PIOGA Press
(By Gary Steinbauer, Gina Falaschi and Christina Puhnaty)
On November 11, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a pre-publication version of its supplemental proposal for Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review (Supplemental Proposal). The Supplemental Proposal has been highly anticipated since EPA published its initial proposal on November 15, 2021. EPA, Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review, 86 Fed. Reg. 63110 (Nov. 15, 2021) (Initial Proposal).
EPA currently regulates emissions from oil and natural gas facilities under 40 C.F.R Part 60 Subparts OOOO[1] and OOOOa.[2] As part of the Initial and Supplemental Proposals, EPA would regulate oil and natural gas facilities constructed, modified, or reconstructed after November 15, 2021, under a new Subpart OOOOb. With the Supplemental Proposal, EPA has released proposed regulatory language for Subpart OOOOb. In addition, EPA released proposed regulatory text for emissions guidelines in a new Subpart OOOOc. These emissions guidelines are intended to inform states in the development, submittal, and implementation of state plans to establish standards of performance for greenhouse gases (in the form of limitations on methane) from sources existing on or before November 15, 2021. Under the Supplemental Proposal, states and tribes would be required to submit plans to EPA for review within 18 months of the publication of a final rule, with a compliance deadline for existing sources that is no later than 36 months after the deadline to submit the plan to EPA. The Supplemental Proposal also includes an updated proposed “Appendix K,” which is a protocol for determining leaks using optical gas imaging that EPA is now proposing to limit to natural gas processing plants.
The Supplemental Proposal includes several significant changes or updates, which EPA describes as improvements, and additional proposed requirements for sources that were not covered in the Initial Proposal. Several consequential aspects of the Supplemental Proposal include:
- Super-Emitter Response Program: EPA is proposing to allow regulatory agencies and approved “qualified” third parties to monitor well sites, centralized production facilities, and compressor stations for “super-emitter emission events,” which are defined as emission events resulting in 100 kilograms (220.5 pounds) per hour or more of methane. Upon receipt of a notification by a third party, owners and operators of these facilities would be required to initiate a prescribed root cause analysis within five days and complete the root cause analysis and initial corrective actions within 10 calendar days. If initial corrective actions do not rectify the identified cause of the event, facility owners and operators will be required to prepare and submit a corrective action plan to EPA. In addition, recipients of “super-emitter emission event” notifications would also be required to notify EPA within 15 days of completing corrective actions. EPA plans to host a public website that will include information related to the proposed Super-Emitter Response Program.
- Abandoned and Unplugged Well Monitoring: The Supplemental Proposal includes new suite of well closure requirements. Under these proposed requirements, owners and operators of well sites would be required to submit a closure plan to EPA within 30 days of the cessation of production. The contents of this plan would need to include the steps necessary to permanently plug all wells, a description of financial requirements and assurance to complete closure, and the schedule for completing closure. Fugitive emissions monitoring would be required until closure, and an Optical Gas Imaging survey would be required to confirm that closure eliminated any emissions from the well.
- Fugitive Emissions Monitoring for All Wells: Contrary to its Initial Proposal, in which EPA proposed to require fugitive emissions monitoring (i.e., leak detection and repair or LDAR monitoring) at wells with estimated emissions of 3 tons per year or more, the Supplemental Proposal would require LDAR monitoring at all well sites, regardless of estimated fugitive emissions from the well sites. The type (audio, visual, or olfactory versus instrument) and frequency of LDAR monitoring will vary depending on whether the facility in question is a single wellhead-only well site, wellhead only well site with two or more wellheads, or a well site or a centralized production facility that contains “major production and processing equipment.”
These are only some of the numerous additional requirements that EPA is proposing in the Supplemental Proposal. Due to the breadth and complexity of the Supplemental Proposal and the long-awaited release of proposed regulatory text, EPA has also published a memorandum and accompanying chart that summarizes where, throughout the proposal, the agency is soliciting public comment (Summary of Comment Solicitations). In the Summary of Comment Solicitations, EPA has organized the agency’s 142 solicitations for comment by topic, preamble section, and issue to assist the public in understanding on which aspects of the proposal the agency specifically seeks input and guidance. Examples of the topics on which EPA solicits comment include: the potential of advanced methane detection technologies; the “equivalence determination” now required by Clean Air Act Section 136(f)(6)(A)(ii), a provision added to the per the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act of 2022; and the proposed Super-Emitter Response Program.
Although the Supplemental Proposal has not been published in the Federal Register, EPA has established a public comment deadline of February 13, 2023, and will hold virtual public hearings on January 10 and 11, 2023. Comments can be submitted to EPA by registering to speak at the public meeting or in writing on the Federal e-rulemaking portal (www.regulations.gov). The agency plans to issue a final rule in 2023.
EPA’s efforts to advance CAA regulations to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas industry sector are separate from the inspections and anticipated rulemaking by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) under Sections 113 and 114 of the PIPES Act of 2020. While PHMSA has stated that EPA’s regulations may satisfy some Section 114 PIPES Act requirements, it has provided little guidance on this issue.
If you have any questions about the Supplemental Proposed Rule or submission of comments to EPA, please contact one of the authors.
For the full article, click here.
For the PDF, click here.
Reprinted with permission from the December 2022 issue of The PIOGA Press. All rights reserved.
Environmental Alert
(Tim Bytner and Colleen Donofrio)
On December 5, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule titled “Changes to Reporting Requirements for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and to Supplier Notifications for Chemicals of Special Concern; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting” (the “Proposal”) at 87 Fed. Reg. 74379-74387. The Proposal would amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) reporting requirements in 40 C.F.R. 372 to: (i) add per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) subject to reporting under EPCRA to the list of Lower Thresholds for Chemicals of Special Concern (the “List”) in 40 C.F.R. 372.28; and (ii) eliminate the de minimis exemption for all chemicals on the List under the Supplier Notification Requirements in 40 C.F.R. 372.45.
