action Items and confirmed during inspection, if corrected during our field efforts, or reported as corrected by the operator prior to our final report.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Unlabeled Wells


Unlabeled ASTs

Unlabeled Other

1 1

1

Number of Unlabeled NORM Exceedances per Equipment by Operator

Atmos (0)

Devon (1)

EagleRidge (0)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (0)

Hillwood (0)

Krocan (0)

Sage (2)

XTO (0)

33%

67%

Unlabeled NORM Exceedances by Operator

Atmos (0)

Devon (1)

EagleRidge (0)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (0)

Hillwood (0)

Krocan (0)

Sage (2)

XTO (0)



5.2.2.2. SECOND HALF 2020

A total of two (2) NORM exceedances were not properly labeled when identified during Modern’s inspection.

Unlabeled Norm Exceedances per Equipment by Operator

The above graphic provides a summary of the number of unlabeled NORM exceedances observed for typical

padsite equipment for each operator. “Other” indicates ancillary pieces of equipment including additional sales

piping and compressors.

All NORM exceedances were noted as Addressed Action Items and confirmed during inspection, if corrected

during our field efforts, or reported as corrected by the operator prior to our final report.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Unlabeled Wells


Unlabeled ASTs

Unlabeled Other

1

1

1

Number of Unlabeled NORM Exceedances per Equipment by Operator

Atmos (NA)

Devon (NA)

EagleRidge (0)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (3)

Hillwood (NA)

Krocan (NA)

Sage (0)

XTO (NA)

100%

Unlabeled NORM Exceedances by Operator

Atmos (NA)

Devon (NA)

EagleRidge (0)

Endeavor (0)

Bedrock (3)

Hillwood (NA)

Krocan (NA)

Sage (0)

XTO (NA)



5.3. FENCELINE MONITORING


Modern’s fenceline monitoring included the evaluation of multiple parameters. The results of each are noted

below for the first half of 2020.

Total Volatile Organic Compounds (tVOCs) – None of the up or downwind fenceline monitoring

exhibited exceedances of the tVOCs screening criteria.

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) – None of the up or downwind fenceline monitoring exhibited exceedances of

the H2S screening criteria.

Radiation – None of the up or downwind fenceline monitoring exhibited exceedances of radiation

screening criteria.

Methane – None of the up or downwind fenceline monitoring exhibited exceedances of methane

screening criteria.

Particulate Matter (PM) – None of the up or downwind fenceline monitoring exhibited exceedances of

PM screening criteria.

Noise – One (1) of the fenceline noise monitoring results exceeded screening criteria.

o Padsite No. 138 – Elevated compressor noise (67.1 dBA) noted at padsite boundary above

screening criteria (65 dBA). As a result, an additional noise screening sample was collected off the

padsite and closer to occupied structures (52.4 dBA). At the City’s direction, this exceedance will

be re‐evaluated during the next monitoring event.


Modern’s fenceline monitoring included the evaluation of multiple parameters. The results of each are noted

below for the second half of 2020.

Total Volatile Organic Compounds (tVOCs) – None of the up or downwind fenceline monitoring

exhibited exceedances of the tVOCs screening criteria.

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) – None of the up or downwind fenceline monitoring exhibited exceedances of

the H2S screening criteria.



Radiation – None of the up or downwind fenceline monitoring exhibited exceedances of radiation

screening criteria.

Methane – None of the up or downwind fenceline monitoring exhibited exceedances of methane

screening criteria.

Particulate Matter (PM) – None of the up or downwind fenceline monitoring exhibited exceedances of

PM screening criteria.

Noise – One (1) of the fenceline noise monitoring results exceeded screening criteria.

o Padsite No. 138 – Elevated compressor noise noted at padsite boundary above screening criteria

(66.0 dBA). As a result, an additional noise screening sample was collected off the padsite and

closer to occupied structures (62.6 dBA). The City was advised of the observations and further

coordination with the operator was planned by the City. This exceedance will be re‐evaluated

during the next monitoring event.

