The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club filed comments this week to the TCEQ on their proposal to incorporate minor changes to their General Operating Permits for oil and gas wells, processing plants and associated infrastructure. In our comments, we called on the TCEQ to develop state commitments to methane and VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) currently in effect that are being rolled back by the Trump Administration, and to commit to Gas Control Techniques Guidelines that have not been fully implemented. Our Comments can be found below.
“We need the TCEQ to step up and protect all Texans from poor air quality, at a time when this administration is trying to rollback New Source Performance Standards and Control Technique Guidelines,’ said Cyrus Reed, interim director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. “The Great State of Texas does not to follow the Trump Administration does the road to rollback of requirements to protect us from methane emissions, and we have the ability to set our own standards.”
Comments of Sierra Club- Lone Star Chapter on Oil and Gas General Operating Permit (“GOP”) numbers 511, 512, 513, and 514
Sierra Club’s Lone Star Chapter respectfully submits these comments in response to TCEQ’s issuance of the revised the draft Oil and Gas General Operating Permit (“GOP”) numbers 511, 512, 513, and 514. As required under Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 382.0542(a)(3)(D), the revised GOPs 511–514 incorporate EPA’s methane and VOC control requirements for new and modified oil and gas equipment codified at 40 C.F.R. § 60 Subpt. OOOOa. However, in 2018 and 2019, EPA proposed in two separate rulemakings to significantly weaken OOOOa’s emission control requirements. See83 Fed. Reg. 52,056 (Oct. 15, 2018) (proposing, among other things, to relax leak detection and repair requirements for oil and gas wells); 84 Fed. Reg. 50,244 (Sept. 24, 2019) (proposing to rescind methane standards for the full oil and gas source category and to rescind methane and VOC standards for gas transmission and storage equipment). Although EPA has not yet finalized either proposal, it has expressed its intent to finalize one or both rules within the next few months.
Sierra Club and other environmental groups have strenuously opposed EPA’s efforts to weaken existing emission control requirements for the oil and gas sector, and submitted comprehensive comments explaining why both of the agency’s rollback proposals would be arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. SeeEnvtl. Defense Fund, et al., Comments on Proposed Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed and Modified Sources: Reconsideration,Dkt. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-2041 (Dec. 17, 2018);[1]Clean Air Council, et al., Comments on Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0757-2134 (Nov. 25, 2019).[2]The OOOOa requirements are based on low-cost, commonsense measures that are widely available to oil and gas operators and easily implemented. Rather than weaken or rescind those standards, EPA must considerably strengthenthem and adopt strong methane emission safeguards for existing oil and gas infrastructure, which is currently unregulated at the federal level.
Under the current administration, EPA has demonstrated that it is unwilling to fulfill its legal mandate to adequately control harmful emission from the oil and gas sector. If the agency does finalize one or both of its proposed rollbacks of OOOOa, TCEQ must, at a minimum, use its general rulemaking authority under Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 382.017 to issue state-level methane and VOC standards for the oil and gas sector that fully reflect the OOOOa requirements as issued in 2016. See81 Fed. Reg. 35,824 (June 3, 2016). In fact, no matter what EPA does, we urge TCEQ to adopt a broad and comprehensive suite of controls for new, modified, and existing equipment alike that ensures the greatest methane and VOC control achievable using the most state-of-the-art emission reduction technologies and practices. Indeed, the federal Clean Air Act grants states full authority to adopt pollution requirements that exceed the stringency of parallel EPA standards issued under section 111, see42 U.S.C. § 7416, and some states have done exactly that with regard oil and gas emissions. See generally, e.g.,Cal. Code Regs. Title 17 §§ 95665–95677 (regulating both new and existing equipment across the state, whereas OOOOa covers new equipment only); 5 Colo. Code Regs. §§ 1001-9:D.I–V (same).
Furthermore, TCEQ must swiftly implement EPA’s Control Techniques Guidelines (“CTG”) for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. See81 Fed. Reg. 74,798 (Oct. 27, 2016). EPA issued this CTG in 2016 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(2)(A), which requires states that have areas in moderate ozone nonattainment or worse to adopt reasonably available control technology requirements for existing VOC sources in those areas. With 18 of its counties classified as “serious” nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard,[3]Texas must revise its current ozone non-attainment SIP to incorporate the CTG’s specified control measures (or equally protective alternative measures) for existing oil and gas equipment operating in those counties.