PFAS Reporting
PFAS subject to EPCRA reporting requirements already have a lower reporting threshold (100 pounds). By adding PFAS to the List, facilities are precluded from using the de minimis exemption at 40 C.F.R. 372.38(a), which would otherwise allow a facility to exclude PFAS found in chemical mixtures at concentrations less than one percent in determining whether the applicable reporting threshold has been met. Also, inclusion on the List prevents facilities from using the more simplistic, streamlined Form A for reporting. EPA believes these amendments will increase the data collected for PFAS and will result in a better understanding of PFAS waste management and release quantities.
Supplier Notifications
Generally, 40 C.F.R. 372.45 requires a chemical supplier to provide notification to certain facilities or persons (usually through Safety Data Sheets) of its products containing EPCRA 40 C.F.R. Part 372 toxic chemicals. 40 C.F.R. 372.45(d)(1) provides a de minimis exemption from this requirement. However, the Proposal would eliminate the de minimis exemption from the Supplier Notification Requirements for all chemicals on the List. The EPA expects this amendment will ensure that purchasers of products containing any chemicals found on the List will be better informed of the presence of those chemicals and their resultant reporting responsibilities under EPCRA, as well as other environmental programs.
If finalized as proposed, these amendments will increase the reporting burden for the regulated community. The public comment deadline is February 3, 2023. Written comments can be submitted using the Federal e-rulemaking portal (www.regulations.gov).
If you have any questions about the Proposal or submission of comments to the EPA, please contact Timothy S. Bytner at (412) 394-6504 or tbytner@babstcalland.com, or Colleen Grace Donofrio at (856) 256-2495 or cdonofrio@babstcalland.com.
Click here for PDF.
Pretrial Practice & Discovery
American Bar Association Litigation Section
(By Jessica Barnes)
Numerous allegations of misconduct support a request for over $2 million in sanctions in an ongoing discovery dispute.
There is a line between zealous advocacy and bad-faith avoidance of discovery obligations. Attorneys in In re: Facebook Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, Case No. 18-md-02843-VC (N.D. Ca. 2022) may have crossed that line.
This matter began in March 2018 and involves the discovery that a third-party app developer harvested personal data from roughly 87 million Facebook users and sold it to Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm.
In September 2022, the Facebook-user plaintiffs explained to a California district judge why discovery sanctions were appropriate in this case. Specifically, the judge found “abominable” deposition misconduct and was outraged by Facebook’s years-long refusal to turn over certain user data and non-privileged internal communications.
The so-called “deposition misconduct” included Facebook’s witness refusing to answer basic questions and the defense attorney repeatedly telling the witness that she did not have to respond to the question.
With respect to the allegations of refusing to turn over certain information, Facebook attorneys argued that the orders of the judge who presided over discovery disputes were ambiguous. The current district judge did not buy that argument, accusing Facebook attorneys of pouncing on any “little ambiguity” and using it to obstruct and delay the production of obviously responsive materials.
In November 2022, the Facebook-user plaintiffs submitted their total monetary request for sanctions related to fees and costs as a result of discovery misconduct—which totaled over $2 million.
The Facebook-user plaintiffs explained in their briefing, “Plaintiffs believe that the general approach that Facebook . . . took to this litigation greatly delayed progress and increased fees and costs well beyond what is sought in this submission. The fees and costs sought here, however, are only limited to what would not have been incurred absent two categories of sanctionable misconduct that the Court identified in its order.”
No sanction award has been made yet, but its obvious that the district judge is entertaining the sanctions request. Furthermore, there is a crystal-clear takeaway from this case for litigation attorneys: Always take discovery obligations seriously.
It cannot be good for one’s case to have the judge describe the attorney’s conduct as “a good example of bad-faith dilatory conduct.” It also, may just cost millions of dollars.
Jessica Barnes is an associate at Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir P.C. in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
To view the full article, click here.
To view the PDF, click here.
© 2022. Discovery Misconduct May Cost Millions in Sanctions, Pretrial Practice & Discovery, American Bar Association Litigation Section, December 6, 2022 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter
Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas
(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Gina Falaschi)
On July 19, 2022, the Allegheny County Council voted 12-3 to override County Executive Rich Fitzgerald’s veto on Bill No. 12162-22. The bill, which the Council originally passed on July 5, and Fitzgerald vetoed on July 12, bans new natural gas drilling and other industrial activity, including hydraulic fracturing, mining, and commercial forestry, within and underneath county-owned parks. The ban, which does not apply to existing leases, but does prevent expansion of existing operations at Deer Lakes Park, took effect immediately.
In his veto message, Fitzgerald described his opposition to the measure, stating it prevents the County from negotiating environmental protections for any future oil and gas or other industrial activity in the vicinity of county park land. See Fitzgerald Veto Message (July 12, 2022). Specifically, Fitzgerald said passage of the bill prevents
- baseline water testing before, during, and after extraction activities;
- air monitoring requirements during natural gas drilling and other industrial activity; and
- limiting hours of operation and setting noise, dust, trucking, and light pollution limits from natural gas drilling and other industrial activity.
Id. Moreover, Fitzgerald said future legislation authorizing natural gas extraction under county land would act to repeal the ban. Id. Fitzgerald supported a separate bill, Bill No. 12357-22, that would have prevented surface drilling within county parks but allowed leasing of subsurface rights deeper than 7,000 feet. It would have also mandated that the County include environmental protections, including bad actor provisions, in any future lease agreements. Despite his opposition and subsequent veto prior to Bill No. 12162-22’s passage, Fitzgerald said he had no plans to lease county park land for natural gas operations. Id. On October 18, 2022, the Pennsylvania Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee reported out Senate Bill 1331, which would deny revenue from Act 13 of 2012 drilling impact fees to counties that ban fracking on county-owned land. The bill now moves to the full Senate for action.