5.4. COMPLIANCE MONITORING


Modern’s compliance monitoring for the first half of 2020 identified Action Items related to the following:

Excessive Corrosion;

NORM;

Landscaping;

Secondary Containment; and

Fencing.

Any of the above items not addressed during field inspections or noted as repaired by the operator

(Addressed Action Items) are individually noted in the Outstanding Action Items (Table 7).


Modern’s compliance monitoring for the second half of 2020 identified Action Items related to the following:

Excessive Corrosion; and



NORM.

Any of the above items not addressed during field inspections or noted as repaired by the operator

(Addressed Action Items) are individually noted in the Outstanding Action Items (Table 7).



6. INSPECTION RESULTS (COMPREHENSIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS)

To better estimate the occurrence of individual Action Items across multiple operators with various amounts of

equipment, this section offers comparative analysis to normalize the observations from Modern’s inspection

over the entire year. The data below offers comprehensive results on a “per well” basis for both the first (222

wells inspected) and second half (70 wells inspected) of 2020 inspections.

6.1. LEAKS PER WELL (ALL DATA)

The data below provides a summary of all leaks (117; methane) observed on a per well (292) basis.

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40

Atmos (0.00)

Devon (0.12)

EagleRidge (0.40)

Endeavor (0.07)

Bedrock (0.61)

Hillwood (0.07)

Krocan (0.00)

Sage (0.55)

XTO (1.00)

Number of Leaks per Well by Operator



6.2. NORM PER WELL (ALL DATA)

6.2.1. TOTAL NORM PER WELL

The data below provides a summary of all recorded NORM observations that exceeded RRC criteria (103; >50

µR/hr) on a per well (292) basis.

6.2.2. UNLABELED NORM PER WELL

The data below provides a summary of all recorded NORM observations without proper labeling/signage, during

field inspection, that exceeded RRC criteria (5; >50 µR/hr) on a per well (292) basis.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Atmos (0.00)

Devon (0.06)

EagleRidge (0.04)

Endeavor (2.60)

Bedrock (0.61)

Hillwood (0.07)

Krocan (0.67)

Sage (0.18)

XTO (0.00)

Number of Total NORM per Well by Operator

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Atmos (0.00)

Devon (0.03)

EagleRidge (0.00)

Endeavor (0.00)

Bedrock (0.04)

Hillwood (0.00)

Krocan (0.00)

Sage (0.05)

XTO (0.00)

Number of Unlabeled NORM per Well by Operator



6.3. ACTION ITEMS PER WELL (ALL DATA)

6.3.1. IDENTIFIED ACTION ITEMS PER WELL

The data below provides a summary of all Identified Action Items (194) on a per well (292) basis by operator.

6.3.2. ADDRESSED ACTION ITEMS PER WELL

The data below provides a summary of all Addressed Action Items (117) on a per well (292) basis by operator.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Atmos (0.00)

Devon (0.52)

EagleRidge (0.79)

Endeavor (0.13)

Bedrock (0.67)

Hillwood (0.36)

Krocan (2.00)

Sage (0.66)

XTO (3.50)

Number of Identified Action Items per Well by Operator

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Atmos (0.00)

Devon (0.52)

EagleRidge (0.09)

Endeavor (0.13)

Bedrock (0.65)

Hillwood (0.36)

Krocan (2.00)

Sage (0.53)

XTO (3.50)

Number of Addressed Action Items per Well by Operator



6.3.3. OUTSTANDING ACTION ITEMS PER WELL

The data below provides a summary of all Addressed Action Items (77) on a per well (292) basis by operator.

