HYDROCARBON
ENGINEERING
28
the wellhead and the point of custody transfer to an oil
pipeline.’
3
However, the rule does not define ‘custody
transfer’ for oil marketing and terminal operations.
Therefore, many companies have relied on the definition
provided in NSPS Subpart Kb, which states that custody
transfer is ‘the transfer of produced petroleum and/or
condensate, after processing and/or treatment in the
producing operations, from storage vessels or automatic
transfer facilities to pipelines or any other forms of
transportation.’
4
This definition is also consistent with
both National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) Subpart HH, which regulates the
crude oil production sector, and with EPA’s diagram of the
oil and gas industry provided on its oil and gas website.
Since almost all crude/condensate terminals are located
after the point of custody transfer, as defined in Subpart
Kb, most facilities will not be subject to Subpart OOOO.
However, until EPA releases more explicit guidance for
crude/condensate terminals, some companies have taken
a conservative approach by limiting tank VOC emissions
to less than the applicable threshold. It should also be
noted that tanks subject to Subpart Kb are exempt from
Subpart OOOO, regardless of location or emissions.
Accounting for maintenance,
startup, and shutdown
emissions
Another recent point of increased scrutiny has been
emissions from maintenance, startup, and shutdown (MSS)
activities. The most common MSS emissions associated
with crude/condensate terminals are from roof landings.
These are also the only MSS emissions currently
addressed in AP-42 Chapter 7, and historically have been
the primary, and sometimes only, MSS emission source
regulated by government agencies. However, another
major MSS emission source that has received greater
attention recently is tank degassing and cleaning which
unlike landings, can be associated with both fixed and
floating roof tanks. The most common method for
calculating these emissions comes from the American
Petroleum Institute (API) Technical Report 2568. For
facilities that perform any periodic degassing and
cleaning, owners/operators should begin quantifying
these emissions now and addressing the associated
permitting implications. Other minor MSS sources that
may need to be considered, depending on local
regulations, include temporary control devices, temporary
tanks, painting and abrasive blasting, cleaning solvents and
degreasers, piping maintenance and degassing, and
vacuum truck loading. Emissions from most of these
activities will be relatively insignificant, but some local
agencies have started to require their quantification.
Navigating guidance from
multiple agencies
Unfortunately, in the US, regulations and guidance are
constantly changing. In addition to the issues discussed,
future regulations are currently in development. Some of
the more notable air issues in the U.S. include ozone
nonattainment and fugitive leak monitoring. Based on
current ozone standards and proposed future standards,
nonattainment designation will be coming to a large
portion of the country. This could have significant
impacts on both permitting and currently grandfathered
sources. As for fugitive leaks, EPA recently released a
white paper discussing this emission source in the oil and
gas sector.
5
EPA white papers have often been a
precursor to rulemaking, and this new paper could
eventually lead to some type of required monitoring or
inspections.
While this article has addressed some key air
permitting issues, it is important to also note the
multitude of environmental regulations affecting spill
management, water, waste, and construction/
maintenance, which are almost all regulated by different
agencies on both the local and national level. Maintaining
compliance with every applicable rule can seem like an
impossible task, and for those rare moments where
everything seems to have been addressed, something
changes. As compliance issues are addressed, some
important considerations include:
n
Engage with agency permit writers. In many instances,
they will have the ultimate say for what goes into a
permit and how new rules will be interpreted in
regards to a specific facility.
n
Understand the cost of customisation. Regulations
and permitting requirements vary for every local
jurisdiction. It may be wise to exploit the differences
to benefit the company or it may be more cost
effective to apply a consistent approach.
n
Evaluate compliance tracking limits. Has the
organisation reached the practical limit of simple
environmental tracking tools, such as workbooks?
Could a more advanced environmental management
software or system be cost effective considering the
associated efficiency increase and risk reduction?
n
Develop a compliance strategy. Developing a long
term plan before even starting construction is usually
the most effective compliance strategy. This includes
specifying who will be responsible for the various
aspects of initial and ongoing compliance, and what
tools will be used to accomplish those actions.
In conclusion, the industry appears to still be in the
beginning phase of a new regulatory environment for the
upstream and midstream oil and gas sector, including
crude oil and condensate marketing and transportation
terminals, and especially in regards to air quality. As with
other industries that have gone down this same path, the
number of enforcement cases is expected to rise as
revisions to these new rules are finalised and as EPA
continues to focus on the oil and gas industry as a part of
its National Enforcement Initiative. Now is the time to
understand the upcoming potential pitfalls and plan
accordingly.
T&T
References
1.
/#.
2. CARB Technical Guidance Document for the Emission
Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Regulation for AB 2588,
August 1989.
3. 40 CFR 60.5365(d)(1).
4. 40 CFR 60.111b.
5.
.