Copyright © 2022, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado
FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter
Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas
(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Gina Falaschi)
On July 19, 2022, House Bill 2644, 2022 Pa. Legis. Serv. Act 2022-96 (Act 96), became law, without Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf’s signature. The new law keeps Pennsylvania’s oil and gas well bonding amounts at the current levels of $2,500 per conventional well and $25,000 for a blanket bond for multiple conventional wells. The blanket bond amount will increase by $1,000 for every additional conventional well drilled six months after July 19, 2022, not to exceed $100,000. However, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) will waive the $1,000 increase for a new conventional well if the operator has plugged an orphan well at the operator’s own expense. Other than the $1,000 increase for blanket bonds, Act 96 precludes PADEP and the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) from raising bonding amounts for 10 years from the effective date. During this time, only the general assembly has such authority. Act 96 does not place a similar 10-year protection period on the adjustment of unconventional well bond amounts, allowing the EQB to adjust amounts every two years to reflect PADEP’s projected well plugging costs. The EQB has been considering two petitions: one to increase well bonding amounts for conventional wells to $38,000 per well and another to increase unconventional well bonding amounts to $83,000 per well. Act 96’s enactment effectively prevents the petitioned increase for conventional wells. See Vol. XXXVIII, No. 4 (2021) of this Newsletter.
In a formal statement published in the July 30, 2022, Pennsylvania Bulletin, Governor Wolf said he allowed Act 96 to become law, but had several concerns with the legislation, including: (1) the directive that federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021), funds be deposited into the commonwealth’s orphan well plugging fund, in apparent contravention of the IIJA’s framework for administering funds; (2) that grant amounts are tied to well depths and not actual plugging costs; (3) the elimination of PADEP’s authority to impose federally mandated requirements on recipients receiving plugging grants; and (4) the withdrawal of the EQB’s authority to establish bonding amounts for conventional operations. See 52 Pa. Bull. 4229 (July 30, 2022).
Due to these concerns, Governor Wolf stated that PADEP is reviewing existing processes and procedures and will provide evaluations and recommendations on the following by September 1, 2022:
- Evaluation of the conventional industry’s recent record of compliance with reporting requirements and performance requirements under existing law.
- Evaluation of using existing authority, including increased exercise of civil penalty authority and forfeiting conventional oil and gas well bonds and requiring submission of replacement bonds, as methods to deter and motivate conventional operators to address abandoned wells and violations of the applicable law.
- Recommendations for increased scrutiny of conventional oil and gas operators’ requests for regulatory inactive status approval and permit transfers, because these steps are often precursors to improper abandonment of wells.
- Evaluation of using existing criminal provisions related to conventional oil and gas operations as a means of deterring and motivating conventional operators to address abandoned wells and violations of the applicable law.
- Recommendations for regulatory reform to comprehensively regulate conventional drilling according to modern best practices and industry standards.
Id. at 4230.
Act 96 also requires PADEP to create a new initiative to provide grants to well plugging companies to maximize the volume of orphan wells being plugged. Grants of $10,000 would be awarded for plugging wells less than 3,000 feet deep, with grants of $20,000 awarded for plugging wells more than 3,000 feet deep. Further, Act 96 exempts conventional wells drilled prior to April 1985 from bonding requirements. PADEP estimates a majority of the more than 110,000 active conventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania were drilled before April 1985.
Opponents of Act 96 claim that its passage potentially risks Pennsylvania’s receipt of federal funding from the IIJA’s conventional oil and gas well plugging program to plug abandoned and orphan oil and gas wells. Sierra Club, for example, which is one of the entities that filed a petition to increase conventional well bond amounts in Pennsylvania, claims that Pennsylvania may have to return already-allocated funding or may miss out on future funding because Act 96 precludes PADEP from following federal requirements for use of the funds. See Press Release, Sierra Club, “Pennsylvania Legislation Will Exacerbate Massive Oil and Gas Well Backlog and Mismanagement of Federal Funds” (July 19, 2022). In a statement to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Governor Wolf’s Press Secretary Elizabeth Rementer said that “[t]he administration is currently exploring the next steps to ensure the industry is held accountable in order to protect the environment and that we don’t lose out on millions of dollars in federal funding for well plugging.” Laura Legere, “As Pa. Faces ‘Looming Crisis’ of New Abandoned Wells, State Law Will Freeze Well Bonding Rates for a Decade,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (July 19, 2022).
Copyright © 2022, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado
FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter
Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas
(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Gina Falaschi)
In response to passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021), and its conventional well plugging component, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) invited stakeholders to participate in several workgroup sessions to gather information and assist with PADEP’s development of a new conventional oil and gas well plugging program. See PowerPoint Presentation, PADEP, “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Implementation” (Apr. 28, 2022); Notice, “DEP Inviting Stakeholders to Participate in Workgroups on New Federal Conventional Oil & Gas Well Plugging Program,” PA Env’t Digest (Aug. 4, 2022).
PADEP held seven workgroup sessions between August 23 and September 19, 2022. The sessions were open to the public, other interested parties, and industry. Covered topics included due diligence and documentation of previously undocumented abandoned wells; project prioritization; engineering design, permitting, and monitoring requirements; and handling of waste generated from plugging abandoned wells and reclaiming well sites. See PADEP, “September 2022 Report to the Citizens Advisory Council” (Sept. 2022); PADEP, “October 2022 Report to the Citizens Advisory Council” (Oct. 2022).
Of note, at a September 1, 2022, workgroup meeting, Joe Kelly, PADEP Bureau of Oil and Gas Planning and Program Management, said that any waste generated by the new plugging program will not be exempt from hazardous waste requirements, unlike the same or similar wastes generated from active oil and gas production wells and facilities (as exempted by 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(b)(5)). See David E. Hass, “DEP: Wastes Generated by the New Conventional Oil & Gas Well Plugging Program Will NOT Be Exempt from Hazardous Waste Regulations, Unlike Wastes from Active Wells,” PA Env’t Digest Blog (Sept. 1, 2022). Kelly went on to say that contractors will also have to meet existing spill notification and cleanup requirements and prepare pollution prevention contingency plans to implement spill and leak prevention measures. Id.