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Atmos (0.00)

Devon (0.00)

EagleRidge (0.70)

Endeavor (0.00)

Bedrock (0.03)

Hillwood (0.00)

Krocan (0.00)

Sage (0.13)

XTO (0.00)

Number of Outstanding Action Items per Well by Operator



7. YEAR TO YEAR TRENDING

7.1. IDENTIFIED ACTION ITEMS PER WELL

The data below provides a comparative summary of all Identified Action Items on a per well basis by operator

per year for each year of the inspection program to date.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Atmos

Devon

EagleRidge

Endeavor

Bedrock

Hillwood

Krocan

Sage

XTO

AtmosDevonEagleRidgeEndeavorBedrockHillwoodKrocanSageXTO2018 0.000.361.572.500.950.361.331.214.50

2019 0.000.671.380.650.670.400.000.644.50

2020 0.000.520.790.130.670.362.000.663.50

Number of Action Items per Well per Year by Operator



7.2. LEAKS PER WELL

The data below provides a comparative summary of all leaks on a per well basis by operator per year for each

year of the inspection program to date.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Atmos

Devon

EagleRidge

Endeavor

Bedrock

Hillwood

Krocan

Sage

XTO


2019 0.000.270.980.100.560.000.000.572.00

2020 0.000.120.400.070.610.070.000.551.00

Number of Leaks per Well per Year by Operator



7.1. UNLABELED NORM PER WELL

The data below provides a comparative summary of total unlabeled NORM exceedances on a per well basis by

operator per year for each year of the inspection program to date.

0.00 1.00 2.00

Atmos

Devon

EagleRidge

Endeavor

Bedrock

Hillwood

Krocan

Sage

XTO


2019 0.000.000.020.300.070.200.000.000.00

2020 0.000.030.000.000.040.000.000.050.00

Number of Unlabeled NORM per Well per Year by Operator



8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1. NEAR‐EQUIPMENT INSPECTION

Modern identified the following during near‐equipment inspection efforts:

Modern identified a total of 117 leaks (methane) using an Optical Gas Imaging (OGI) camera during our

padsite inspection activities. No leaks were identified at Atmos and Krocan padsites.

Modern identified a total of 5 exceedances of Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) NORM criteria (>50

µR/hr) requiring signage and proper management.

8.2. FENCELINE MONITORING

Modern identified the following fenceline exceedances during this inspection period concerning noise (including

Pure‐Tone Levels), particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide, VOCs, or methane:

Padsite No. 138 – Elevated compressor noise (67.1 dBA) noted at padsite boundary above screening

criteria (65 dBA) during first half 2020 inspection. As a result, an additional noise screening sample was

collected off the padsite and closer to occupied structures (52.4 dBA). Elevated compressor noise was

also noted at padsite boundary above screening criteria (66.0 dBA) during second half 2020 inspection.

As a result, an additional noise screening sample was collected off the padsite and closer to occupied

structures (62.6 dBA). Modern understands further discussions with the operator on compliance needs

was planned by the City. This exceedance will be re‐evaluated during the next monitoring event.

8.3. OUTSTANDING ACTION ITEMS

Modern identified a total of 194 Action Items requiring operator attention during our 2020 padsite inspection

activities. Of the 157 Identified Action Items noted during the first half 2020 inspection activities, 70 remain as

Outstanding Action Items as of our reporting.

TABLE 6 – FIRST HALF 2020 – OUTSTANDING ACTION ITEM SUMMARY

Padsite

No.

Operator Outstanding Action Items

6 Bedrock Corrosion (1) – Well A

15 EagleRidge Leaks (1) – AST C thief hatch

Corrosion (1) – separator piping

16 EagleRidge Leaks (1) – AST A thief hatch

33 EagleRidge Leaks (1) – AST B thief hatch

Corrosion (1) – AST piping

34 EagleRidge Corrosion (1) – separator piping

37 EagleRidge Leaks (1) – Separator A DV controller

39 EagleRidge Corrosion (1) – Ancillary A piping



TABLE 6 – FIRST HALF 2020 – OUTSTANDING ACTION ITEM SUMMARY

Padsite

No.


