NEPA Compliance: Energy Development and Air Quality

1
NEPA ComplianceEnergy Development and Air
Quality

• Westar Energy Conference
• Denver, Colorado
• October 22, 2008

2
Topics

• Oil and Gas Development and NEPA
• Addressing air analysis in NEPA
• Status of Field Office air analyses for RMPs
• Air pollutant emission controls
• Regional assessments

3
Land Use Planning and NEPA

• BLM plans for, and analyzes oil and gas decisions
  at two distinct levels
• RMPs
• Master Development Plans
• RMP leasing decisions
• Analyze reasonably foreseeable development
  scenarios related to the leasing decisions
• Conduct determination of NEPA adequacy before
  each lease
• Master Development Plans development decisions
• BLM promotes MDPs over individual APDs
• Analysis and decision should be consistent with
  RMP

4
Master Development Plans

• Operator may submit master development plan (MDP)
  for 2 or more APDs that share a common drilling
  plan, a common surface use plan and future plans
  for development
• More like geographic area plans and plans of
  development
• May or may not include field (regional)
  development by other operators

5
Application for Permit to Drill

• Early Notification voluntary initial conference
  with BLM
• Notice of Staking casual use, staking only
  followed by BLM onsite inspection
• Good Faith Efforts to notify and include
  private surface owners
• Drilling Plan engineering specifications
• Surface Use Plan an outcome of the onsite visit
  including design criteria
• APD Processing BLM has 30 days to Deny, Defer,
  Approve
• Begin NEPA analysis

6
Purpose of a NEPA Document

• Support decisions through an understanding of
  environmental consequences and alternative
  actions
• Promote public involvement in decision making
  (including other governmental agencies)
• Disclose and analyze the potential environmental
  consequences
• Take action to protect, restore, and enhance the
  environment
• Encourage productive and enjoyable harmony
  between people and the environment

7
NEPA Screening Process

• Does proposal conform to the Land Use Plan?
• Is proposal an exception from NEPA requirements?
• Is proposal listed as Categorically Excluded?
• Is existing analysis and documentation
  sufficient?
• Is proposal listed as normally requiring an EIS?
• Are environmental impacts expected to be
  significant?

8
Determining Significance

• Context the potential significance of an impact
  will vary based on the setting of the proposed
  action
• Local vs regional
• Short-term vs long-term
• Intensity refers to the severity of impact
• Must assess direct, indirect and cumulative
  effects
• Also beneficial effects, controversy, public
  health, uncertainty, precedent, sensitive
  resources, etc.

9
Mitigation Measures

• Actions that can reduce, avoid, minimize,
  rectify, or compensate adverse impacts
• Required mitigation measures must be described in
  the decision document
• Monitoring is required to ensure the
  implementation of mitigation measures
• For an EIS all relevant and reasonable measures
  are to be identified (even if outside the
  agencys jurisdiction)
• For an EA mitigation should be used and
  required to reduce the impacts below significance

10
Recent NEPA Changes

• BLM NEPA Handbook
• Detailed procedural guide for BLM specialists and
  the public
• DOI NEPA Regulations (Departmental Manual)
• Clarifying CEQ regulations, Departmental
  guidance, and evolving case law
• Changes
• Consensus management approach
• Adaptive management
• Purpose and need
• Impact analysis
• Connected actions
• Cumulative effects

11
Status of Air Quality for RMPs

• BLM began using air quality models to disclose
  impacts from RMPs a few years ago
• Methods and models used for air quality models
  have evolved due to
• A need to better quantify cumulative impacts
• A need to include ozone impacts
• Greater scrutiny of analysis techniques
• Unlike air quality modeling conducted for large
  stationary point source permitting, methods for
  spatially distributed small sources within NEPA
  are not well established
• New direction is to use models capable of
  large-scale regional assessments in areas with
  dense oil and gas development

12
Status of AQ for RMPs

• Different AQ models used to support RMPs in
  Colorado
• Adverse impacts have varied too
• See table on subsequent slide that provides
• Number of wells (RFD federal only)
• Model(s) used in the analysis
• Adverse air quality impacts
• EPA NEPA rating