The stakeholder input PADEP received during the workgroup meetings will assist the agency in developing Pennsylvania’s IIJA well plugging program, including preparing invitations to quote, requests for bids, and requests for proposals. Following the last workgroup session, PADEP finalized the first group of bid packages to plug 249 conventional oil and gas wells using IIJA funds, which were posted on BidExpress.com for review by potential contractors. See PADEP, “Plugging Contractor Information,” https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Energy/ Oil-andGasPrograms/OilandGasMgmt/LegacyWells/Pages/Contractors.aspx.
Waste disposal and handling updates are expected to be presented to the Pennsylvania Grade Crude Development Advisory Council at its scheduled December 18, 2022, meeting. The most recent draft of the waste handling regulations update was posted by PADEP in September 2021. See PADEP, Draft Chapter 78 Conventional Oil and Gas Well Regulations (Aug. 19, 2021).
Copyright © 2022, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado
FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter
Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas
(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Gina Falaschi)
On June 25, 2022, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) published General Permit WMGR163 (Permit) in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, 52 Pa. Bull. 3632 (June 25, 2022). PADEP issued the Permit following a 60-day comment period that closed on March 15, 2022. As issued, the Permit authorizes the short-term processing, transfer, and beneficial use of oil and gas liquid waste to hydraulically fracture or otherwise develop an oil or gas well under the authority of the Solid Waste Management Act, 35 Pa. Stat. §§ 6018.101– .1003, and the Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act, 53 Pa. Stat. §§ 4000.101–.1904. The Permit covers facilities that process and beneficially reuse oil and gas liquid waste for no more than 180 consecutive days at any one time.
Any company interested in using the Permit must register its authorized activities with PADEP. 25 Pa. Code § 287.643. In addition, PADEP is prohibited from requiring an applicant to obtain a determination of applicability from the agency prior to the issuance of the final permit for the land application of material. See id. § 287.641(c), (d). The Permit is applicable to the same oil and gas facilities eligible for coverage under General Permit WMGR123 (“Processing and Beneficial Use of Oil and Gas Liquid Waste”), but with fewer conditions. Key provisions in the Permit include:
- An authorized facility may process and transfer oil and gas liquid waste for no more than 180 consecutive days during the Permit’s two-year coverage period and a permittee can only operate for a maximum of one year during that period. A permittee’s coverage automatically expires one year from the date waste is first received or processed, or two years from date of permit issuance, whichever is less.
- Under the Permit, oil and gas liquid waste is not subject to concentration limits or chemical testing in order to be stored in an impoundment (unlike General Permit WMGR123).
- The applicable facility must meet the siting requirements set forth in the Permit (e.g., it must not be located within a 100-year floodplain or within certain distances of exceptional value wetlands, occupied dwellings, or property lines, subject to certain exceptions).
- A permittee must develop and make available at the facility a preparedness, prevention, and contingency plan that is consistent with applicable PADEP guidance.
The following key terms and provisions were revised based on public comments:
- The duration of the Permit’s coverage was extended from one year to two years, with the maximum operational timeframe of one year.
- The definition of “operate” was revised to clarify that the operational period does not commence prior to oil and gas liquid waste being received or processed at the permitted location.
- Condition C.1 in the draft version of the Permit, which stipulated no more than 100,000 gallons of oil and liquid waste could be stored on-site, was eliminated.
- Former Condition C.26 (now Condition C.25) was revised to clarify that permittees are not authorized to store oil and gas liquid waste in impoundments. The condition was also revised to allow permittees to demonstrate they are exempt from emission permits for open-top storage tanks or other emissions sources in accordance with applicable regulations.
- Condition F.1 was revised to clarify that a renewal request must be submitted at least 180 days in advance of the Permit expiration date and include a certified statement that information contained in the original Permit application has not changed since Permit issuance.
- Condition F.3 was revised to clarify that a permittee may apply for coverage at a previously covered site, but a new Permit cannot be issued until the permittee successfully completes closure and post-closure activities in accordance with Condition C.4 of the Permit.
The Permit became effective June 25, 2022, and expires June 25, 2032.
Copyright © 2022, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado
FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter
Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas
(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Gina Falaschi)
On June 11, 2022, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) published a substantive revision to its technical guidance document (TGD) Radioactivity Monitoring at Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities (Guidance), TGD No. 250-3100-001 (June 11, 2022), in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, 52 Pa. Bull. 3374 (June 11, 2022). PADEP updated the Guidance, which was immediately effective, to assist unconventional oil and gas operators in complying with the obligation under 25 Pa. Code § 78a.58(d) to prepare an action plan specifying procedures for monitoring for and responding to radioactive material produced by the treatment processes (and other procedures). The Guidance does not cover waste from conventional oil and gas operations.
The Guidance applies to all solid waste processing or disposal facilities, including underground injection control wells, as defined in the Guidance, and well sites where fluids or drill cuttings generated by the development, drilling, stimulation, operation, or plugging of an oil or gas well are processed on-site. Facilities that are not required to monitor radiation, but do so voluntarily, are also subject to the Guidance.
PADEP originally published a draft version of the Guidance in the Pennsylvania Bulletin in October 2019. See 49 Pa. Bull. 6197 (Oct. 19, 2019). The final Guidance follows PADEP’s July 2021 announcement that all Pennsylvania landfills, including those accepting unconventional oil and gas waste, would be required to conduct quarterly testing of leachate for radiological contamination prior to the liquid being treated on-site or being sent to an off-site wastewater treatment facility. See Press Release, PADEP, “Wolf Administration to Move Forward with Radiological Testing of Leachate at Landfills” (July 26, 2021).