41 EagleRidge Leaks (2) – Well A kimray valve and Separator A DV controller

42 EagleRidge

Leaks (1) – AST B thief hatch

Corrosion (2) – separator piping and AST piping

Secondary Containment (1) – sheen on standing water (no leak visible)

47 EagleRidge Leaks (2) – AST A enardo valve and DV controller

48 EagleRidge Leaks (3) – Separator A DV controller, Separator B DV controller, and AST E enardo valve


64 EagleRidge Leaks (1) – AST A thief hatch

Corrosion (1) – separator piping

65 EagleRidge

Leaks (4) – Separator B DV controller, AST A enardo valve, AST E enardo valve, and

Compressor A pneumatic liquid level controller


66 EagleRidge Corrosion (1) – AST piping

67 EagleRidge Leaks (1) – Separator A DV controller

Corrosion (2) – Separator A and AST piping

68 EagleRidge

Leaks (5) – Separator A DV controller, Separator B DV controller, AST B thief hatch, AST C

enardo valve, and Compressor A pinhole leaks on hose

Corrosion (3) – Well A, Well B, and AST piping

69 EagleRidge Leaks (1) – AST A enardo valve

73 EagleRidge Overgrown vegetation (1) – Well A

74 EagleRidge Corrosion (3) – separator piping, AST piping, and Ancillary A

75 EagleRidge

Leaks (5) – Separator B DV controller, Separator C DV controller, AST A enardo valve, AST B

thief hatch, and Compressor A kimray valve


77 EagleRidge Leaks (1) – AST B enardo valve


107 EagleRidge Corrosion (2) – separator piping and AST piping

109 EagleRidge Overgrown vegetation (1) – Well A

117 EagleRidge Corrosion (3) – separator piping, AST A, and AST piping

124 EagleRidge Leaks (1) – Well A B‐section

144 EagleRidge Corrosion (2) – AST A and B

150 Bedrock Leaks (1) – Separator F actuator

157 Sage

Leaks (4) – Separator C actuator, AST C enardo valve, AST D enardo valve, and AST E enardo

valve




Of the 37 Identified Action Items noted during the second half 2020 inspection activities, 7 remain as

Outstanding Action Items as of our reporting. This is detailed in the table below and within each Padsite

Inspection Report.

TABLE 7 – SECOND HALF 2020 – OUTSTANDING ACTION ITEM SUMMARY

Padsite

No.


039 EagleRidge Corrosion (1) – Ancillary A piping


075 EagleRidge Corrosion (2) – separator piping and AST piping


144 EagleRidge Corrosion (2) – ASTs A and B

8.4. OPERATOR PERFORMANCE

As continued data is collected, the City can gain an understanding of how operator performance has changed

year over year. The following presents a summary of annual trending data observed to date (see Section 7 of

this report).

Action Items – The overall per well Action Items has decreased from 2018 (Operator average of 0.82) to

2020 (Operator average of 0.66).

Leaks – The overall per well Leak Rate has decreased from 2018 (Operator average of 0.77) to 2020

(Operator average of 0.40).

Unlabeled NORM Exceedances – The overall per well Unlabeled NORM Exceedance rate has decreased

from 2018 (Operator average of 0.12) to 2020 (Operator average of 0.02).

8.5. PROGRAM UPDATES

During the course of inspection activities, the padsite operations, surrounding receptor conditions, and other

observations may necessitate an update to the current program approach. Based on the first half 2020

inspection results, Modern recommended the following updates to be considered by the City as part of the

ongoing monitoring program:

Updating the following padsite inspection status conditions.

o Padsite No. 150 – updating from Moderate to High due to nearby receptors.

Completing a final post‐production inspection and summarizing in a report with all RRC plugging

documentation so this will be available when future development on or near this padsite is being



considered. This should include a surface NORM survey, subgrade leak evaluation, and confirmation

ordinance requirements have all been met.

o Padsite Nos. 032, 086, 114, 116, 121, 128, 129, 136, 137, and 145 – Once all infrastructure is

properly plugged and removed.