13
Status of AQ for RMPs Cont.

• Various air quality models used to support RMPs
• AERMOD (a plume model)
• Used for near-field impacts up to lt50 km
• Limited chemistry for particulates, not capable
  of simulating ozone
• Assumed to give most conservative results
• 15 -75k and weeks to a few months to run
• CALPUFF (a puff model)
• Used for far-field analysis up to 300 km
• Limited chemistry for particulates, not capable
  of simulating ozone
• 100 - 300k and 2-6 months to run
• CAMx or CMAQ (photochemical grid models)
• Used for regional impacts from a multitude of
  sources up to continental scale with gridded,
  nested domains
• Full chemistry, including ozone
• Use massive meteorological and emissions data
  sets as inputs
• 200k - 750k and 6 -18 months to run
• Ultimate cumulative impacts tool

14
Status of AQ for RMPs Cont.

• Adverse Impacts (or thresholds)
• Air Quality
• National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
  (e.g.,
• Prevention of Significant Deterioration
  Increments
• Particular case of ozone
• Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs for Class I
  areas)
• Visibility (light extinction) - 1.0 or 0.5
  deciviews
• Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition 5 and 3 kg/ha/yr
  for N and S, respectively
• NPS has proposed 0.005 kg/ha/yr for each
• Lake Acidification 10 change in acid
  neutralizing capacity (ANC)
• Hazardous Air Pollutants
• Acceptable ambient concentration levels (AACLs)

15
Air Emission Controls

• As air quality impacts from both federal and
  non-federal development increase, BLM sees a need
  to adopt controls
• Both CDPHE and EPA have passed regulations that
  address a host of oil and gas sources
• Colorado Reg 7
• New Source Emission Standards (NSPS) for
  stationary engines and turbines
• NONROAD diesel engine emission standards
• Will the existing emission control regulations be
  sufficient?
• Adoption of emission controls may be more
  workable than phasing or limiting development?

16
Air Emission Controls Cont.

• Colorado Reg 7 Emission Standards
• Tanks standards New and existing condensate
  tanks emitting 20 tons per year or more of VOCs
  required to control emissions by 95 percent
  commencing May 1, 2008
• Engine Standards for new or relocated engines
  from out of state commencing July 1, 2007
• Source CDPHE
• Glycol Dehydrator controls New and existing
  glycol dehydrators emitting more than 15 tons per
  year of VOCs are required to control emissions by
  90 percent commencing May 1, 2008.

17
Air Emission Controls Cont.

• EPA has promulgated Tier NONROAD emission
  standards for diesel engines , including drill
  rigs
• Emissions are progressively reduced until 2015
  through Tier 1 4 emission standards
• An associated diesel fuel standard will reduce
  the sulfur content for nonroad engines form 500
  ppm to 15 ppm
• The nonroad engines emission standards address
  several pollutants, but primarily NOx (see next
  slide)

18
Air Emission Controls Cont.

• So why would BLM implement further control
  measures?
• State and federal regulations may not be
  sufficient to avoid unacceptable impacts
• Not all air emission source categories are
  addressed by state and federal regulations
  (fugitive dust, venting emissions, methane,
  etc..)
• Some emission standards will not be implemented
  until future year (e.g., Tier 4 nonroad standards
  in 2014)

19
Air Emission Controls Cont.

• Does BLM have authority to require stricter
  emission standards?
• A question of law, not BLM air quality policy
• In practice, this has been addressed on an ad-hoc
  basis in coordination with state DEQs
• Likely not an easy answer as due to
• Regulatory framework for source type (mobile vs.
  stationary vs. area)
• EPA delegation of authority to state
• Legal precedents (case law)
• Example Green completions
• Generally, yes, as various sections of FLMPA and
  the Clean Air Act direct BLM to protect air
  quality

20
Regional Assessment

• Air quality analyses are currently being
  conducted on a plan-by-plan or project-by-project
  basis
• Air quality impacts from wide-spread oil and gas
  development are inherently well suited to be
  assessed with photochemical grid models
• Advantages include
• Cost efficiencies
• Disadvantages include
• Not well suited for assessing near-field impacts
• Predicted impacts from an individual plan
• Several existing air quality studies could be
  leveraged, including
• Uinta Basin / IPAMS modeling
• White River CAMx modeling
• Four Corners Air Quality Taskforce
• CDPHE, EPA, and USFS have indicated support for
  this approach