In a September 30, 2022, meeting with the Low-Level Waste Radioactive Advisory Committee, PADEP presented its most recent data summarizing low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal among the Appalachian Compact states (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland). Among the data presented, PADEP noted that in 2021 oil and gas operators sent approximately 236,000 cubic feet of technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM) waste generated during operations for disposal to out-of-state LLRW facilities. According to PADEP, shale gas operators disposed of a total of 811,070 cubic feet of TENORM waste between 2016 and 2021, most of which was sent to LLRW disposal facilities in Texas and Utah. See PowerPoint Presentation, PADEP, “Appalachian Compact: Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Data—Calendar Year 2021” (Sept. 30, 2022). PADEP is also currently reviewing its regulations allowing on-site disposal of radioactive and nonradioactive waste associated with well plugging activities, a response to the increased scale of the well plugging that will occur pursuant to the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s conventional well plugging program. See Meeting Minutes, Oil & Gas Technical Advisory Bd. (Apr. 25, 2022).
Copyright © 2022, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado
FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter
Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas
(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Gina Falaschi)
On May 26, 2022, Penn State announced that a health study commissioned by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to examine the environmental and human health impacts of spreading conventional oil and gas produced water (OGPW) as a dust suppressant concluded the practice is ineffective for that purpose and poses dangers to the environment and human health. See News Release, Tim Schley & Ashley J. WennersHerron, Penn State Coll. of Eng’g, “Oil and Gas Brine Control Dust ‘No Better’ than Rainwater, Researchers Find” (May 26, 2022). The announcement coincided with PADEP’s finalization of the study. See William Burgos et al., Penn State Univ., “Evaluation of Environmental Impacts from Dust Suppressants Used on Gravel Roads” (May 26, 2022) (Study).
Historically, road spreading OGPW was authorized in Pennsylvania, but PADEP placed a moratorium on the practice in response to a 2018 legal challenge and subsequent decision by the Environmental Hearing Board. See Lawson v. PADEP, EHB Docket No. 2017-051-B (May 17, 2018). In accordance with Pennsylvania solid waste laws, using OGPW on roads for dust control could continue if conventional operators demonstrated the chemical makeup of the wastewater was similar to commercially available dust suppressants.
The Study assessed the effectiveness and environmental impacts associated with various dust suppressants used on dirt and gravel roadways, which included testing synthetic rainwater, calcium chloride (CaCl2) brine, soybean oil, and OGPW from three conventional oil and gas operations.
PADEP presented the study results at the July 25, 2022, Oil and Gas Technical Advisory Board meeting. In sum, the study found that OGPW is no more effective than rainwater as a dust suppressant on roadways, likely due in part to OGPW’s high sodium concentrations, which can affect how OGPW “sticks” to dust particles. Further, the study showed OGPW actually destabilized gravel roadways, which could lead to more dust and increased long-term road maintenance costs. According to the study results, only CaCl2-based brines and soybean oil were effective dust suppressants, with the study’s rainfall-runoff experiments showing that CaCl2-based brines led to the lowest concentration of total suspended solids washed off the roadbeds. Study at 9.
The study also found that runoff from spreading OGPW on unpaved roadways contained concentrations of barium, strontium, lithium, iron, and manganese that exceeded human-health based criteria and levels of radioactive radium that exceeded industrial discharge standards. In addition, most contaminants contained in the applied dust suppressants washed from the roadbed during rain events. However, roadbeds treated with OGPW retained traces of radium, sodium, iron, and manganese after rainfall events and had the highest concentration of combined radium in runoff. Id. at 9–10. The study supports Penn State’s conclusions from a similar peer-reviewed study published in 2021. See Audrey M. Stallworth et al., “Efficacy of Oil and Gas Produced Water as a Dust Suppressant,” 799 Sci. of the Total Env’t 149347 (2021).
On September 20, 2022, PADEP informed the Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) that analysis of brine as a co-product submitted by conventional operators to allow for spreading on roadways for dust control did not meet the state’s residual waste regulations. PADEP is currently updating waste disposal and handling standards for conventional operations and a draft rulemaking is expected to be presented to oil and gas advisory committees following the December 18, 2022, Pennsylvania Grade Crude Development Advisory Council meeting. See Meeting Minutes, CAC (Sept. 20, 2022); PADEP, “October 2022 Report to the Citizens Advisory Council” (Oct. 2022). A report from PADEP detailing, among other things, conventional operators’ compliance with state environmental and regulatory requirements was due to the Governor’s Office on September 1, 2022, but has not been made public as of the time of this report. See 52 Pa. Bull. 4229 (July 30, 2022).
Copyright © 2022, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado
FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter
Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas
(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Gina Falaschi)
During its June 14, 2022, meeting, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) voted 15-3, with one abstention, to adopt Part I of a revised final regulation reducing volatile organic compound (VOC) and methane emissions from unconventional wells and facilities. See Final-Form Rulemaking Preamble, EQB, “Control of VOC Emissions from Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas Sources” (June 14, 2022). This regulation establishes reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for unconventional oil and natural gas sources of VOC emissions. These sources include natural gas-driven continuous bleed pneumatic controllers, natural gas-driven diaphragm pumps, reciprocating compressors, centrifugal compressors, fugitive emissions components, and storage vessels installed at unconventional well sites, gathering and boosting stations, and natural gas processing plants, as well as storage vessels in the natural gas transmission and storage segment. Id. at 1.
A substantially similar rule approved by the EQB in March 2022 did not distinguish between conventional and unconventional emission sources. That rulemaking had advanced to the Pennsylvania House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy (ERE) Committees and the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) for consideration, but the House ERE Committee issued a disapproval letter for the rulemaking on April 26, 2022. Three trade associations also filed a petition for review of the rulemaking in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The petition and the House ERE Committee’s disapproval letter alleged that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) failed to comply with Act 52 of 2016, which requires that any rulemaking concerning conventional oil and gas wells be undertaken separately and independently from those concerning unconventional oil and gas wells or other subjects. As a result, PADEP withdrew the regulation from IRRC consideration on May 4, 2022. See Vol. 39, No. 2 (2022) of this Newsletter.