9. IMPORTANT ACRONYMS

AMCV Air Monitoring Comparison Value (Short or Long Term Criteria)

AST Aboveground storage tank

ASTM ASTM International

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BMP Best Management Practice

CAA Clean Air Act

COC Chemicals of Concern

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ESL Effect Screening Level (Short or Long Term Criteria)

ETJ Extra Territorial Jurisdiction

FID Flame Ionization Detector

FRP Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic

GC/MS Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

HASP Health and Safety Plan

HQ Hazard Quotient

IDLH Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health

IHW TCEQ Industrial & Hazardous Waste Program

LDAR Leak Detection and Repair

LDCP Leak Detection and Compliance Plan

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NORM (Technologically Enhanced) Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material

NSPS New Source Performance Standard

OPM Open Path Monitoring

OSHA Occupational Safety & Health Administration

PEL OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit

PID Photo Ionization Detector

PM Particulate Matter



PPB Parts Per Billion (PPBV – by volume)

PPM Parts Per Million (PPMV – by volume)

RBEL Risk Based Exposure Limit

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RfC Reference Concentration

ROD Record of Decision

RRC Texas Railroad Commission

RSC Reduced Sulfur Compounds

SVOCs Semi‐volatile Organic Compounds

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TD Thermal Desorption

TOX Total Organic Halides

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

TRRP Texas Risk Reduction Program

tVOCs Total Volatile Organic Compounds

TVA Total Vapor Analyzer (Typically in the form of a Flame Ionization Detector or FID)

TWDB Texas Water Development Board

TXU Texas Utilities

URF Unit Risk Factor

USC United States Code

USGS United States Geological Survey

UST Underground Storage Tank

UV Ultraviolet

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds



10. LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS

Modern’s services were performed in a manner consistent with a level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by

other members of our profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the time the

services were performed. Laws, regulations and professional standards applicable to Modern's services are

continually evolving. Techniques are, by necessity, often new and relatively untried. Different professionals

may reasonably adopt different approaches to similar problems. As such, our services are intended to provide

our client with a source of professional advice, opinions and recommendations based on a limited number of

field observations and tests, collected and performed in accordance with the generally accepted practice that

exists at the time, and may depend on, and be qualified by, information gathered previously by others and

provided to Modern by our Client.

The monitoring results collected as part of these services represent conditions at the time of inspection or

monitoring only. Samples or monitoring data collected at other times may reveal different results that are

representative of site conditions during other periods of time. The use of monitoring efforts is not intended to

replace laboratory methodology. Modern’s air sampling has been consistent with current regulatory guidance

and manufacturer specification. For a higher level of certainty our monitoring methods can be expanded over

longer periods of time and/or supplemented by use of a state‐accredited laboratory when evaluation of specific

COCs is desired or further verification is needed.

Our conclusions, opinions and recommendations are based only on the information available for review at the

time of reporting. This included a limited number of observations and data points. It is likely that conditions will

vary between or beyond the specific points evaluated. Environmental conditions at areas or portions of the Site

where sampling was not conducted may vary from those encountered at actual sample locations. Further,

certain indicators for the presence of hazardous materials or other constituents may have been latent,

inaccessible, unobservable, or not present during Modern’s performance of its services, and Modern cannot

represent that the Site contains no hazardous materials or other latent conditions beyond those identified in

connection with this effort. There is no investigation that is thorough enough to identify the presence or

absence of all materials at a site which is currently, or at some point in the future, may be considered hazardous.

Modern offers various levels of investigative services to suit the varying needs of our clients. It should be

recognized that definition and evaluation of geologic and environmental conditions are a difficult and inexact

science. Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with incomplete

knowledge of the atmospheric or subsurface conditions present due to the limitations of data from field studies.

Although risk can never be eliminated, more exhaustive studies will produce additional data, which can help

understand and manage the level of risk present. Since more detailed studies require greater expense, our

clients participate in the determination of acceptable risk for their purposes.