Although EPA proposed to withdraw the oil and gas CTG in 2018, see83 Fed. Reg. 10,478 (March 9, 2018), it has taken no apparent steps to finalize that proposal in the two years since its issuance. Indeed, as Sierra Club and its allies have argued, withdrawing the CTG would be arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. SeeEnvtl. Def. Fund, et al., Comments on Proposed Withdrawal of the Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0216-0630 (Apr. 23, 2018).[4]Moreover, a number of other states affected by the CTG, such as Pennsylvania, have taken steps to implement the guideline, despite the agency’s ostensible intention to withdraw it. See, e.g., Penn. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., Envtl. Quality Bd., Proposed Rulemaking: Control of VOC Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Sources (25 Pa. Code Chapters 121 and 129)(Dec 17, 2019),[5]at 9 (describing the Department’s intention of finalizing existing source oil and gas controls “even though a finalized withdrawal of the 2016 O&G CTG would relieve this Commonwealth of the requirement to address RACT for existing oil and gas sources”). Texas must act similarly and adopt the CTG requirements—or more stringent controls—for existing sources operating in its ozone nonattainment areas.
Aggressive steps to control oil and gas pollution are particularly imperative for Texas: the state’s families and communities are facing dual public health and environmental crises of severe climate change and dangerously poor air quality. Texas is the leading state in terms of overall carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions from the electric sector, the largest producer of oil and gas, the largest importer and user of coal, and the largest producer and user of overall energy. Recent studies in the Permian Basin have shown that Permian oil and gas operations are losing methane at a rate equal to 3.7 percent of their gas production.[6]Studies have previously shown that leakage rates above 3 percent are enough to entirely negate any carbon dioxide emission reductions that are achieved from burning gas in place of coal.[7]
Texas has already suffered devastating climate impacts: droughts, hurricanes, and wildfires have led to significant deaths, economic and property loss, incurring billions of dollars in damages. Warming climates and oceans are a major factor in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes. Indeed, according to the National Hurricane Center, Hurricane Harvey, which hit the Texas coast on August 25, 2017, caused more than $125 billion in damages, the second most damaging storm in U.S. history.[8]
In addition to these devastating climate impacts, Texans suffer from persistently high levels of ozone pollution in their ambient air. Ozone causes or exacerbates serious pulmonary and cardiovascular ailments, including coughing, shortness of breath, asthma attacks, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, heart attacks, and premature death. As noted above, 18 Texas counties are in “serious” violation of EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard. Fifteen of those 18 counties, along with Bexar County, are also listed as “marginal” nonattainment for EPA’s 2015 8-hour ozone standard.[9]Simply put, Texans are breathing unhealthy are, and have for many years. It is critical that TCEQ exercise its full authority to control both NOx and VOC emissions from all sources—including those in the oil and gas sector—to prevent the formation of ground-level ozone.
At the same time, Texas is the country’s biggest producer of oil and gas, which is a major contributor both of climate-disrupting methane pollution and ozone-forming VOC emissions. Yet unlike a number of other oil- and gas-developing states, Texas has only limited state-level requirements to control oil and gas air emissions. In light of the current EPA’s dereliction of its legal responsibilities to protect the public from air pollution, in addition to the acute climate and air impacts that are currently wreaking havoc across Texas, TCEQ must adopt stringent emission controls from both new and existing oil and gas equipment. Texans can no longer afford for TCEQ to simply follow EPA’s lead: the Commission must act nowto protect now to protect their health and wellbeing.
Respectfully,
Cyrus Reed, Ph.D.
Interim Director and Conservation Director, Sierra Club- Lone Star Chapter
Dated: May 27, 2020
[1]Available athttps://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-2041.
[2]Available athttps://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0757-2134.
[3]SeeEPA, Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html(last visited May 26, 2020).
[4]Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0216-0630.
[6]Available athttps://www.edf.org/media/satellite-data-reveals-extreme-methane-emissions-permian-oil-gas-operations-shows-highest.
[7]Ramón A. Alvarez, et al., Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure, PNAS April 24, 2012 109 (17) 6435-6440, https://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6435; Gayathri Vaidyanathan,Leaky Methane Makes Natural Gas Bad for Global Warming, ClimateWire (June 26, 2014), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/leaky-methane-makes-natural-gas-bad-for-global-warming/.
[8]National Hurricane Center, available at https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/UpdatedCostliest.pdf
[9]SeeEPA, supran. 3.