PADEP revised the regulation to remove provisions regulating conventional wells and facilities and submitted the regulation to the EQB for approval, which it approved during its June 14, 2022, meeting. The House ERE Committee met on July 11, 2022, and approved a letter to the IRRC announcing its opposition to the final EQB regulation on a number of grounds, including that the revised regulation had not gone through public notice and comment. During its July 21, 2022, meeting, the IRRC unanimously voted to approve the regulation. The House ERE Committee met on August 2, 2022, to vote on a concurrent resolution disapproving of the rule, and the resolution was voted out of committee. The House and Senate each had 30 calendar days, or 10 legislative voting days (whichever is later), to adopt the concurrent resolution. Neither body took further action.
On October 12, 2022, the EQB voted 15-3 to approve Part II, a separate rule addressing VOC and methane emissions from conventional wells and facilities. See Final-Omitted Rulemaking Preamble, EQB, “Control of VOC Emissions from Conventional Oil and Natural Gas Sources” (Oct. 12, 2022). PADEP recommended that the EQB adopt Part II as a final-omitted regulation as part of the process to meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s December 16, 2022, deadline for the state to adopt methane emission controls for oil and gas operations. See Executive Summary, “Control of VOC Emissions from Conventional Oil and Natural Gas Sources—25 Pa. Code Chapter 129” (Oct. 12, 2022). Adoption of Part II as a final-omitted regulation allows for the rulemaking to skip the proposed rulemaking stage and proceed forward without any public comment. Per the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Documents Law, PADEP may use the final-omitted process if starting at the proposed stage for rulemaking is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 45 Pa. Stat. § 1204(3). In its executive summary of the rulemaking, PADEP justified promulgation of Part II as a final-omitted regulation, stating that “[a] public comment period is also contrary to the public interest because it will delay the implementation of the VOC RACT requirements in this final-omitted rulemaking, resulting in the Commonwealth being unable to satisfy the December 16, 2022, sanction deadline.” Executive Summary at 5. Under the Regulatory Review Act, 71 Pa. Stat. §§ 745.1–.14, the IRRC and the House and Senate still have the opportunity to review the rulemaking. Failure of the state to adopt this rule reportedly may result in the loss of over $500 million in federal highway funding. Executive Summary at 5.
Copyright © 2022, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado
FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter
Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas
(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Gina Falaschi)
On September 16, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Pennsylvania state legislators and municipalities lacked standing to challenge the Delaware River Basin Commission’s (DRBC) regulation banning hydraulic fracturing for natural gas within the basin. Yaw v. DRBC, 49 F.4th 302 (3d Cir. 2022), aff’g No. 2:21-cv-00119, 2021 WL 2400765 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2021); see Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3 (2021) of this Newsletter. The court held that the appellants failed to meet the standing requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution because: (1) in the case of the state senator appellants, individual members of the state legislature lack standing to assert the interests of the legislature as a whole; and (2) in the case of the municipality appellants, their alleged injuries were “conjectural” or “hypothetical,” as opposed to “actual” or “imminent.” The court also held that none of the appellants had standing as trustees of Pennsylvania’s public natural resources under the Environmental Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution because the DRBC’s ban has not cognizably harmed the trust.
The five-member DRBC is governed by a compact between the federal government and four states that draw water from the Delaware River: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and New York, represented by a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and each state’s governor, respectively. See Delaware River Basin Compact, Pub. L. No. 87-328, 75 Stat. 688. The DRBC has authority to approve, construct, operate, and regulate projects and facilities that use the basin’s water resources. It can also address issues outside the basin if they have a substantial effect on the basin’s water quality and water supply and if the issues conflict with the DRBC’s comprehensive plan. See Cong. Research Serv., “Federal Conservation of the Delaware River” (Mar. 18, 2015).
The Third Circuit’s decision follows the DRBC’s February 2021 vote to ban hydraulic fracturing in the basin, which had been under a de facto moratorium since 2010. In support of the ban, the DRBC found that hydraulic fracturing for extraction of oil and natural gas “poses significant, immediate and long-term risks to the development, conservation, utilization, management, and preservation” of water resources within the basin. Yaw, 49 F.4th at 307. Following the ban, Pennsylvania legislators and municipalities filed suit, arguing that the DRBC overstepped its legal authority. Among other things, they alleged the ban “violated the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution, illegally exercised the power of eminent domain, and violated the Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government.” Id.
Acknowledging that challenges are likely to continue, the court noted that its ruling is narrow. It said that although the legislators and municipalities lack standing, they can attempt to seek redress of the issues by other means, such as requesting that the DRBC reverse the ban, seeking to amend the compact, or persuading a party with standing to assert the institutional injuries. Id.
Copyright © 2022, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado
FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter
Pennsylvania – Mining
(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Falaschi and Christina Puhnaty)
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has upheld a preliminary injunction of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) rule granted by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. On July 8, 2022, the commonwealth court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state from participating in RGGI pending resolution of the case. See Vol. 39, No. 3 (2022) of this Newsletter. Governor Tom Wolf appealed the injunction to the supreme court. On August 31, 2022, the supreme court denied the state’s emergency request to reinstate the automatic supersedeas, thereby maintaining the preliminary injunction while litigation on the merits proceeds before the commonwealth court later this year. See Ziadeh v. Pa. Legis. Reference Bureau, No. 79 MAP 2022 (Pa. Aug. 31, 2022).
As previously reported in Vol. 39, No. 2 (2022) of this Newsletter, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP) CO2 Budget Trading Program rule, or RGGI rule, which links the state’s cap-and-trade program to RGGI, was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin in April 2022. See 52 Pa. Bull. 2471 (Apr. 23, 2022). RGGI is the country’s first regional, market-based cap-and-trade program designed to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric power generators with a capacity of 25 megawatts or greater that send more than 10% of their annual gross generation to the electric grid.