FIGURES

")

")

") ")")

")")

")

")")")

")

")")")

")") ")

")")")

")")

")

")")")")")")

")")

")")")

")

")")")

")")

")")

")")

") ")")

") ")")")")")

")

")

")")")")

")

")

")")")")")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")

")")

")")") ")

")

")

")

")

")")")")")")")")

")")

")

")

")")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

157

65 7

2

8

4

9

13

8663

4762

75

9497

45

48

84

44

78

16

88

65

91

18

80

61

51

59

55

7970

35

40

81

21

67

9896

11

7487

6672

4313

20

17

99

92

95

34

19

3649

14

4254

68

69

15

3850

41

64

39

89

90

33

73

32

93

83

10

717677

46

28

3130

2922

2523

2624

8285

57

585253

12

60

156

155

150

153152

148

151

149

133

146

104

147

138

140

102

100105

154

145

103139

136137

117118

144

128

110

126

112

142

121113

143

120

108

122

141

129

111

124

115

109

106107

127

119

116

123

125

114

132

101

130

134135

131

56

27 37

PADSITE LOCATION MAP

Denton, Texas1

2000201.11.21

CS/DWKT

K

PROJECT NO.DRAWN:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:FILE NAME:

FIGURE

0 1 2 3Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

This figure was prepared using data from a variety of sources.No warranty is made as to the accuracy or completeness of dataprovided through third parties. All data contained herein issubject to change without notice. This figure is not intendedfor use as a legal survey or construction design document.

Denton_PadsiteLocation_210111.mxd

LegendPadsites by Operator (No. of Wells):") Eagleridge (92)") Devon (61)") Bedrock (50)") Sage (36)") Endeavor (10)

") Hillwood (14)") Atmos (8)") Krocan (3)") XTO (2)") Plugged and Abandoned

Denton City Limit

")

")

") ")")

")")

")

")")")

")

")")")

")") ")

")")")")")

")")")")

")")

")")")

")")")

")")

")")

") ")")

") ")")")")")

")

")

")")")

")")")")")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")")

")

")")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")

")")

")

")

")")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")") ")

")

")

")

")

")")")")")")

")")

")

")

")")

") ")

")

")

")

")

")")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

D)D)

D)

D)

D)D)

D)

D)

D)

D)

D)D)

D)

D)

D)

D)D)

D)

D)

D)

D)

D)

D)

3727

56131

135134

130

101

132

114

125

123

116

119

127

107106

109

115

124

111

129

141

122

108

120

143

113121

142

112

126

110

128

144

118117

137136

139103

145

154

105100

102

140

138

147

104

146

133

149

151

148152

153

150

155

156

60

12

5352

58

57

8582

2426

2325

22 293031

28

46

7776

71

10

83

93

32

73

33

90

89

39

64

41

5038

15

69

68

54 42

14

4936

19

34

95

92

99

17

20

1343

7266

87 74

11

9698

67

21

81

40

35

7079

55

59

51

61

80

18

91

65

88

16

78

44

84

48

45

9794

75

6247

6386

31

9

4

8

2

75 6

157

PADSITE INSPECTIONSUMMARY MAP

Denton, Texas2

2000201.11.20

CS/DWKT

K

PROJECT NO.DRAWN:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:FILE NAME:

FIGURE

0 1 2 3Miles

This figure was prepared using data from a variety of sources.No warranty is made as to the accuracy or completeness of dataprovided through third parties. All data contained herein issubject to change without notice. This figure is not intendedfor use as a legal survey or construction design document.

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Denton_Summary_210111.mxd

Legend") No Action Item(s) Identified") Operator Addressed Action Item(s) (COD Confirmed/Further Verification Planned)") Outstanding Action Item(s)D) Padsite Not Scheduled for Inspection in 2020") Padsite Closed (All Wells Plugged)

Denton City Limit

padsite inspection summary report

Documents