On April 25, 2022, owners of coal-fired power plants and other stakeholders filed a petition for review and an application for special relief in the form of a temporary injunction, and a group of state lawmakers filed a challenge as well. See Bowfin KeyCon Holdings, LLC v. PADEP, No. 247 MD 2022 (Pa. Commw. Ct. filed Apr. 25, 2022). Briefing has been completed and a hearing is expected to occur in November 2022.
Additionally, on July 12, 2022, natural gas companies Calpine Corp., Tenaska Westmoreland Management LLC, and Fairless Energy LLC filed a third legal challenge to the rule with arguments similar to those brought in the other two cases. See Calpine Corp. v. PADEP, No. 357 MD 2022 (Pa. Commw. Ct. filed July 12, 2022). Constellation Energy Corporation and Constellation Energy Generation LLC have petitioned to intervene in the case and a hearing on this application was scheduled for November 2, 2022. Briefing in this case is due in December 2022.
Further information regarding the rule and the history of the rulemaking can be found on PADEP’s RGGI webpage at https://www.dep.pa.gov/Citizens/climate/Pages/RGGI.aspx.
Copyright © 2022, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado
FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter
Pennsylvania – Mining
(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Falaschi and Christina Puhnaty)
As reported in Vol. 55, No. 3 (2022) of the Water Law Newsletter, the Pennsylvania House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy standing committees (Standing Committees) and the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) recently disapproved a proposed rulemaking to change the water quality criterion for manganese in Pennsylvania. The future of the rulemaking is now uncertain.
Proposed Changes to Manganese Water Quality Criterion
The proposed manganese rule would add a numeric water quality criterion for manganese of 0.3mg/L to Table 5 at 25 Pa. Code § 93.8c, which is intended to “protect human health from the neurotoxicological effects of manganese.” Executive Summary at 1, “Final-Form Rulemaking: Water Quality Standards and Implementation—Manganese” (Aug. 9, 2022). Section 93.8c establishes human health and aquatic life criteria for toxic substances, meaning the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) would be regulating manganese as a toxic substance. The existing criterion of 1.0 mg/L, which was established in 25 Pa. Code § 93.7 as a water quality criterion, would be deleted. The 0.3 mg/L criterion would apply to all surface waters in the commonwealth. PADEP identified the parties affected by the manganese rule to be “[a]ll persons, groups, or entities with proposed or existing point source discharges of manganese into surface waters of the Commonwealth.” Executive Summary at 3.
PADEP also specifically identified “[p]ersons who discharge wastewater containing manganese from mining activities” as affected parties, and expects that mining operators would need to perform additional treatment to meet this criterion. Id. Final amendments to treatment systems would be implemented through PADEP’s permitting process and other approval actions. Consulting and engineering firm Tetra Tech estimated the overall cost to the mining industry to achieve compliance with the 0.3 mg/L standard “could range between $44–$88 million in annual costs (that is, for active treatment systems using chemical addition for manganese removal) and upwards of $200 million in capital costs.” Comment and Response Document at 213, “Water Quality Standard for Manganese and Implementation” (Aug. 9, 2022).
Rulemaking History
The Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) adopted the proposed rulemaking in December 2019. See Proposed Rulemaking Preamble, “Water Quality Standard for Manganese and Implementation” (Dec. 17, 2019). This rulemaking was prompted by the addition of subsection (j) to section 1920-A of the Administrative Code of 1929, 71 Pa. Stat. § 510-20, by Act 40 on October 30, 2017. Act 40 directed the EQB to promulgate regulations under Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law, 35 Pa. Stat. §§ 691.1–.1001, and related statutes to require that the water quality criteria for manganese established under 25 Pa. Code ch. 93 be met.
On June 30, 2020, PADEP submitted a copy of the proposed rulemaking to the IRRC and to the chairpersons of the Standing Committees for review and comment. The proposed rulemaking was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on July 25, 2020, 50 Pa. Bull. 3724, with a 60-day public comment period that closed on September 25, 2020. Comments were received from 957 commenters, including testimony from 13 witnesses at the public hearings. Since the proposed rulemaking, PADEP met with the Mining and Reclamation Advisory Board, the Aggregate Advisory Board, the Public Water Systems Technical Assistance Center Board, and the Water Resources Advisory Committee to discuss the proposed rule. On August 9, 2022, the EQB voted to adopt the final manganese rule.
Recent Disapproval of Proposed Manganese Criterion and Possible Next Steps
After the EQB adopted the manganese rule as final at its August 9 meeting, the rulemaking was sent to the Standing Committees and the IRRC. The IRRC received over 30 comments on the rulemaking and heard in-person testimony from numerous interested parties, including members of the regulated industry. The Standing Committees and the IRRC each voted to disapprove the rulemaking in early September. See IRRC, “Regulation #7-553: Water Quality Standard for Manganese and Implementation,” http://www.irrc.state.pa.us/regulations/RegSrchRslts.cfm?ID=3271.
Because of these disapprovals, the manganese rule was not sent immediately to the Office of the Attorney General for final approval. Instead, the rule was sent back to the EQB, who can choose to withdraw the regulation or resubmit it—with or without changes—to the IRRC and the Standing Committees within 40 days. If the EQB resubmits the rulemaking, the IRRC will hold a second public meeting within 15 days, and the Standing Committees then receive the rulemaking and can issue a concurrent resolution disapproving the regulation within 14 days. If the Standing Committees do not issue a concurrent resolution, the rulemaking can become final after the Attorney General’s approval. If the Standing Committees do issue a concurrent resolution, the rulemaking is sent to the General Assembly for a vote. If the General Assembly adopts the concurrent resolution, the General Assembly presents it to the Governor to sign or veto. If the General Assembly does not adopt the concurrent resolution, the rulemaking is sent to the Attorney General, who can approve the rulemaking. The regulation becomes final at publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. See 71 Pa. Stat. § 745.7; IRRC, “The Regulatory Review Process in Pennsylvania,” at 17–22 (2019).
Copyright © 2022, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado
FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter
Pennsylvania – Mining
(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Falaschi and Christina Puhnaty)
In late July 2022, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) published its Non-Regulatory Agenda, which outlines the agency’s upcoming plans related to its documents, manuals, and technical guidance. The Non-Regulatory Agenda outlines the agency’s intent to rescind its Engineering Manual for Mining Operations, TGD No. 563-0300-101 (Jan. 1, 1999), by the end of this year. The agenda also notes PADEP’s intent to revise several other technical guidance documents (TGDs) related to coal mining activities in the commonwealth. The TGDs identified by PADEP to be revised in early 2023 are:
- Surface Water Protection – Underground Bituminous Coal Mining Operations, TGD No. 563-2000-655 (Oct. 8, 2005);
- Financial Assurance and Bond Adjustments for Mine Sites with Post-Mining Discharges, TGD No. 563-2504-450 (Dec. 15, 2007) (draft);
- Increased Operation and Maintenance Costs of Re-placement Water Supplies (on All Coal and Surface Noncoal Sites), TGD No. 562-4000-102 (Dec. 2, 2006);
- Water Supply Replacement and Permitting, TGD No. 563-2112-605 (Dec. 31, 1998); and
- Water Supply Replacement and Compliance, TGD No. 562-4000-101 (Oct. 18, 1999).
Draft revisions will be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and should be available online at https://www.depgreenport. state.pa.us/elibrary/GetFolder?FolderID=4556. The public will have an opportunity to comment on these draft revisions for a period of at least 30 days.
Copyright © 2022, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado
FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter
Pennsylvania – Mining
(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Falaschi and Christina Puhnaty)
On November 12, 2022, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) published amendments to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP) regulations in 25 Pa. Code chs. 121 and 129 for all major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx) or volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, which is commonly known as the RACT III rule. See 52 Pa. Bull. 6960 (Nov. 12, 2022). The rule requires major sources of either or both of these air pollutants in existence on or before August 3, 2018, to meet reasonably available control technology (RACT) emission limits and requirements by January 1, 2023. See also Vol. 39, No. 1 (2022) of this Newsletter (Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas report).
These regulations are being promulgated to address federal Clean Air Act (CAA) RACT requirements to meet the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the commonwealth. The CAA requires a reevaluation of RACT when new ozone NAAQS are promulgated. RACT is required in nonattainment areas, including the Ozone Transport Region, which includes Pennsylvania. The RACT III rulemaking establishes presumptive RACT requirements and emission limits for specific source categories of affected facilities. The RACT III rulemaking also imposes additional requirements for all major sources of NOx and/or VOCs, not just those subject to the presumptive RACT requirements and limitations.
RACT III applies to all major sources of VOCs and NOx. Because the commonwealth is in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region, the major source threshold is 50 tons per year (tpy) of VOCs and 100 tpy of NOx. PADEP estimates that 425 title V facility owners and operators will be subject to the final rule. Affected source categories include combustion units; process heaters; turbines; stationary internal combustion engines; direct-fired heaters, furnaces, or ovens; and other sources that are not regulated elsewhere under chapter 129. The sources included in these categories are located at various facility types, including fossil fuel-burning and other electric generation, petroleum and coal products manufacturing, and iron and steel milling. RACT III imposes presumptive RACT limitations at 25 Pa. Code § 129.112 on additional categories of facilities that were not previously subject to any presumptive RACT limitations or requirements. These categories include glass melting furnaces, lime kilns, and certain combustion units.
The owner or operator of a NOx air contamination source with a potential emission rate equal to or greater than 5.0 tpy of NOx for which presumptive RACT requirements are not outlined in section 129.112 is required to propose a NOx RACT requirement or RACT emission limitation to PADEP. Similarly, the owner or operator of a VOC air contamination source with a potential emission rate equal to or greater than 2.7 tpy of VOCs for which presumptive RACT requirements are not outlined in section 129.112 is required to propose a VOC RACT requirement or RACT emission limitation to PADEP.
Notably, 25 Pa. Code § 129.115 requires that all major VOC or NOx emitting facilities submit a written notification to PADEP or the appropriate local air pollution control agency by December 31, 2022, identifying air contamination sources at the facility as covered by—or exempt from—RACT III requirements. This written notification requirement applies to all major sources of NOx and VOC emissions, even if those facilities are not subject to the presumptive RACT provisions of section 129.112. The written notification must include the following for each identified air contamination source:
- a description of each identified air contamination source at the facility, including make, model, and location;
- the applicable RACT requirement or RACT emission limitation;
- how the owner or operator will comply with the application RACT requirement or RACT emission limitation; and
- the reason why a source is exempt from the RACT requirements and RACT emission limitations, if applicable.
Operators are not required to immediately amend operating permits to include RACT III, but as of January 1, 2023, the final rulemaking will apply to those sources covered by the rulemaking. As of this compliance date, RACT III’s requirements could supersede any conflicting requirements and emissions limitations in a facility’s permit or Pennsylvania regulations, unless those conflicting requirements are more stringent than RACT III. See 25 Pa. Code § 129.112(l)–(m).
The EQB adopted the proposed rulemaking in May 2021. The proposed rulemaking was published for public comment, see Vol. XXXVIII, No. 4 (2021) of this Newsletter, and PADEP held public hearings on the proposal. PADEP reviewed and responded to comments on the proposed rule and presented the final rule to the EQB at its August 9, 2022, meeting, where it was approved. Upon approval, the regulation was submitted to the Pennsylvania House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy standing committees and the Pennsylvania Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC). The standing committees approved the regulation on September 14, 2022, and the IRRC approved the regulation on September 15, 2022. The regulation was then approved by the Office of the Attorney General before being published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. PADEP will now submit the regulation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for incorporation into Pennsylvania’s state implementation plan.
The RACT III compliance date established by EPA is January 1, 2023, and this regulation went into effect immediately upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Owners and operators should take note of the impending December 31, 2022, notification deadline described above.
Copyright © 2022, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado