AIR QUALITY BOARD CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA OIL NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. Appeal No. :33: 77? Si DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF AIR 1? )1 1: in} QUALITY, DEPARTMENT OF 5:11? ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 112 .4 APR112016 '4 App cum-1' 80am Mt? BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2 8:40 A.M. 016 WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 601 57TH STREET, S.E. CHARLESTON, WEST VIRG INIA Nancy Danesi Wolfe Certified Court Reporter GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE POST OFFICE BOX 20200. CHARLESTON WEST VIRGINIA 25362 (304)34 6-04 60 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 APPEARANCES Board Members Present: J. MICHAEL KOON, CHAIRMAN DOCTOR THOMAS HANSEN, VICE-CHAIRMAN WALTER M. IVEY SENATOR JON BLAIR HUNTER STANLEY B. MILLS GRANT BISHOP Board Attorney: NICOLAS T. DALTON, ESQUIRE On Behalf of the Appellant: DAVID L. YAUSSY, ESQUIRE JAMES D. ELLIOTT, ESQUIRE Spilman Thomas Post Office Box 1386 Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1386 On Behalf of the Appellee: JASON E. WANDLING, ESQUIRE Offices of Legal Services Department of Environmental Protection 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, West Virginia 25304 Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 2 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3 3/22/16 CONTENTS APPELLANT WITNESSES WITNESS JERRY WILLIAMS Direct Examination by Mr. Yaussy 11 Cross-Examination by Mr. Wandling -- WITNESS RYAN CROWE Direct Examination by Mr. Yaussy 55, 117 Cross-Examination by Mr. Wandling 103 APPELLEE WITNESS WITNESS JERRY WILLIAMS Direct Examination by Mr. Wandling 120, 156 Cross-Examination by Mr. Yaussy 140 Reporter's Certificate 163 Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 4 3/22/16 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIRMAN KOON: I'm Mike Koon, and I'm 3 Chairman of the Air Quality Board, and I'm going to have 4 each of the members of the Air Quality Board introduce 5 themselves, starting with Senator Hunter on my left. 6 SENATOR HUNTER: 7 DOCTOR HANSEN: 8 MR. IVEY: 9 MR. BISHOP: 10 11 Jon Blair Hunter. Tom Hansen. Walt Ivey. Grant Bishop. CHAIRMAN KOON: And our attorney sitting next to me is? 12 MR. DALTON: Nic Dalton. 13 CHAIRMAN KOON: I'd like to welcome Jon 14 Hunter and Mr. Bishop on our right as new Board members. 15 We also have another new Board member who's not here, 16 Stanley Mills. 17 who is also a member of the Board, has recused himself 18 from this hearing. 19 is to -- Well, first of all, I guess I should say that 20 we're hearing evidence for West Virginia Oil and Natural 21 Gas Association versus Director, Division of Air Quality, 22 Department of Environmental Protection. 23 Number 16-02-AQB. 24 to have the parties and their representatives please We have a full Board now. Bob Orndorf, At this point what I would like to do This is Appeal What I'd like to do at this point is Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 5 3/22/16 1 introduce themselves for the record, starting with Mr. 2 Wandling. 3 4 MR. WANDLING: I'm Jason Wandling, attorney for the DEP, and with me is Jerry Williams. 5 MR. ELLIOTT: 6 Thomas on behalf of WVONGA. 7 MR. YAUSSY: Jim Elliott with Spilman Dave Yaussy with Spilman 8 Thomas on behalf of WVONGA, and with us is Ryan Crowe who 9 will be testifying. 10 He's with Eureka Midstream. CHAIRMAN KOON: Okay, good. Thank you. 11 As everybody knows, the Board is independent of the 12 agency that issued the permit or order in question. 13 Board will conduct the hearing impartially and in a 14 manner which is fair to all parties. 15 Board are found at 52 CSR 1 which govern the conduct of 16 the hearing, as does the West Virginia Code 17 Administrative Procedures Act and the Environmental 18 Board's Act. 19 The The rules of the The hearing, of course, is being recorded by a court 20 reporter, so we ask that in order to permit an accurate 21 record, if there's an proper names or technical terms, 22 that they be spelled out for the benefit of the reporter, 23 and obviously only one person speak at a time. 24 The parties, of course, are aware of the shifting Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 1 burden of proof that applies in the appeals, but since 2 we've got some new Board members, let me go through this 3 for you. 4 with sufficient evidence to support a finding that the 5 appellee's decision was incorrect, and that is that it 6 violated a statute or regulation or otherwise should not 7 have issued the permit. 8 the evidence demonstrating its reasoning in making the 9 decision. 6 The appellant has the burden to raise an issue Then the appellee must produce The appellant then has the opportunity to show 10 that the evidence produced by the appellee is deficient 11 or a pretext, and just for everybody's information, this 12 shifting burden of proof was a standard that was set 13 forth in a case with the Wetzel County Solid Waste 14 Authority versus the Chief of the Waste Management 15 Division several years ago, 1999 exactly, and while it's 16 not pervasive, the Board has always used this analysis in 17 its hearings and so forth and intend to do that. 18 The order of presentation, then, is that the 19 appellant will be presenting its case first, then the 20 appellee will respond, followed by the -- well, we don't 21 have an intervenor in this case, so followed by the 22 appellee. 23 side? 24 Are there any preliminary motions from either MR. WANDLING: Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 No, sir. Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 7 3/22/16 1 MR. YAUSSY: None, Your Honor. 2 CHAIRMAN KOON: Any agreements or 3 stipulations that you all have with regard to the factual 4 or legal issues? 5 MR. WANDLING: Well, between us we've 6 agreed to submit Issue 1 with regard to noise and light 7 issues contained in the general permit on brief. 8 legal issue, and there's no reason to take up a lot of 9 time with testimony that's just not necessary for 10 11 It's a consideration of the issue. We've resolved between ourselves to a large extent, 12 I believe, Issues 2 and 3, although it's my understanding 13 that the appellants may elicit a little bit of testimony 14 with regard to Issue 2 just to make sure it's there for 15 the record. 16 With that said, I believe, then, that Issues 4 17 through 9 are still up for debate here in the hearing 18 today, and we'll both be offering evidence with regard to 19 those issues. 20 CHAIRMAN KOON: 21 MR. YAUSSY: Mr. Yaussy? We do have some questions 22 with regard to noise and light we want to ask Mr. 23 Williams, but, yeah, basically that's a legal decision 24 that the Board needs to make. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 The rest of that is Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 accurate. 2 3 CHAIRMAN KOON: MR. WANDLING: 5 CHAIRMAN KOON: No, sir. (No response.) 8 CHAIRMAN KOON: 10 Board members, any questions from you all? 7 9 Are there any questions then before proceeding? 4 6 8 3/22/16 All right. Well, at this point then we'll have an opportunity for opening statements. Mr. Yaussy. 11 MR. YAUSSY: Mr. Chairman, Board members, 12 my name is Dave Yaussy, and with me is Jim Elliott as you 13 heard. 14 Gas Association, or WVONGA, which has appealed the 15 issuance of the G35-C general permit for gas compression 16 and dehydration facilities. 17 our members, WVONGA filed extensive comments on the 18 permit and its associated forms asking for certain 19 modifications. 20 resulted in changes to the permit and to the forms. 21 were not. 22 specific appeal on only the nine issues that we thought 23 were most important to us. 24 resolved as you've heard, and we will be providing brief We represent the West Virginia Oil and Natural Because the permit affects Some of those comments were accepted and Most When the permit was issued, we took this Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Two of them have been Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 9 3/22/16 testimony about the remaining seven issues. There is one issue we want to highlight, and that is 3 Section 3.2.8 of the permit which states that -- and I'm 4 quoting, "The registrant shall not create a nuisance to 5 the surrounding community by way of unreasonable noise 6 and light," end quote. 7 regulate noise or light, but even if it did, the 8 prohibition is vague and unenforceable. 9 that this condition must be eliminated from the permit. The DAQ has no authority to We feel strongly 10 We think on the whole that the permit is a good one 11 and that Mr. Williams, who you'll hear testify, did fine 12 work on the permit reissuance. 13 changes that are reasonable and would make the permit 14 much more useful to industry without sacrificing any 15 environmental protections. 16 them careful consideration. 17 18 We just have a few We hope the Board will give Thank you. CHAIRMAN KOON: Mr. Wandling, do you have any opening? 19 MR. WANDLING: If it please the Board, Mr. 20 Chairman, as noted, I'm Jason Wandling. 21 DEP and will be defending this general permit today with 22 Mr. Jerry Williams. 23 will be testifying on our behalf to help explain some 24 things. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 I represent the He's the writer of the permit and Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 10 3/22/16 At the outset I'd just like to point out that this 2 is a general permit. It's one that's provided for by the 3 rules under which DAQ operates, but isn't required. 4 not something that we have to issue at all. 5 Williams will testify, it's something that the agency 6 puts together and offers for the ease of some permittees 7 who have sort of generalized operations to apply for, so 8 that they can get their operations up and running 9 expeditiously and without the need to create an It's As Mr. 10 individualized focused permit. 11 discretion in writing such a general permit is broad. 12 fact, the rule itself states on Rule 13, Section 5.11, 13 "The secretary may impose any reasonable condition," and 14 that means that so long as the conclusion is a reasonable 15 one, it can be contained in the permit and also so it 16 doesn't violate any laws. 17 As such, the Director's In As the evidence will show in this hearing and the 18 briefing following, the DAQ has the authority to regulate 19 light and noise pollution and that the other conditions 20 imposed in the G35-C are entirely reasonable. 21 some of the testimony you're going to hear today will let 22 you know that some of the conditions that the appellants 23 seek would actually violate federal law or would 24 otherwise possibly be inconsistent with existing federal Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 In fact, Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 11 3/22/16 1 law. It's for the reasons that you'll hear today that we 2 ask you to side with the DEP and uphold the G35-C permit 3 as written. 4 5 CHAIRMAN KOON: MR. YAUSSY: I'd like to call Mr. Jerry Williams. 8 9 All right. Mr. Yaussy, do you want to go with your witness then? 6 7 Thank you. (Witness sworn.) WHEREUPON, 10 JERRY WILLIAMS 11 WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS, DULY SWORN, AND TESTIFIED 12 AS FOLLOWS: 13 DIRECT EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. YAUSSY: 15 Q 16 Would you please state your full name for the record? 17 A My name is Jerry Williams. 18 Q And by whom are you employed? 19 A The West Virginia Department of Environmental 20 21 22 Protection, Division of Air Quality. Q And what is your position with the -- Can I call them the DAQ? 23 A Yes. 24 Q The Division of Air Quality, the DAQ. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 1 A I am an engineer. 2 Q Mr. Williams, were you responsible for 3 drafting the Class II general permit, the G35-C? 4 A Yes. 5 Q You heard me refer just a little bit ago to 6 7 Section 3.2.8, and you're familiar with that section? A 8 9 Yes. MR. YAUSSY: Can I approach the witness, Your Honor. 10 CHAIRMAN KOON: 11 BY MR. YAUSSY: 12 Q Sure. It says, "The registrant shall not create a 13 nuisance to the surrounding community by way of 14 unreasonable noise and light during operation." 15 A Yes. 16 Q Why was that section added to the general 17 18 12 permit? A Historically we've had issues from citizens 19 who live nearby these facilities, who have provided 20 objections to these facilities based on those issues, and 21 so it was a decision made by the Division of Air Quality 22 that that requirement would be placed in that general 23 permit because of Section 5.11 which allows the Division 24 of Air Quality to place any reasonable condition in the Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 13 3/22/16 1 general permit. 2 meaning that a company does not have to apply for 3 registration under a general permit, they have other 4 options. 5 permit. 6 requirements in the -- any company who applies for a 7 general permit voluntarily accept the requirements that's 8 under that general permit. 9 Q And since it is a general permit, They can apply for a Rule 13 construction They would voluntarily be accepting the Is there any requirement in state or federal 10 laws, statutes, or regulations, that would require you to 11 impose that condition? 12 A I'm not sure I can answer that question being 13 that I don't know -- I mean, I'm not a lawyer to know 14 those legal issues. 15 Q Well, let me ask you this. Are you aware of 16 any federal or state statute or regulation that would 17 require you to impose condition 3.2.8 of the permit? 18 19 20 A I'm still not a hundred percent that I can answer that question, and I'm not avoiding that question. Q I'm just asking whether you know. 21 come to mind right now? 22 you were writing the permit? 23 MR. WANDLING: 24 Did anything come to mind while I have to object. answered the question twice now. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Does any He's Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 3/22/16 MR. YAUSSY: Well, the question is whether 2 he knows of anything, and if he doesn't -- he either 3 knows or he doesn't. 4 THE WITNESS: 14 There is State Code that 5 alludes to this, and I don't have the -- you know, I'm 6 not a lawyer, so I can't remember the exact -- the exact 7 reference in the Code, but there is -- I think there is 8 language in the Code that would allow this to happen, 9 yes. 10 BY MR. YAUSSY: 11 Q But you don't remember what provision is. 12 A I don't remember the provision, no. 13 Q Do you know whether it's a requirement of the 14 15 16 17 18 State Implementation Plan or SIP? A I'm not in the Planning Section, so I don't know what goes into the State Implementation Plan. Q Okay. Do you work on individual permits for compressor stations and dehyds? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Do you put a condition similar to Section 21 22 3.2.8 in those individual permits? A Yes. We have, I believe, on five or six 23 different occasions placed noise and light language in 24 individual Rule 13 permits, yes. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 15 3/22/16 1 Q The same language? 2 A Actually, it's more -- see, with the general 3 permit, you know, it has to be developed so it affects 4 all sources, because you don't know exactly what it may 5 be that you're dealing with. 6 permits that we put the noise and light language in, it 7 was specific to that individual facility, meaning what 8 equipment they had and what noise reductions would take 9 place for that specific equipment. And in the individual So the language, the 10 noise and light language that exists in the Rule 13 11 permits that we've issued, is specific to that specific 12 facility, so it has specific requirements saying that a 13 certain silencer had to be used that resulted in a 14 certain noise reduction, or a certain type of equipment 15 had to be operated in a certain manner, and that all took 16 into account the noise reduction that was associated with 17 that equipment. 18 19 20 21 Q So, yes, we have. And those were voluntarily accepted by the -- by the permittee. A They were not appealed, if that's your question. 22 Q Did you negotiate what that would be? 23 A I wasn't involved in all those situations, but 24 two of the three that I was involved with did consist of Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 16 3/22/16 a negotiation, yes. Q Mr. Williams, the prohibition in 3.2.8 refers 3 to "shall not create a nuisance." 4 a nuisance in your opinion? How much noise creates 5 A I'm not sure I can answer that question. 6 Q How much light creates a nuisance in your 7 opinion? 8 A I don't know 9 Q The same question with regard to "unreasonable 10 noise and light." What is an unreasonable amount of 11 noise? 12 A I can't answer that question. 13 Q How about an unreasonable amount of light? 14 A Once again, I can't answer that. I would like 15 to say, though, that, you know, with me being -- I'm in 16 Permitting and not in Enforcement, so, I mean, to ask me 17 that question, I'm not the one that's going to be out in 18 the field that would say, "This is unreasonable." 19 not a determination that I would make in any situation, 20 whether it was noise, light, odors, whatever. 21 the permit goes, you know, it's going to be more -- my 22 responsibility is going to be more along the lines of 23 like what goes into it and whether or not the rules -- 24 and whether or not the requirements met the rules and Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 That's As far as Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 regulations. 2 I can't do that. 3 4 5 6 7 Q 17 3/22/16 So as far as answering what's unreasonable, But when you were drafting this language for the permit, you must have had something in mind, or not. A I mean, to give you a numerical value is just something I can't do, if that's the question. Q When you were drafting this, what did you have 8 in mind for the geographical area of the surrounding 9 community, which is a term you used in it. 10 11 12 A Geographical community? Can you show me that, please? Q Yes, sir. I'm trying to think. It says 13 "shall not create a nuisance to the surrounding 14 community." 15 A "Surrounding community." Once again, I think 16 I'd like to stress the fact that it is a general permit, 17 meaning that it's impossible to be prescriptive in every 18 situation. 19 cover as many different facilities as we can. 20 never going to cover everything. 21 and light language in a Rule 13 permit, we knew exactly 22 what we were dealing with. 23 houses were. 24 company had proposed to us to install. When we issue a general permit, we try to We're So when we put noise We knew where the closest We knew exactly what equipment that the Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 We were able to, Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 18 3/22/16 1 from there, ascertain the noise associated with that 2 equipment. 3 predict what that noise would be at those receptors. 4 That's impossible to do in a general permit. 5 impossible to say that -- you know, that if you have 10 6 engines, that the result of those 10 engines are going to 7 have an effect of, say, 55 dB at the closest receptor. 8 So in order for it to work in a general permit situation, 9 it has to -- there's a lot of things in a general permit Modeling was able to be performed in order to It's 10 that are vague. 11 situation to work. 12 question and put a numerical value on that or to say what 13 it was, you know, the intention of that, what would be 14 acceptable and what wouldn't, it would be -- it would 15 have to, at that point in time, turn into a case-by-case 16 situation, or if that was a concern, that at that point 17 in time a prediction would have to be made what noise was 18 affecting the nearby residents. 19 Q They have to be in order for the So to sit here and answer this But, Mr. Williams, anybody who agreed to be 20 covered under this permit would have no idea whether he 21 or she was violating the law, would he, until someone 22 came and said, "I think it's a nuisance"? 23 would be a subjective decision by the inspector. 24 Correct? Based on what you've said? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 And then it Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 A 3/22/16 19 It would have to be -- like I said, we would 2 have to then -- you know, if a situation came up where, 3 you know, it was determined that we felt that it was 4 unreasonable, I mean, the DAQ would have to work with the 5 company in order to make a determination, you know, what 6 the noise levels were or the people that were being 7 affected, because, you know, in a situation like if you 8 go back to odors, what may be -- and I'm just trying to 9 use it for an example here -- what may be odorous to you 10 under Rule 4 and odorous to someone else in Rule 4 -- I 11 mean, like if you're a citizen, maybe you believe that if 12 you see any light at all, that that's unreasonable, 13 versus, you know, the agency -- say, okay, they look at 14 the situation and they're like, "This is not 15 unreasonable." 16 Q Mr. Williams, I'd like to turn to the second 17 issue in the objections filed by WVONGA having to do with 18 the "no detectable emissions" in Section 4.1.4. 19 A Okay. 20 Q And I believe you heard your attorney, Mr. 21 Wandling, say that we had agreed to make a change to 22 Section 4.1.4, which I believe mirrored the change made 23 to the general permit G70-B, which was to add the words 24 -- it's starting in the second sentence there, "Each Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 20 3/22/16 1 component of a closed-vent system shall operate with no 2 detectable emissions." 3 with the G70-B? 4 A Is that the change that was made Do you recall? The -- I mean, the -- what was agreed to, yes. 5 We have not officially changed the G70-B yet, but that 6 will be the change that's made to that. 7 Q And it was a similar provision in the G70-B -- 8 A Correct, yes. 9 Q -- that was amended there was almost word-for- 10 word the same. 11 A Correct, yes. 12 Q Maybe word-for-word the same. 13 A Correct, yes. 14 Q I just want to clarify one thing. It refers 15 to "fugitive escape of regulated air pollutants." 16 there some escape of air pollutants that is not 17 considered fugitive and, therefore, wouldn't be a leak 18 under this, and could you give us an example of the kind 19 of thing that might be? 20 A Correct. Is Pneumatic controllers are pieces of 21 equipment that are regulated under a New Source 22 Performance Standard, and under that New Source 23 Performance Standard, pneumatic controllers that exist at 24 a natural gas compressor station, which would be covered Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 21 1 under this general permit, are allowed to have -- are 2 allowed to leak at a rate no greater than 6 standard 3 cubic feet per hour. 4 vent system that a pneumatic controller exists that they 5 are designed to leak, so that would not be considered a 6 fugitive component under that Section 4.1.4, because 7 those pneumatic controllers are covered in the general 8 permit under Section 9.0. 9 10 11 12 13 Q So it's possible that in a closed- When you say "designed to leak," you mean designed to emit? A Right, right, designed -- that 6 standard cubic feet per hour of gas. Q I'd like to turn now to appeal Item 3 for the 14 Board's information, one of the issues that was resolved 15 by the parties. 16 remove Subsection 7.1.5.VI, which required carbon 17 canisters to be kept onsite. 18 familiar with 40 CFR 60, subpart OOOO? The parties have agreed that we can Mr. Williams, are you 19 A Yes. 20 Q And for purposes of this conversation, can we 21 refer to that as OOOO (phonetic: quad O)? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And that's a New Source Performance Standard 24 or NSPS. Correct? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 A Yes. 2 Q Okay. 22 3/22/16 Are you familiar with the changes made 3 to OOOO small a, which I'll refer to as OOOOa (phonetic: 4 quad Oa)? 5 6 A I think it would more be a proposed rule, not really changes. It never existed. 7 Q It is. 8 A Yes. 9 Q It is just a proposed rule. 10 A Right. 11 Q It hasn't been finalized. 12 A Correct, yes. 13 Q Have you reviewed proposed Rule OOOOa? 14 A I have read it, yes. 15 Q Are there differences between the requirements 16 of OOOOa and the requirements for the LDAR inspections 17 found in the G35-C? 18 A They are not exactly the same. 19 differences. 20 Q Yes, there are Is it possible that if the OOOOa were -- if it 21 were adopted as proposed, that there could be changes, 22 differences in the frequency at which inspections are 23 required? 24 A Yes. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 Q 23 3/22/16 Again, assuming that OOOOa was adopted as 2 proposed -- and we don't know if it will be, but if it 3 were, would the repair period be longer -- the repair 4 periods allowed to be longer under OOOOa than it is under 5 the G35-C? 6 A I don't remember the exact details of it, but 7 I'm assuming since you're asking the question, the answer 8 is yes. 9 Q And I'm not asking you to assume anything. 10 A No, I was just joking. I don't know. I can't 11 recall the details of OOOOa to know what the repair 12 period would be, so -- 13 Q Does the G35-C require use of -- if you're 14 going to verify repairs, use of the same equipment as was 15 used to make the original determination that there was a 16 leak? 17 18 19 A I don't remember exactly the language that was placed in the permit. Q Mr. Williams, let me ask you this, or let me 20 preface it with you're aware that there was some concern 21 in the regulating community about there possibly being 22 differences between what OOOOa would require and what the 23 permit would require. 24 A Yes. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 24 1 Q 2 conflicting. 3 situation where something like an NSPS is adopted after a 4 general permit is put into effect? 5 A And that they could potentially be What does the DAQ do when it has a Sure. You know, I know that issue came up 6 during the public comment period, and members of WVONGA 7 and other companies expressed concern about the 8 provisions that were in a proposed rule versus the 9 language that was in the general permit, and our response 10 to that was, you know, we looked at it, and we made the 11 determination that we felt that the LDAR language that we 12 had placed in the permit, Section 4.1.4, accomplished the 13 goal that we were seeking, and we made a determination 14 that if the proposed rule that contained LDAR language 15 became final, that we would then modify the general 16 permit to remove the language that we have in the permit 17 and then replace it with the new -- if it becomes final, 18 with the new final rule. 19 anyone who commented on the general permit that once that 20 rule or if that rule became final, that we would place 21 that -- we would modify the permit and place that 22 language in there. And so we made it clear to 23 Q Would anybody have to reapply for the permit? 24 A No. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 3 Q 25 3/22/16 And would any -- to the best of your ability, would contradictory portions be taken out of the G35-Cs? A Right. Any part of the general permit that 4 would reference the language that we were going to remove 5 and replace with a rule that would become final would be 6 corrected, and so there would be no contradictions. 7 Q Thank you. I'd like to turn now to section 4 8 or appeal issue -- no, I'm sorry -- appeal issue 5. 9 Thank you. Mr. Williams, are you familiar with how 10 samples of condensate are taken out of tanks at 11 compressor stations and elsewhere? 12 A Generally speaking, yes. 13 Q And generally is all I need. 14 Could you explain to the Board how that's done. 15 A I'm not a sampler. 16 Q Okay. Let me ask you this. Do you believe 17 it's difficult to get a sample when there's just a very 18 thin layer of condensate, if any, on the top of a storage 19 tank, if you have an opinion? 20 A I don't believe I can answer that question. 21 Q You'd be the wrong person to ask about 22 sampling then. 23 A Correct, yes. 24 Q If there is, in your opinion as an engineer Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 26 3/22/16 1 and someone who's worked in these areas, a very small -- 2 say, a quarter inch of condensate floating on top of a 3 brine tank at a midstream tank, is that likely to have 4 very high emissions of VOCs? 5 A I think that's impossible to predict, to just 6 say that if you had a small amount on brine, because, you 7 know, when you hear the term "brine" or "produced water," 8 that means different things to different people. 9 you'd like me to elaborate -- If 10 Q Please. 11 A You know, when you're reviewing a permit 12 application, you know, sometimes we'll get like there are 13 no emissions from a tank, and people say, "Well, it's 14 just produced water," and it leads people to believe that 15 it's just water and nothing else. 16 push the issue and you get a sample from the tank or 17 whatnot and you see that there are hydrocarbons that 18 exist and that there are volatile organic compound 19 emissions that are generated from that, so then it goes 20 back to, "Well, I thought it was just water," and now we 21 have emissions from it. 22 that I can answer your question and say if there's a 23 small amount because, one, what is small, and, two, 24 without knowing the constituents that's in there, it's Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 So when, you know, you So to say that -- I don't think Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 27 3/22/16 1 impossible to say. I mean, maybe it's something that's 2 real heavy, or maybe it's something that's real light, so 3 the emissions -- there could be a wide range there. 4 Q Okay. 5 A And then I'd also like to say, you know, there 6 have been, you know, multiple accidents that have 7 resulted in deaths from storage tanks that were -- 8 supposedly just produced water, and then when, you know, 9 an employee had went to unload these tanks, you know, and 10 you had an explosion. 11 produced -- you know, what may be in there because you 12 really don't know without a sample. 13 Q So I'm hesitant to say that what Do companies run computer programs to give 14 them an idea of how much -- the quantity of emissions 15 that can come off of a tank? 16 A Yes. In a general -- in the way that the 17 general permit -- like the general permit G70, which is 18 for well sites, or a Rule 13 permit that we would get, or 19 even a G35, if a facility was to have flashing emissions 20 from the storage vessel, then they would run a computer 21 simulation software program based upon the constituents 22 of that tank to determine what the emissions were. 23 there were no flashing emissions associated with the 24 tank, then there's also another computer program that's Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 If Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 28 3/22/16 1 ran to determine what the working and breathing losses of 2 that particular tank is. 3 shouldn't say that. 4 here and what I believe we're discussing is going to be 5 more along the lines of what affects the flashing 6 emissions and not the working and breathing losses. 7 8 9 10 11 Q Okay. But I believe -- Well, I But I think the key point to say In your experience, though, condensate does float on the top of the brine? A Or if you -- I really don't know that I can answer that question. Q Okay. If it were -- if there were testimony 12 offered that it can be very difficult to even obtain a 13 sample from off of the condensate level on a tank when 14 there's very little condensate, would you agree that a 15 sample -- running an analysis at that point is 16 unnecessary? 17 A Well, I know that I've went through, you know, 18 some training with a company who has a computer program 19 they developed to estimate what the emissions from the 20 condensate tanks were for the flashing emissions, and 21 they talked about sampling, and they never indicated that 22 there was any difficulty in sampling. 23 that like in the general permit itself it talked about 24 providing sampling locations, and that was one of the Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 And I also know Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 29 3/22/16 1 things that during the general permit, when we went to 2 notice with it originally, we had talked about sampling 3 locations and also asked about requiring temperature and 4 pressure instrumentation, as well, and one of the 5 companies that's represented by WVONGA asked that we 6 remove the temperature and pressure instrumentation 7 language because of third parties that they use for their 8 sampling, and so that was one of the things that we 9 agreed to, that we removed from the draft permit before 10 it was issued final, because that was something that they 11 had said was -- the third party had problems with. 12 at no point in time during the comment period did anyone 13 say that sampling these tanks provided any type of 14 difficulty. 15 Q But I'd like to turn appeal item 6, acceptable 16 control devices. 17 oxidizers? Are you familiar with thermal 18 A Yes. 19 Q Can you explain basically what they are? 20 A Well, I mean, it's a control device. 21 Depending upon its usage, when it was controlling it 22 would reduce volatile organic compound and hazardous air 23 pollutant emissions. 24 Q Mr. Williams, I'm going to show you Section Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 30 3/22/16 1 7.1.2.3 of the permit, enclosed combustion devices. 2 thermal oxidizers considered enclosed combustion devices, 3 or could they be? 4 A Are You know, not to -- just a discussion back and 5 forth here, I know that there was a question that came up 6 during the comment period about thermal oxidizers, and I 7 can't remember the response to the comment that we gave, 8 but I believe that we -- because there was a question on 9 whether or not thermal oxidizers would be allowed under 10 the general permit, and that we said that they would be. 11 And I can't remember the exact citation that I used in 12 that response to the comment, but I did -- but we did say 13 that thermal oxidizers would be allowed under the general 14 permit. 15 Q Wonderful. 16 A But if you look in -- I have the response to 17 the comments. 18 tell you where it is. Okay. I can find the exact comment for you and 19 Q I think I'm satisfied with that answer. 20 A Well, I would like to -- I mean, if you don't 21 mind, I would like to -- 22 Q Sure. 23 A -- tell you exactly where it was to make sure 24 that I'm not misspeaking here, but from my recollection. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 31 3/22/16 MR. YAUSSY: Absolutely. Mr. Wandling, it's -- 3 MR. WANDLING: 4 THE WITNESS: That's fine. Okay. On what we said, it 5 was comment number 60. It had to do with section 7.1.2, 6 and the comment was made by Williams Companies, and the 7 comment says, "Williams respectfully requests that the 8 DEP add a section specifically for thermal oxidizer 9 coverage. While some may consider thermal oxidizers as 10 an enclosed combustor, this is not clear in the general 11 permit. 12 response to that was, "Thermal oxidizers are covered 13 under General Permit G35-C. 14 registration application, the option exists to register a 15 thermal oxidizer. 16 are covered under enclosed combustion devices in Section 17 7.1.2.3 of the General Permit." That needs clarified by WVDEP." And our On page 29 of the G35-C The requirements for thermal oxidizers 18 BY MR. YAUSSY: 19 Q Mr. Williams, I could have saved some of your 20 time if I had just looked at that a little more closely 21 last night. 22 A Sure. 23 Q Now, let me shift over to a slightly different 24 Thank you. topic on control devices. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 You're familiar with Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 condensers, obviously. 2 with a combustor under G35-C? 3 A 32 3/22/16 Can condensers be run in tandem Under the G35-C -- Section 7 of the G35-C 4 deals with the control devices and emission reduction 5 devices that are allowed under this general permit. 6 once again, in a general permit we try to provide the 7 greatest amount of coverage to the greatest amount of 8 sources, so we're not writing a specific permit for a 9 specific company to say that you're going to have a So 10 condenser and you're going to have an enclosed combustor. 11 So what a general permit does, the companies read the 12 general permit. 13 register under it. 14 what it is that they're going to do. 15 propose to ensure that it would meet the permit that's 16 already written, and then we would either -- and if it 17 does, then we would approve that under a registration 18 that we would issue to the company. 19 of the general permit, enclosed combustors are allowed 20 under Section 7.1.2, and condensers are allowed under -- 21 or condensers are regulated under 7.1.6. 22 situation where you were going to utilize a condenser and 23 an enclosed combustor, then you would file that in your 24 application, we would review it, and if we agreed that it They see that they're eligible to Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 They apply for it. They let us know We review what they So under Section 7 So if you had a Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 33 3/22/16 1 would operate appropriately, then you would be subject to 2 Section 7.1.2 for enclosed combustors and 7.1.6 for 3 condensers, because, once again, a general permit has to 4 cover everything, so we have to make all the different 5 language available in order for that to work. 6 possible, yes. 7 Q So it is In that regard, is there any advantages that 8 companies get from seeking a general permit rather than 9 an individual permit? 10 A Yes. 11 Q The ability to -- 12 A Well, I mean, if you're obtaining a general 13 permit versus a Rule 13 permit, number one, the process 14 is much more efficient. 15 you as an applicant -- you read this general permit. 16 You're like, "Okay, we can meet these and we agree to 17 those terms." 18 permit's already written, so it's a much quicker process. 19 You eliminate one public notice because of this, and it's 20 also less expensive to obtain a general permit as a Rule 21 13, plus you know going into it exactly what it is that 22 you're required to do. 23 24 Q situation. The permit's already written, so We don't have to write the permit. The Mr. Williams, a different type of control Do companies sometimes set up redundant Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 34 3/22/16 1 controls that don't work together; they work either if 2 one fails, or they continue working if the rest of it 3 fails? 4 A 5 Yes. I mean, are you talking -- Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Never mind. 6 Q I was hoping you would. 7 A Oh. I mean, you could have a situation where 8 you had like a backup control, like if you had a VRU that 9 was backed up with a flare -- and when I say "VRU," I 10 mean vapor recovery unit -- that was backed up with a 11 flare or a vapor recovery unit that was backed up with 12 another vapor recovery unit, so if there was a failure, 13 that the emissions would continue to be controlled, yes. 14 Q But in either -- in that situation, the 15 maximum amount of emissions are really driven off of the 16 amount of gas that flows through to be controlled. 17 Correct? 18 A Not necessarily, because, you know, if you 19 used -- if you had a backup control device that created 20 emissions, then, you know, you would actually generate 21 emissions. 22 vapor recovery unit backed up with a flare, then the 23 flare itself could generate emissions, so your emissions 24 would actually increase for like your combustion Like if you had a flare -- like if you had a Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 35 3/22/16 emissions, your NOx, and your CO. 2 Q But in either event, you couldn't have both of 3 those. If you have two redundant controls which are both 4 sufficient to handle the amount of gas flowing through 5 them, you wouldn't have any reason to calculate the 6 potential to emit, assuming that both of them are 7 operating at the same time. 8 9 A Correct? Under a general permit, yes. Under a Rule 13 permit, no, because with a Rule 13 permit, you can write 10 specific provisions in there that would say that you 11 would have a vapor recovery unit that was backed up with 12 a flare, and when that happens, the applicant is going to 13 tell us in their permit application that they're going to 14 do that and that they're going to calculate their 15 emissions based upon that, based upon what the flare 16 would operate. 17 to operate 8,760 hours a year, which is year-round, and 18 you're only assuming it was going to back up 500 hours, 19 then you could calculate your emissions on the 500 hours. 20 Those limits would be placed in a Rule 13 permit, and so 21 you wouldn't have to do that. 22 we can't change the terms that are in here, and it cannot 23 be a synthetic minor, so we can't establish like any 24 alternatives, meaning that if you were applying for a So if it's not -- like if it's not going Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 But under a general permit Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 36 3/22/16 1 permit and you wanted to have a flare backing up a vapor 2 recovery unit, then when you calculate your emissions, 3 you would have to calculate both sets of emissions as if 4 they operated nonstop. 5 Q But that's physically impossible. Correct? 6 A The permit would allow you to operate 7 either/or, like if you had a backup, so physically, yes, 8 but from a regulatory standpoint, no, because you were 9 allowed -- you would be allowed to say you could operate 10 your vapor recovery unit 8,760 hours a year; you could 11 operate your flare 8,760 hours a year. 12 -- you would have the potential -- and that's all that 13 Rule 13 is about is potential. 14 potential to do that. 15 a backup and it was only going to be 500 hours, we could 16 make you keep records to show that you were only 17 operating it 500 hours. 18 for your backup device of 500 and your primary device at 19 year-round operation. 20 21 22 Q So you would have You would have the Under a Rule 13 permit, if it was So you could have your potential But you have to keep those same records under a general permit, don't you? A But there's nothing in the general permit that 23 would limit the number of hours that you would operate 24 your backup control device. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 Q 37 3/22/16 But there is to the extent that it's a backup 2 control device. 3 can only operate one device or the other. 4 handles all that stream, or another one does. 5 have two streams. 6 A If it's plainly identified as such, you One device You don't I mean, I understand the point you're trying 7 to make, but the general permit cannot be changed. So 8 like if you wanted to come in and you wanted to say, 9 "Well, I'm going to have a backup control -- I'm going to 10 have a backup flare, and it's going to operate 1,000 11 hours a year," so we review it -- I mean, we'll just 12 pretend that's what we're going to do. 13 -- I can't write in a general permit that you're only 14 going to operate that backup flare 1,000 hours per year. 15 Well, then he applies for a general permit, and his 16 backup's only going to be 500 hours per year. 17 say it's only 500 hours per year, and I can't say yours 18 is 1,000, so there's nothing in the general permit that 19 sets an hourly limitation on when a backup can be 20 operated. 21 general permit which -- and so -- but you have to 22 calculate your emissions on the potential, and since 23 there's no limit on how long they can operate, the 24 potential is that they could operate at any point in There is nothing I can't So we have permitted backup units under a Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 38 3/22/16 time. 2 Q But you could calculate potential based on the 3 highest emissions, calculated emissions, from any device 4 that would handle that stream of gases. 5 A If you had -- Okay. Right? If you had a vapor 6 recovery unit that was controlling and you had a flare 7 that was controlling, and so the flare is going to have 8 higher NOx and CO, PM emissions than the vapor recovery 9 unit. The vapor recovery unit will probably have higher 10 VOC emissions than the flare, so when you look at the 11 potential of what the facility would be, you could look 12 at the highest pollutant per. 13 highest pollutant and when you compare the two it was 14 NOx, CO, PM, SO2, and then the VRU's highest pollutant 15 was VOCs, that's what you would look at for your 16 facility-wide -- those are the numbers that would go in 17 your facility-wide emission to determine that you were a 18 minor source. So if the flare is the 19 Q And that would make sense. 20 A Well, that's the way it is, but it's not -- it 21 would be based on 8,760 hours a year of operation, not a 22 reduced 500 or 1,000 for the backup. 23 24 Q But you could assume that there is that many hours of operation, but it could only be going through Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 39 3/22/16 1 one of those devices at a time the way it's set up. 2 you could assume the highest emissions of VOC assuming 3 8,600-some hours of operation, and you could assume -- 4 because if it was going all through the VRU, or you could 5 assume highest level of NOx is going through the flare, 6 but it can only be the highest one way. 7 only generate off of those -- 8 9 A So I mean, that can And that was the point I was trying to make. You would calculate your emissions for your primary at 10 the 8,760. 11 backup 8,760, and the highest pollutant per, whether it's 12 the primary or the backup, would be what your potential 13 is. 14 15 16 Q You would calculate your emissions for the That's how you see this as being done under the G35-C? A Yes. We've done that before under General 17 Permit G70-A. 18 the emission caps, but under the G70-A, when they had 19 backup control devices on storage vessels, we said, 20 "Okay. 21 and then the highest pollutant per would be your 22 potential for the facility." 23 24 I mean, the G70-B obviously changed with You calculate your potential emissions from both, MR. YAUSSY: just briefly with my -Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Mr. Chairman, may I consult Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 1 CHAIRMAN KOON: 2 (Brief pause.) 3 BY MR. YAUSSY: 4 Q Sure, absolutely. Mr. Williams, what about a situation where you 5 have identical redundant controls, like a combustor 6 backing up a combustor that is of the same make and 7 model? 8 that situation? 9 10 11 12 13 A 40 How would you -- how would you calculate PTE in Well, I believe it would be done in the same manner that we discussed earlier. Q I wouldn't have two PTEs I'd have together, but it would be the highest NOx coming out of that -A Well, if you had -- if you had an enclosed 14 combustor that was a ABUTEC 100, and then you had another 15 ABUTEC 100 that backed it up, and it was serving clearly 16 as a backup and operated in no other manner, the only 17 thing that you could possibly have to do as far as make 18 those additive would be if the pilot emissions from the 19 second one were on nonstop. 20 calculate your potential from the first combustor that 21 would operate 8,760, and then if you had an identical 22 combustor to back it up, the emissions would be the same; 23 however, since they both generate emissions all the time, 24 meaning that the pilot of the second combustor would Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Then you would have to Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 41 3/22/16 1 always be operational, you would have to add the pilot 2 emissions into your potential. 3 earlier, we were talking about a vapor recovery unit. 4 Those don't generate emissions if they're not being used, 5 but in that case, you would generate emissions from the 6 second control device, so those would have to be added 7 in. 8 9 Q But like in a situation Let's suppose you had two combustors, and the amount of gas running through there would produce 10 tons 10 of NOx, and so when I'm looking at figuring the PTE of 11 that facility, I've got two redundant combustors, and one 12 only operates if the first one is down. 13 calculate that PTE as 10 tons of NOx plus the emissions 14 from the flare -- the ignition flame, pilot flame, on the 15 second combustor. 16 A I would Well, I think we need to be clear that it is 17 strictly for backup purposes only, like it can't serve 18 any other purpose. 19 couldn't be used in a situation where you're going to do 20 blowdowns or whatnot, meaning that like you can't say, "I 21 have two combustors. 22 going to be used, and if it goes down, the other one's 23 going to be used." 24 -- you cannot say would be, "I have two combustors," and Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 It can't be used for -- like it They're the same, and the one's You could do that, but what you can't Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 42 1 let's say you're going to send your blowdowns to the one 2 combustor. 3 send the blowdowns to both of them," meaning that like 4 only one of them could be operational at a time, and 5 that's it. 6 the one at 8,760 hours of operation, that the gas is 7 going to it non-stop, and it's combusting emissions, and 8 then you would go to the second combustor, and you would 9 calculate your emissions of what the pilot would operate You then couldn't say, "Well, I'm going to So you would calculate your emissions for 10 8,760 hours per year. But under no circumstances could 11 they both be operational at the same time if it was a 12 backup. 13 Q And I'm asking you to assume that it is. 14 A Yes. 15 Q Are emergency generators allowed in the 16 general permit? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Is it assumed that they run 24 hours a day, 19 20 365 days a year, or -A Give me one second and I can turn to the 21 section. Hold on. 22 under Section 12.0 of the general permit, and there is 23 guidance out there from EPA that the potential for an 24 emergency generator is 500 hours per year, so that's what Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Emergency generators are covered Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 43 3/22/16 1 the potential emissions for an emergency generator is 2 calculated on. 3 Q Thank you, Mr. Williams. I would like to move 4 on to appeal item 7. 5 operational at all times or combustion devices be 6 operational at all times. 7 flares may be down if you don't have a backup present? 8 Is there any time that is allowed for, you know, 9 switching out flares or for maintenance or for repair? 10 A It requires that flares be What about short periods when There's no allowance for that in the general 11 permit, no, and to my knowledge no allowance for that 12 under any of the -- even a Rule 13 permit that we've 13 issued. 14 is what we're talking about specifically, was going to be 15 unusable for whatever reason, then the facility itself 16 would need to contact the Enforcement Section and let 17 them know of the problems that they were having. 18 If the flare or control -- or if a flare, which Q Appeal item 8 which involves routing of vapors 19 around still columns, could you turn to Section 7.1.8.a? 20 You're right there. 21 differ from one another? 22 23 24 A Can you explain to me how b and c Can I tell you the way that this language was developed? Q Absolutely. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 A Okay. 44 3/22/16 So back in 2008, which eight years ago 2 is a long time, when we were developing or when the DEP 3 DAQ, was developing General Permit G35-A, we had a 4 stakeholder group with members of WVONGA, West Virginia 5 Oil and Natural Gas Association, and IOGA, Independent 6 Oil and Gas Association, where we worked with them in 7 developing regulatory language for that permit. 8 that point in time, we were trying to develop the 9 different scenarios that may exist at these facilities, And at 10 and so WVONGA and IOGA made it clear to us where they 11 would take the emissions that are generated from the 12 still column of the dehy unit and recycle them back 13 through the flame zone in the reboiler to destruct some 14 of the volatile organic compounds and hazardous air 15 pollutants that exist, and so we worked with them in 16 developing language that would cover those sources. 17 that time, you know, we talked about putting language in 18 there that would regulate condensers, and WVONGA had made 19 it clear to us in 2008 that they did not use condensers 20 and that they did not want condenser language in the 21 permit, so we didn't do it. 22 permit would be 7.1.8.b -- or 7.1.8.b minus the word 23 "flash tank" and 7.1.8.c. 24 where we are now, which would have been seven years Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 At So what we had in the 2008 So fast forward eight years to Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 45 3/22/16 1 because this was 2015 when this language was created, 2 condensers are used now by this industry, and so we had 3 to -- there were situations where they would run this 4 through a condenser prior to, so we had to have language 5 in there for that and, also, where either the flash tank 6 existed in 2008 and they didn't make us aware of it or 7 it's a new process. 8 So we had to have language in there to differentiate 9 flash tank, as well, so we added the word "flash tank" to And I can't answer that question. 10 the language that already existed that we'd work with 11 WVONGA to create back in 2008, and b and c were both 12 there already. 13 the General Permit G35-A since 2008, and we also place 14 this language in all Rule 13 permits that we've issued 15 since 2008. 16 "The reboiler shall only be fired with vapors from the 17 still column and flash tank, and natural gas may be used 18 as supplemental fuel," and c, "The vapors/overheads from 19 the still column shall be introduced into the flame zone 20 of the reboiler as the primary fuel or with the primary 21 fuel before the combustion chamber." 22 operating scenarios that WVONGA expressed to us that -- 23 to be placed in the permit to ensure that the still 24 column emissions were going to be routed to the reboiler Historically, this language has been in So to answer your question, what it says is, Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 And these were Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 46 3/22/16 -- or to the flame zone of the reboiler. 2 Q In 2008. I mean, earlier they had made that 3 comment, because that was not a comment that was made 4 in -- 5 A No, it was 2008 when we worked with them in 6 developing this language, and it was never said going 7 forward that b should be removed or c should be removed, 8 so there was -- 9 Q Well, let me ask you. Would it allow more 10 flexibility and still provide the same environmental 11 controls if b and c were replaced by something like this? 12 "The still vent vapors and/or flash tank vapors are to be 13 routed to the reboiler flame zone with sufficient design 14 to ensure that they are combusted at all times through 15 the dehy burner cycle." 16 same thing and yet give a little more flexibility? 17 A Let me re-read this first. 18 19 20 Does that basically cover the MR. YAUSSY: Could I give this, what I read to him? THE WITNESS: Well, I really don't want to 21 commit to anything until I can talk to, you know, 22 obviously people and my supervisor and also the 23 supervisor of Enforcement, so that we can make sure that 24 what, you know, was intended in this permit requirement Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 47 3/22/16 1 would be met by yours. 2 don't want to say yes, because I -- until I can really 3 sit down -- I mean, I feel like I'm put on the spot 4 without like really doing the research to make sure that 5 everything's covered, which, I mean, we can look at, 6 but -- 7 BY MR. YAUSSY: 8 Q 9 So I don't want to say no, but I It's a measure of the high respect we hold you in, Mr. Williams. Well, let's go on to -- Do you know 10 whether there are examples or instances where the flash 11 gas is used to fuel the reboiler, but the still vapor is 12 not? 13 14 15 16 17 And only if you know. A I just -- Are you asking me if there is instances where it's either/or? Q Yeah. Flash gas is used, but the still vapor is not. A Well, if they're wishing to take the reduction 18 for that emissions, then it would have to be -- they 19 would have to do both. 20 it was going under a general permit that exists now like 21 the G35-A -- well, the G35-A doesn't have flash tank 22 language in there. 23 that that would come up, unless someone's applied for the 24 G35-C, would be under a Rule 13 permit. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 If it was going under -- like if So really, in reality, the only time So if you filed Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 48 3/22/16 1 a Rule 13 application, then those are all examined 2 individually on their own merit, meaning that if a 3 company comes to us and they say, "This is what we're 4 doing, and this is how it's going to be, and these are 5 the emissions generated from it," we would review it, and 6 we would put the appropriate language in the permit to 7 account for that. 8 to this permit, you would have to meet 7.1.8.b in order 9 to get that 50 percent reduction. So it's possible, yes, but in regards 10 COURT REPORTER: 11 THE WITNESS: 12 BY MR. YAUSSY: 13 Q What b? 7.1.8.b. Mr. Williams, I'm sure you'll be relieved, as 14 will the Board be, to hear that we're at appeal issue 9, 15 emission control bypass reports. 16 requires reporting of bypasses. 17 don't result in any increase in emissions? 18 A 7.5.2 of the permit Are there bypasses that If you bypass a control device -- I mean, I'm 19 just trying to talk through this. 20 control device, and when you calculated your potential 21 emissions from the facility, say you had a flare -- and 22 to make this easy, say you had 100 tons of VOC emissions 23 before the flare, so you have the flare, and it reduces 24 your emissions by 98 percent, so now you're at 2 tons per Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 If you bypass a Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 1 year of VOC emissions. 2 then all the emissions from the emission unit are not 3 going to the flare. 4 meaning that they are not being reduced by 98 percent. 5 So I think it's safe to assume that if you're not -- if 6 you're bypassing your control device, then it's fairly 7 certain that you're also exceeding your emission limit. 8 9 10 Q 49 If you would bypass that flare, They're going to the atmosphere, What if you have a backup flare or a backup control device of some type? A I mean, if you had a backup control device, 11 then it's possible that you're not, if the backup control 12 device is operational. 13 14 Q Any bypass would have to be recorded in the facility log in any way under Section 4.2.3? 15 A Yes. 16 Q So those logs are available to anybody who 17 inspects. Correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q So this information would be available to the 20 DAQ even if you didn't have to provide a response in 21 writing. Correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q For the Board's benefit, Section 7.5.2 24 requires a written report to the Board -- to the DAQ. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 50 3/22/16 1 A Yes. 2 Q Other things that happen at the facility just 3 have to be recorded in the log. 4 A Other things -- I mean -- 5 Q Other events. 6 A Well, I don't want to blanketly say yes, 7 because there may be other reporting requirements for 8 another piece of equipment there that they do have to 9 report, not bypasses, but -- well, I mean, I guess bypass 10 would be a word, but if you had like a deviation, I 11 believe there is other deviation reporting that exists 12 and specific reporting requirements for certain emission 13 units. 14 Q So it's not that this is the only case. Mr. Williams, as I was looking through this, I 15 have a question. 16 between those two? 17 They both require reporting of control -- bypasses of 18 control devices. 19 A 7.5.2 and 7.5.3, what is the difference They seem to be similar provisions. Well, I believe 7.5.3 pertains if the air 20 pollution control device is not operating. 21 could have a flare that's operational, but you chose to 22 bypass it; whereas, 7.5.3 says if it's not operating when 23 emissions are vented to it. 24 like 7.5.3, if you vented emissions to a control device Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 I mean, you So you could vent -- I mean, Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 51 3/22/16 1 and it wasn't operating, you would have to report it, 2 where 7.5.2 would be that you just bypassed the control 3 device in its entirety. 4 Q Okay. So 7.5.2 requires a written report if 5 you bypass a control device, and 7.5.3 requires a report 6 if it's not operating. 7 A 8 to it. 9 10 If it's not operating and you vent emissions MR. YAUSSY: Mr. Chairman, I think I'm finished, but could I confer just for a second? 11 CHAIRMAN KOON: 12 MR. YAUSSY: 13 MR. WANDLING: I'll have questions for him CHAIRMAN KOON: Any questions from Board members? 18 (No response.) 19 CHAIRMAN KOON: 20 21 Okay. You can step down. Thank you. SENATOR HUNTER: 22 engineer or a lawyer. 23 explain what that is. 24 We have nothing as part of my case-in-chief, so he gets a break. 16 17 Thank you. further. 14 15 Sure. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR I'm not an When you talk about a flare, THE WITNESS: Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 I have one. A flare is a device where -- Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 52 3/22/16 1 I'm trying to keep it simple, you know, to explain, like 2 -- 3 SENATOR HUNTER: 4 THE WITNESS: That's what I need. You're going to vent -- you 5 know, you're going to vent emissions from an emission 6 unit, so you would have, say, a storage tank that would 7 emit volatile organic compound emissions. 8 control device, those emissions would just emit straight 9 into the atmosphere. So without a But what a flare essentially does 10 is you hard pipe -- you pipe those emissions that would 11 vent from that storage vessel, and then you would vent 12 them to a flare which is essentially they're combusting 13 the emissions that would have otherwise went to the 14 atmosphere. 15 would go to the atmosphere, the flare combusts 98 percent 16 of those so that only 2 percent of those emissions go to 17 the atmosphere, so it essentially reduces the emissions 18 from the emission unit by 98 percent. 19 20 21 22 23 24 So like if 100 percent of the emissions SENATOR HUNTER: When you say "combust," does that mean it's a flame? THE WITNESS: Right. Yes, it's a flame. Yes, it's burning it. SENATOR HUNTER: So that's all onsite, and I might see a flame burning there? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 53 3/22/16 THE WITNESS: Yes, you would see -- yeah, 2 right. 3 and you see a tall pipe with a flame coming out of it, 4 that was what would be considered a flare, yes. 5 Like, you would see -- like, if you are at a site SENATOR HUNTER: Okay. And so that would 6 still release some emissions into the air? 7 THE WITNESS: Right. It would release 8 essentially 2 percent of the emissions that it would have 9 otherwise released, and also because of the flame, 10 because of the combustion. 11 emissions such as like nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, 12 particulate matter. 13 those, as well; the flare itself would. 14 15 It also generates combustion It also generates emissions from SENATOR HUNTER: The other question I had was -- I think you said this general permit is voluntary? 16 THE WITNESS: Correct, yes. 17 SENATOR HUNTER: Does that mean, then, 18 that if somebody was asking for a permit and they said, 19 "I don't want to agree to the voluntary permit"? 20 THE WITNESS: Right. Like, a general 21 permit is voluntary, so what we do when we develop a 22 general permit is we look at a specific industry type. 23 Like in this particular case here, it's the natural gas 24 compressor stations. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 And we make a determination of what Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 54 1 the common components are, such as engines, glycol 2 dehydration units, emergency generators, small heaters, 3 flares, things of that nature, and we write regulatory 4 requirements to cover as many different situations as we 5 can. 6 unique situation. 7 before that wanted to use some type of like chemical that 8 would reduce NOx emissions from an engine, and so we had 9 to go in and write specific requirements that would Obviously, we can never -- I mean, there could be a Like, for example, we've had people 10 regulate that. And so what we've done is we develop 11 this. 12 qualify for it, so they apply. 13 one it's issued, it's issued. 14 little bit, tweak it to say, "Well, you can operate 500," 15 or 1,000 hours or whatever. 16 voluntary, meaning that if they can't meet the 17 requirements of this permit or they can't meet the citing 18 criteria of this permit, that doesn't mean they can't get 19 a permit. 20 avenue. 21 construction permit. 22 path. 23 comment period, and it is a little bit more expensive 24 than this, so this is a much more efficient process for An applicant sees it. They determine that they We can't change any -We can't modify it just a So it is completely It just means they have to explore another They have to get what we call a 45 CSR 13 Then they have to go down that That 45 CSR 13 permit, it has an additional Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 people to use, but it is voluntary. 2 3 SENATOR HUNTER: thought. THE WITNESS: 5 CHAIRMAN KOON: down. Okay. That's what I Thank you very much. 4 6 55 3/22/16 All right. Okay. Now you can step Thank you. 7 THE WITNESS: 8 (Witness stands aside.) 9 CHAIRMAN KOON: 10 Thank you. Let's take about a 10- minute break. 11 (WHEREUPON, a recess 12 was taken.) 13 CHAIRMAN KOON: Let's reconvene and go 14 back into session. 15 another Board member who is with us now, so we'll catch 16 him up as we go through. 17 18 Mr. Yaussy, you're still here? MR. YAUSSY: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call Ryan Crowe to the stand. 19 20 We have been joined by Mr. Mills, (Witness sworn.) WHEREUPON, 21 RYAN CROWE 22 WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS, DULY SWORN, AND TESTIFIED 23 AS FOLLOWS: 24 DIRECT EXAMINATION Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 BY MR. YAUSSY: 2 Q 3 56 3/22/16 Mr. Crowe, would you please state your full name for the record? 4 A Ryan Crowe. 5 Q By whom are you employed? 6 A Eureka Midstream. 7 Q What is your position with Eureka Midstream? 8 A I'm an engineer for them. 9 Q What kind of work do you do for Eureka? 10 A I've done facility and pipeline design work 11 for Eureka. 12 Q 13 14 Can you give us a little bit of history about yourself, starting with your education? A Sure. I graduated from Montana Tech with a BS 15 in petroleum engineering in 1999. 16 work in New Mexico for Phillips Petroleum, then 17 Burlington Resources. 18 in construction in Colorado and North Carolina, then came 19 back to work for EQT running operations for about eight 20 years -- pardon me -- about the first several years as a 21 production engineer and then the last five years, I 22 guess, as a director of Midstream operations, so I was 23 mostly on day-to-day operations of these assets that 24 we're talking about. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 From there I went to I then got an opportunity to work Then I went to work for Triad Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 1 Hunter as a facility engineer designing facilities, 2 working very closely with the air quality folks, trying 3 to make sure that we were putting together good, sound 4 designs, and then recently went to work for Eureka 5 Midstream. 6 Q Are you familiar with Midstream operations 7 such as those covered under the Class II General Permit 8 G35-C we've been discussing today? 9 A I am. 10 Q That's been a big part of your practice? 11 A It is. 12 Q Have you reviewed the G35-C? 13 A I have. 14 Q And you're generally familiar with what it 15 provides? 16 A Generally familiar, yes. 17 Q And does it speak to the types of work that 18 57 you do for Eureka and that you've done in your past? 19 A It does. 20 Q Mr. Crowe, you're familiar with or you've seen 21 the appeal items that WVONGA filed. 22 A I have. 23 Q The first one -- and you heard me mention it 24 during the opening -- was the prohibition on unreasonable Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 58 3/22/16 amounts of light and noise. Do you recall that? 2 A I do. 3 Q Why do you have lights at a compressor 4 5 station? A Primarily safety. We have to respond to any 6 incidents that occur 24 hours a day, whether that site is 7 manned or unmanned. 8 certainly needs to be able to see what he's doing, where 9 he's walking, what he's walking around to be able to 10 11 12 When the operator gets out there, he safely perform the task at hand. Q buildings. Some compressor operations are inside Correct? 13 A That is true. 14 Q But even there, there are portions of the 15 16 compressor station facility that are outside. A Yeah. Correct? Most typically the only equipment that 17 is enclosed in buildings would be the compressors 18 themselves. 19 equipment, ends up being outdoors. 20 21 Q All your separation, all of that ancillary And are lights necessary for the work that's done outdoors? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q Mr. Crowe, does having a condition such as 24 3.2.8 -- And let me just show that to you just so we're Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 59 3/22/16 1 all on the same page, which says for the Board's benefit, 2 "The registrant shall not create a nuisance to the 3 surrounding community by way of unreasonable noise and 4 light during operation." 5 effect does that have on use of a general permit like 6 this? 7 A You've got that 3.2.8. What Well, I think that -- I think that the 8 companies might be a little bit concerned about using the 9 general permit with that clause in it because it's not 10 well-defined as to what is unreasonable. 11 other provisions that I've seen, for instance, in other 12 states as well, have indicated what those levels would be 13 at the closest resident. 14 air modeling in the State of Ohio, they're going to look 15 at what your emission levels would be at your nearest 16 neighbor. 17 better define what that decibel level would be at that 18 closest home, at least then you could look at that and 19 determine whether the G35-C is a good fit for you as a 20 company or not. 21 a question mark. 22 Q Some of the For instance, if you're doing So if they could -- if maybe the State could As it stands right now, it would just be I'd like to ask you about the second item on 23 the WVONGA appeals, the prohibition of detectable 24 emissions, and you've heard about the proposed resolution Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 60 3/22/16 1 in Section 4.1.4 to add the phrase "regarding a closed 2 vent system." 3 Williams's testimony? Did you hear that today during Mr. 4 A I did. 5 Q And did you hear Mr. Williams testify about 6 certain types of emissions that -- certain types of 7 components that are designed to vent during operation? 8 A I did. 9 Q Was that accurate to your knowledge? 10 A It was. 11 Q Are there items that are intended to vent, 12 13 It was. that they would not be fugitive emissions? A Yes. You've got -- as I believe Mr. Williams 14 mentioned, you've got pneumatic control valves that are 15 powered by pneumatic pressure, somewhat similar to a 16 pneumatic impact wrench, if you will. 17 energy source that drives those opened or closed. 18 Regulators oftentimes are also pneumatically powered, and 19 as Mr. Williams mentioned, those are covered typically 20 under NESHAP. 21 22 Q It's just an And the important part of that is then those would not be evaluated for leakage. 23 A That's correct. 24 Q Not under the same standard, not under the Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 61 3/22/16 G35-C anyway. 2 A Correct. 3 Q Mr. Crowe, one of the appeal items that WVONGA 4 had was a concern about regulating tanks that contain 5 minimal amount of VOCs, believing that they should not be 6 regulated under the general permit because they just 7 don't have enough emissions to be concerned about. 8 you tell us about how -- what these tanks are and how 9 they operate? 10 A Sure. Can When we're talking about a tank that's 11 emitting less than 6 tons a year, which I believe is kind 12 of the direction that we're in, you're most typically 13 talking about a brine water tank, as Mr. Williams alluded 14 to. 15 going to come off of that -- off of that brine water. 16 You could imagine that the water being produced would be 17 fizzy, almost like soda pop when it goes into the tank, 18 so there's going to be some methane emissions, but you're 19 going to use a program like ProMax to quantify what that 20 level of emissions is and to make the determination of 21 whether it would or would not be above or below 6 tons 22 per year, so that you could then determine what you have 23 to do with that tank. 24 There would be some amount of emissions that are Q How does ProMax determine what the condensate Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 levels would be? 2 purpose of that program? 3 A 62 3/22/16 How do you determine that? What's the So ProMax is -- it's an incredibly powerful 4 engineering tool. I like to call it pure engineering 5 magic. 6 your water composition, and then you go through each step 7 of the process and you identify what the temperature and 8 pressure drops are going to be at each step along the way 9 up to and including into your tanks, and with that, You put in things like your gas compositions, 10 ProMax is able to determine, based on physical properties 11 of the components, what percentage of -- or basically 12 what the composition of the material that is in your tank 13 is going to be. 14 does so unbelievably well; I would say plus or minus 10 15 percent typically. 16 Q My practical experience has been that it You have -- tell us how you take -- the 17 general permit requires a sample to be taken from the 18 tanks. 19 get a representative sample? 20 sampling is done? 21 A Can you tell us whether it's always possible to Yeah. Can you tell us how the Let me start with that. So condensate 22 in this region very typically -- and you could consider 23 it most typically to be somewhat similar to gasoline. 24 It's a flammable, not combustible. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Crude oil would be Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 63 3/22/16 1 combustible. Condensate is more flammable. It does -- 2 at least in any instance I've ever seen, it floats on top 3 of water. 4 somewhere between .6 and .7, and water is more, so it's 5 less dense; therefore, it floats. 6 sampling a little bit more tricky. 7 bottom of the tank, all you would have to do would be to 8 open a valve on the bottom of the tank, put it into a 9 sample bottle, and you would get a good representative 10 sample, which is exactly what you would do for a water 11 sample. 12 condensate, there aren't valves at every few inches of my 13 tanks. 14 got to open the thief hatch, and then you -- It typically has a specific gravity of That in itself makes If it were on the However, because this floats on top of the I really just have a valve at the bottom, so I've 15 Q What's a "thief hatch"? 16 A I'm sorry. That's an entry port on top of the 17 tank that allows you to inspect your product, so you can 18 open that, look down into the tank, and see, amongst 19 other things, what your tank level is, and you're going 20 to see a liquid floating down there. 21 device -- pardon me, because I, too, am not a sampling 22 expert, but I have actually grabbed one of these samples, 23 but I don't recall what the device is named. 24 a string, and you essentially lower it down into the tank Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 They've got a But it's on Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 64 3/22/16 1 until it's just below the top, just submerged into the 2 tank, and then you kind of pop the string up, and it 3 opens a port in it which has got a check valve in it 4 which allows the fluid at that point into the cylinder, 5 and then you recover it to the surface, and you've got a 6 sample. 7 not be representative; first off, that volatile organic 8 compounds change over time. 9 exposed to ambient atmospheric conditions, the more There would be several reasons why this might The longer that they're 10 they're going to change. 11 our cars. 12 several years and then went to restart it and you see 13 that it's varnished, it's a similar phenomenon that's 14 going on in that tank, even over a day's period of time. 15 We see that in the gasoline in If you've ever left a tank of gas in a car for The other -- and I would say this is the more 16 pressing concern -- is grabbing a sample of condensate 17 when you only had inches of condensate on top of that 18 brine water is going to be very difficult. 19 that it would be impossible to get a representative 20 sample at that point. 21 actually on point in requesting that a sample be taken 22 when it can be taken. 23 going to be instances where it cannot, where you can go 24 in and -- what we would call it is sticking the tank. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 I would argue I believe that the State is My only point here was there are Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 65 3/22/16 1 Then you put a chemical on a rod or on a string into your 2 tank with a plumb bob on the bottom, and it turns colors 3 when it comes in contact with water. 4 that up, and you can therefore see what the level of the 5 oil or the condensate is on top, as well as what the 6 water level was below it. 7 instances where there's not enough quantity of condensate 8 floating on the surface of that tank, it's not going to 9 be practical to get a representative sample. Then you can bring My point to the State is: In 10 Q How much does it cost to run a sample? 11 A The sampling costs -- from what I've seen, it 12 depends on what level of analysis. 13 low as 800 dollars. 14 dollars. 15 requiring sampling of every tank within that tank battery 16 or perhaps just a representative sample of one of the 17 tanks, which obviously could have -- you know, with a 18 facility with eight plus tanks, it could have a 19 significant bearing on what that overall cost could be. 20 Q I've seen costs as I've seen costs as high as 2,000 And I'm not sure if the State is requesting or But if you just stick a tank, you'll know 21 roughly how thick the layer of hydrocarbon is, but it 22 won't tell you anything about the hydrocarbon. 23 you know about what the hydrocarbon is? 24 A How do Well, again, that kind of gets you back to Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 66 3/22/16 1 what data you're going to trust the most. Again, the VOC 2 or your volatile hydrocarbons that are within that tank 3 have probably changed over time as it's been in that 4 tank, and so, again, there's that question. 5 like ProMax is commonly used in our industry, and that's 6 what I'm most familiar with. 7 another program named HYSYS that does more of the same, 8 does a pretty good job at determining what those 9 compositions are, and we've tested those against actual A program I understand that there's 10 condensate tanks that are 100 percent condensate and 11 found the to be relatively close. 12 13 14 Q Is it the amount of condensate that is as important as the makeup in determining emissions? A Well, I think that Jerry made a valid point. 15 Certainly the composition of it is impactful. 16 got something there that is very light, almost like a 17 brake cleaner, you can imagine that stuff is very 18 volatile and is going to release a fair amount of -- but 19 you can also imagine that a very short period thereafter 20 you're going to have boiled off all of that light end, 21 and when you go in there to sample it, you're not going 22 to see any of that. 23 it, it's probably going to give you a best-case scenario 24 in regards to VOC-type emissions. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 If you've So to some extent when you sample So, you know, from Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 67 3/22/16 1 that standpoint I would say that, again, in a case where 2 it's a very minimal amount of condensate on top of a 3 significant amount of brine water, you would probably be 4 better off and get more accurate results relying on a 5 program such as ProMax or HYSYS. 6 tank or a tank where it's predominantly condensate, I 7 think that the State has a valid point, that in those 8 situations that we should be sampling to validate that 9 what we thought was going to happen is, in fact, 10 11 12 In a condensate-only happening. Q So you're not suggesting that the tanks shouldn't be regulated under the permit. 13 A That wasn't my position. 14 Q And you're not saying that there shouldn't be 15 Correct. some testing done of the tank. 16 A I'm simply asking that it be reasonable. 17 Q And the reasonable would be, in this case, the 18 19 sticking? A Would be if you have -- if the State could 20 define what a minimal amount of condensate is, and 21 perhaps they could reach out and talk to other companies 22 that are responsible for sampling this product as to what 23 level that would be. 24 requires that we track the through-puts on these tanks, Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 But the State has also -- currently Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 68 3/22/16 1 both in terms of water, brine water, and any condensate 2 that comes through them, and we stipulate that up front 3 in our permits. 4 enforcement avenues at their disposal, even barring this. 5 And I'm not sure that I understand what the premise is or 6 why the State would like to see these samples taken, but, 7 you know, so maybe if I could better understand what that 8 -- what that premise is, but -- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Q So I think that the State already has If you had appreciably higher levels of condensate than expected, would haulers know that? A Yeah. Your hauling companies are very quickly going to alert you to the fact. Q Explain why and how that is -- explain what haulers are and what they're doing at the site. A So we have -- at a typical facility we have 16 brine water, trucking companies that come, and you've 17 probably seen them driving down the road. 18 vehicle that's placarded to carry brine water. 19 a sealed vessel. 20 companies aren't going to allow you to take condensate in 21 those trucks and put it down the highway. 22 subject them and us as a producer to significant fines 23 should the DOT pull that truck over. 24 reasons, when a trucking company is removing liquid from They're in a It's not For an awful lot of good reasons, those Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 It would So for all those Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 1 a tank, they do so with a clear nipple -- that has been 2 my experience -- and they watch that clear nipple to 3 ensure that the product that they're loading into that 4 water truck is, in fact, brine water and is not 5 condensate. 6 condensate that was entering into that, that was being 7 produced into that tank, you'd become aware of it very 8 quickly as an operator because your water truck drivers 9 would be saying, "I'm not hauling that product," you 69 So if you had a significant amount of 10 know, that remaining product. 11 that oil/water interface, but they're not going to haul 12 off that product. 13 very aware that something was going on there, especially 14 if you had modeled that and came to the conclusion that 15 there should be zero or nil condensate within that tank. 16 Q They'll drain it down to So you would become very familiar, Along those lines, what would you consider to 17 be a reasonable percentage, that if the condensate was 18 less than X amount, X percentage, what would be 19 reasonable to use a sticking method and not have to get a 20 -- run a sample through a lab? 21 22 23 24 A This is more me just off the top of my head. I haven't done the analysis. Q Maybe 10 percent. In your experience 10 percent would generally be a de minimis amount? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 A 70 3/22/16 When I've run ProMax in the past, if the 2 product that's entering that tank is by and large brine 3 water, it tends to be that the emissions are well below 4 the 6-ton per year threshold that makes that a regulated 5 tank, and I believe that -- if I'm reading between the 6 lines correctly, I think that's what the State is getting 7 at when they're wanting to have that sampled. 8 9 10 Q They want to make sure that the emissions from that tank will be -- the VOCs will be less than 6 tons per year. 11 A Correct. 12 Q Because that trips another threshold, too, 13 doesn't it? 14 A It does. At that point then you would need to 15 install a control device on that tank to ensure that 16 you're destroying that vapor in a safe and 17 environmentally friendly matter. 18 Q Mr. Crowe, I apologize. I skipped over one of 19 the issues that we had. It had to do with leak detection 20 and repair requirements, and I'll be referring to that by 21 their initials LDAR. 22 requirements? Are you familiar with LDAR 23 A I am. 24 Q Are there LDAR requirements in this permit? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 71 3/22/16 1 A Yes, there are. 2 Q Can you explain to me generally what LDAR, 3 4 leak detection and repair, involves? A Sure. Historically and well before anybody 5 ever told us that we should or have to do this, that's a 6 routine part of what we do out there. 7 an operator assigned to a site or several operators 8 assigned to a site, and one of their more important job 9 functions is, on a routine basis, to walk down -- we call We typically have 10 it "walking down" the facility, which would be to walk 11 around each of the pieces of equipment to inspect for the 12 presence of leaks. 13 ways. 14 is the soapy water test, so we'll go through with every 15 threaded fitting, really every fitting, and spray soapy 16 water to see if we have any detectable leaks going on 17 there. 18 where we're walking down the facility. 19 for the hint of escaping gas. 20 that you can hear it in many instances. 21 for the presence of it, and we're looking for indications 22 that there might also be a leak there. They do that in several different On a new facility, you know, what we typically do Later on, they typically use an AVO methodology, We're listening Obviously, you can imagine We're smelling 23 Q Sometimes do you use a camera of any kind? 24 A Oh, absolutely. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Technology has now improved Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 72 3/22/16 1 to the point where we can use a -- FLIR is one common 2 name or common manufacturer of a camera which will -- 3 Q That is F-L-I-R? 4 A Yes, F-L-I-R. That is used to determine the 5 presence of leaks. 6 cons, but it is a pretty powerful tool that's out there 7 now. 8 Q I believe it has some pros and some You've said that there are leak detection -- 9 LDAR requirements under this permit. 10 requirements under federal programs? 11 A Are there also LDAR I believe that the OOOOa is now going to -- of 12 course, that's not necessarily in effect at the moment, 13 but it is also going to have LDAR provisions in it, as 14 well. 15 Q Are there differences between the way leak 16 detection and repair programs are set up under OOOOa and 17 under the State permit? 18 A There appears to be several, yes. 19 Q Could you give us an example of some? 20 A One of the changes or one of the differences 21 would be the federal program requires, I believe, an 22 annual inspection unless you get -- unless you have more 23 than 3 percent of your fittings count had detectable 24 leaks, at which point it goes to quarterly, and I believe Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 73 3/22/16 1 the State simply prescribes quarterly inspections to 2 occur. 3 difference where the OOOOa requires that once a leak is 4 repaired, that you confirm -- it simply states that you 5 confirm that the leak is repaired. 6 more prescriptive in that, and they require that you use 7 the same technology that you used to find the leak to 8 validate that you repaired the leak. 9 like much of an issue, but FLIR -- my experience with There's also another fairly significant The State is a little That doesn't sound 10 FLIR cameras are that they are very effective. They will 11 find leaks that you won't find with any other 12 methodology. 13 consider to be de minimis. 14 tank which had several ounces of pressure on it because 15 it was controlled by a control device, and it had bolts 16 that hold the thief hatch that I described earlier, that 17 protrude through the shell of the tank. 18 imaging you could actually see that there was a BLC 19 component coming out around the threads of the bolt and 20 out. 21 pressure-bearing device. 22 manufacturing tanks, and it would be an impossible leak 23 to repair. 24 you went in there with -- there's also the Method 21 In fact, they can find leaks that I would I've got experience with a And with FLIR Well, that's not -- a bolt isn't typically a That's a common methodology for You end up finding that it's -- you know, if Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 74 1 methodology. To go in with a Method 21 methodology, it's 2 going to tell you that under federal guidelines that 3 that's not really a leak, but it's such a small de 4 minimis quantity of product that it's not something that 5 needs to be repaired. 6 FLIR, on the other hand, is going to show that it's 7 a leak, and then if you went through -- and I'm not sure 8 how you could even repair that, but you make your best 9 effort. Maybe you tighten it up and hope that that's 10 going to repair it, and you go back with a FLIR camera. 11 There's a good chance that that teeny-tiny leak is still 12 going to exist, so -- 13 Q Whereas, if you use EPA Method 21 -- 14 A They're allowing you to go back to like a 15 Method 21 to validate that. 16 indication on my FLIR camera, but it's too small of a 17 quantity to be concerned with. 18 that portion, OOOOa is a little bit more of a reasonable 19 interpretation of how we could validate that a leak is 20 repaired. 21 22 23 24 Q Yep, I still see an So I believe, at least in Of those various detection methods, which one is most expensive and which one isn't? A Depending on what the company owns, if they own a FLIR camera, of course, the initial expense, that's Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 75 3/22/16 1 probably going to, in most cases, be one of your most 2 expensive, whether you purchase the FLIR camera, which 3 are about a 50,000-dollar device, or whether you bring in 4 a subcontractor to come in. 5 being very thorough and relatively quick and easy. 6 can literally walk down your facility, kind of taking a 7 panoramic view of it, and very quickly determine if you 8 have any sources or not. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q But it has the advantage of We're been talking about OOOOa. You Is it effective currently? A Not to the best of my knowledge, it is not. I believe it is a proposed rule. Q Are there federal LDAR requirements that apply in the absence of OOOOa until its adoption? A I'm probably not the expert on that. Not that I'm aware of. 17 Q I'm just asking to the best of your knowledge? 18 A To the best of my knowledge, no, but I 19 wouldn't be too surprised if there is something out 20 there. 21 Q To the extent that there isn't any federal 22 program, to that extent would the State permit be more 23 stringent than any federal requirements? 24 A Obviously, it would be. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 Q 76 3/22/16 The State has an LDAR program in G35-C. To 2 the best of your knowledge, the feds do not at this 3 point. 4 A Correct. 5 Q Why would you propose waiting until OOOOa is 6 finalized rather than starting with one program and 7 moving to a different one, when, as you heard Mr. 8 Williams, it will be changed? 9 A Sure. So, again, this is a task that's been 10 done routinely for years. Any reputable operator has 11 been performing LDAR as long as they've been operating 12 facilities. 13 very difficult to ensure that it gets documented and in a 14 timely manner properly to meet the requirements of the 15 permit. 16 responsible company, be it big or small, is likely going 17 to have to stand up some kind of a work management system 18 or some kind of a procedure to ensure that that's done 19 every quarter by such-and-such a date, that these devices 20 are inspected, identifying which devices those would be, 21 coming up with all of -- you know, what would be included 22 in a facility and what is excluded from that facility. 23 All of that would need to happen very quickly. 24 going to be a rather burdensome task. That's really not the concern. It becomes So to ensure that that's going to happen, a Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 That is It sounds like Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 77 3/22/16 1 it's going to be required at some point or another 2 anyway. 3 should the federal guidelines be separate or different 4 than what the State had initially required, would be even 5 more burdensome. 6 started down the path of and you're potentially throwing 7 that out. 8 annual inspections. 9 chosen to figure out what is included in a facility 10 versus excluded have now been better defined by the 11 federal program. 12 difficult process when that change occurs. 13 essentially going to double the work. 14 15 16 Q To do it once will be burdensome. To come back, Now, you've taken everything that you What were quarterly inspections maybe are now Perhaps the methodology that you've So all of that is going to make that a It's How many components are we talking about at a typical compressor station, just roughly? A Thousands. Every flange that -- because what 17 the State is talking about, and the feds as well, is 18 every potential leak source, so every flange that you 19 have at that facility would be, in my mind, a potential 20 leak source. 21 a potential leak source. 22 concern here is how do you document that? 23 you had to document that down to every component, you 24 would end up with -- you know, you would end up with a Every threaded fitting at that facility is Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 So, you know, the bigger You know, if Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 78 3/22/16 1 book as thick as a dictionary listing out all of your 2 components and what you're inspections were. 3 know that that's where the State or the feds are going, 4 but I just -- I just caution us that there are quite a 5 number of components out there, and to document that 6 properly as to which flange was leaking on this date at 7 these conditions, could be very, very difficult and 8 cumbersome. 9 Q 10 I don't And your concern is you'll do that -- you'll set up two systems for doing that? 11 A Yeah. 12 Q Under the -- 13 A If the federal standards end up deciding that 14 -- you know, that this is -- you know, that one thing is 15 required and another thing is not, then potentially, yes, 16 you've set up two systems, and/or your process relating 17 to frequency is going to change, and/or it's possible 18 that the questions you would ask during that inspection 19 would change. 20 operator, it could well be duplicative, and I don't know 21 that we even have a sense for how long it would be before 22 OOOOa is adopted. 23 of this work and it never even come to fruition, and 24 OOOOa rolls in. So all of these become a case where, as an Potentially you could go through all Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 Q 79 3/22/16 In light of OOOOa coming down the pike, is it 2 unreasonable to require LDAR requirements -- to establish 3 LDAR requirements in this general permit? 4 A I don't know that it's unreasonable. Jerry 5 makes a valid point that this is a -- you know, that this 6 is a permit that we in industry opt for. 7 it's going to be very burdensome in that there are likely 8 going to be a number of companies that opt not to use the 9 general permit because of the burdensome nature of 10 11 I can say that documenting their LDAR -- that LDAR process. Q I'd like to move on, if I could, to another 12 appeal item, appeal item 6, control devices. You heard 13 Mr. Williams testify about thermal oxidizers. Correct? 14 A I did. 15 Q And you heard they could be included in 7.1.2. 16 Correct? 17 A 7.1.2.3. 18 Q Right. Correct. Explain why and how -- what a thermal 19 oxidizer is and why it's useful, why it's a matter of 20 concern for WVONGA. 21 A Sure. In my experience, thermal oxidizers are 22 most typically used to combust a still vent that's 23 resulting out of a dehy, and I think we'll see a video 24 here a little bit later that will kind of augment or Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 80 3/22/16 1 explain to you what I'm talking about. That product ends 2 up being by and large steam. 3 looking at in GlyCalc, typically 95 plus percent of that 4 stream is steam. 5 insulated device where this -- that operates at a very 6 high temperature, and when primarily steam enters into 7 that combustion chamber, any remaining VOCs are then 8 oxidized and result in NOx and CO-type emissions, but 9 significantly reduces your VOC emissions at that In fact, from what I was So a thermal oxidizer is a very well 10 facility, as well as BTEX. 11 of how they're used or where they're used. 12 BTEX is an industry term typically talking about benzene, 13 toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene, which the State and 14 the feds have -- or at least the feds have identified as 15 significantly hazardous components. 16 Q So that's been my experience I'm sorry. You heard me ask Mr. Williams about two types 17 of control setups, one where they run in tandem and one 18 where they're redundant. 19 well, the in tandem and why it's important that the 20 permit recognize that type of operation? 21 A Could you explain why that -- Well, it was interesting because a permit to 22 some extent does already recognize some of those 23 provisions. 24 pardon me -- VRUs, which I think is 7.1.7, Subsection iii For instance, if you look at VOC -- or Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 81 3/22/16 1 and iv -- that would be 3 and 4 in Roman numerals -- the 2 State actually gives provisions within that to have a 3 backup device with that primary control device. 4 My concern, when I met with you or with WVONGA, is 5 that those similar types of backup devices could be used 6 in many different applications and almost certainly are 7 going to result in reduced emissions out there, so my 8 feeling would be that the State should be encouraging 9 companies to be taking those steps rather than 10 discouraging. Jerry is on -- or Mr. Williams -- I'm 11 sorry -- is on the record stating that this is an 12 individual -- you know, that you are opting for this 13 permit, and he makes a valid point. 14 unintended consequences. 15 testified to, is going to likely be quicker to obtain and 16 less costly to a company, so as a process engineer, as I 17 go to my superior and I say, "I believe we should be 18 doing, you know, this and this," in relation to a tandem- 19 type control to give us our most effective reduction, my 20 superior might look at it and say, "Well, that's great, 21 but then we can't use the general permit, and now we're 22 not going to make the deadlines that we need when we 23 construct this facility, so let's not use that tandem- 24 type control. However, there are This permit, again as he Instead, let's just do this. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 It's good Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 82 3/22/16 enough." And, you know, as a process engineer, part of this 3 also becomes, for me, safety. 4 State doesn't like to see in our air because they're 5 pollutants, I don't like to see on my facility because 6 they're dangerous. 7 me as a facility engineer. 8 concerns are irrelevant to me. 9 certainly take safety at a little bit different level 10 11 12 Q Not to say that environmental They're not. But I Can you give us some instances, some examples, of redundant controls? A 14 which is -- 15 Q 17 So that's probably what drives than I do environmental. 13 16 Okay. These same VOCs that the apologize. A Yeah. Now, so we just talked about tandem, I'm sorry. How about tandem controls? I I didn't give you a chance. Okay. So tandem, when the State's talking 18 about VRUs, they're talking about in Subsection -- or 19 Subsection iii and iv Roman numerals, they're talking 20 about having a backup device or a -- I guess that would 21 probably -- I'm sorry. 22 probably more of a redundant device. 23 would be that we're using -- within the permit, if you 24 look at 7.1.8, it's talking about a condenser and then Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 I'm off base there. That's A tandem device Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 83 3/22/16 1 the resulting vapors after you've condensed out most of 2 the heavier hydrocarbons and sent those back to the 3 tanks, that the resulting vapor is then sent and 4 combusted. 5 of -- within the permit as it exists, of what would be a 6 tandem -- a control that's done essentially in tandem. 7 8 9 Q So I think that would be your best example Is it clear that that's allowed under the permit? A It is in that particular instance, but I could 10 see, you know, another provision in here talks about a 11 carbon absorption system where you're taking your VOCs 12 and you're running them through a charcoal filter which 13 absorbs most of those hydrocarbons within that activated 14 charcoal, and then you've got some resulting stream of 15 unreacted components that goes into the atmosphere. 16 seems to me that if you had a high enough flow rate 17 through that, you might want to have a backup combustor 18 to ensure that anything that didn't get reacted within 19 the active charcoal would then automatically just go to 20 the combustor to be burned. 21 VOCs, and that potentially would result in a safer 22 facility to work on. 23 24 Q It It would result in reduced And is the concern that some of those tandem setups may not be approvable under the general permit? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 A 84 3/22/16 That is the concern. I guess what I would get 2 at for a reasonable way to apply this, just like the 3 State is looking at, a combustor tends to be that most 4 typical backup or that most typical tandem device. 5 Again, we talked about the BTEX system where we're using 6 a condenser with a combustor as a backup, and I just 7 talked about the carbon absorption system. 8 one thing that the State could consider is that within 9 each of these adding an additional Roman numeral To me, the 10 describing that, it would be acceptable to allow, you 11 know, a combustor to back up each of these. 12 other one that's commonly used would be a vapor recovery 13 unit, so that would potentially add two Roman numerals to 14 several of these different scenarios. And the 15 Q What about redundant controls? 16 A So we talked a little bit to Jerry about what 17 redundant controls were. 18 would be two devices in an either/or capacity. 19 we just talked about one thing working and then another. 20 Well, there's also instances where you could literally 21 have a backup device. 22 devices, so you could have two combustors that are sized 23 to handle the entire stream of pollutants from that 24 facility, where one is working primarily, and the second Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 What I'm talking about there Okay. So So that could be two identical Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 85 3/22/16 one is a backup to that primary device. The concern I had listening to Jerry's testimony was 3 I gleaned from that -- and maybe I'm incorrect, but I 4 gleaned from that that the State's intention would be, in 5 that scenario, that only be in service at a time, and I 6 can certainly understand, from an enforcement 7 perspective, why that might be their thought process. 8 would, however, propose that failures are unpredictable. 9 These devices could fail, and they routinely do. I I've 10 always said compressors haven't a heart. Christmas Eve 11 is a great time for an equipment malfunction. 12 State were to require that one device be in service and 13 another one not, then that means that there's going to be 14 some amount of pollutants that are going to be released 15 while operations responds to that issue. 16 manned facility might only be a matter of minutes, but on 17 an unmanned facility on Christmas Eve, where I'm trying 18 to find somebody who's appropriately sober, it could be a 19 number of hours. 20 have an increased emission that really wasn't necessary. 21 What I would argue would be that we are measuring the 22 constituents going in. 23 calculations to determine that they are under the 24 placarded limit for each of those devices, but my If the Now, that on a So during that time you're going to Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 We can certainly do the Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 86 3/22/16 1 recommendation, again from a safety and an environmental 2 standpoint, would be that both devices are truly in 3 service. 4 over to the other device. 5 pollution that's released, and there's no safety concern. 6 So that would just be one finer point that I'd like to 7 make to the Board. 8 9 10 That way if one fails, it immediately switches Q There's no incremental You heard Mr. Williams testify that if you have redundant controls, you wouldn't necessarily add emissions. 11 A For your PTE. 12 Q For your PTE. 13 A And I believe that to be a very reasonable 14 stance that the State has taken on that matter. 15 16 Q So it would just be the gas combusted plus the flare, the pilot emission. 17 18 That's correct. A The pilot emission in that, and I think that that is absolutely reasonable. 19 Q I would like to go on to flares, which is sort 20 of a similar thing. 21 being no downtime allowed for flares. 22 operating 24/7. 23 do? 24 A WVONGA was concerned about there They had to be Can you explain why that's difficult to Sure. With any of these -- Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 3 Q I'm sorry. 3/22/16 87 Not just flares, but for any control equipment. A For any of the control equipment that we have, 4 unfortunately, very little of it is manufactured in an 5 assembly line type scenario. 6 specifically engineered. 7 equipment, should one fail, can be very difficult to 8 obtain, oftentimes requiring several days to several 9 weeks of downtime while you wait for that component to be Most of this is The components for that 10 built and shipped to you, at which point you can make 11 that repair. 12 that it just needs to work. 13 there might have been that in a case where -- you know, 14 early on, at least my view of the permit was that we 15 weren't allowed to have redundant -- or that we were 16 discouraged from having redundant devices because of the 17 impact on PTE. 18 If I had two combustors and I lost a component in one of 19 them, most certainly now I'm not going to be as 20 concerned. 21 shipping and things of that nature for a large component 22 because I now have a second device that is adequately 23 destroying my constituents. 24 Q So that -- I believe the State's point is I think our bigger concern I think that obviously that would help. I'm not likely to have to pay for overnight Would there be a reasonable amount of downtime Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 88 3/22/16 1 for -- if you didn't have redundant controls, for flares 2 or other control devices to be repaired or just worked 3 on? 4 A I think that there would be. When you submit 5 your permit, you look at what the manufacturer says that 6 the destruction efficiency is going to be. 7 percent destruction efficiency means that it's perfect. 8 It completely takes 100 percent of your pollutant and 9 reduces it to CO2 and heat. Okay. Okay. So 100 Oftentimes companies, 10 even having -- you know, even having a manufacturer of -- 11 and I'll talk a little bit about a combustor. 12 having the manufacturer say that their destruction 13 efficiency is in excess of 99.9 percent, a company might 14 well say, "I'm going to only show on my permit a 15 destruction efficiency of 98 percent." 16 down to 95 percent. 17 you could conceivably have built that padding in to say 18 that essentially what you're saying -- when you're 19 claiming a 98 percent destruction efficiency and your 20 manufacturer is saying that in the real world it's 99.99, 21 you're essentially saying that you've got a 2-percent 22 downtime. 23 what those calculations are showing. 24 showing a higher emission than what the manufacturer Even They might go In such a way I would believe that That's really what -- you know, that's really Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 So if a company is Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 89 3/22/16 1 would otherwise claim that that component is capable of, 2 then I think that the argument could be made that the 3 company could be building in some downtime, and as long 4 as your overall annual emissions and your hourly 5 emissions -- as long as, you know, your permit writers, 6 when they were calculating your hourly emissions, took 7 into account that there could be hours when that control 8 device is down, and as long as your annual total was 9 lower than what you had submitted to the State, I think 10 that an argument could be made that notification in that 11 instance shouldn't or wouldn't be required. 12 Q In your experience, is it reasonable to 13 believe that any piece of equipment will work 100 percent 14 of the time? 15 A No, and that -- for that reason is why we very 16 rarely use the manufacturer's limitation anyway. 17 just kind of closing a loop. 18 kind of perceives of that when they are in the 19 enforcement role. 20 It's MR. YAUSSY: I don't know that the State With the Board's permission, 21 I'd like to just run a short -- I believe it's a 3-minute 22 demonstration of what a glycol dehydrator is. 23 relevant to the next series of questions. 24 MR. WANDLING: Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 No objection. It's Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 90 3/22/16 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't know how the 2 volume's going to be here, in case it causes anyone to 3 jump. 4 out of my computer. Unfortunately, I do not have the volume on coming 5 6 I'm not getting the volume. MR. YAUSSY: If we can't the volume up, I may just asked Mr. Crowe to approach the -- 7 CHAIRMAN KOON: 8 MR. YAUSSY: 9 10 That would be fine. If Mr. Wandling doesn't object, we'll just have him, Mr. Crowe, use that as a blackboard -- 11 MR. ELLIOTT: 12 COURT REPORTER: 13 Just make sure you speak loud so I can hear you. 14 THE WITNESS: 15 MR. YAUSSY: 16 I can't -- Will do. Let's go ahead and just pause that then, Jim. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. So in the natural gas 18 industry one of the main components that we need to 19 remove from our product is water. 20 occurring. 21 comes into these midstream (inaudible). 22 23 24 It's naturally It's (inaudible) saturated with water as it COURT REPORTER: to repeat everything you say. THE WITNESS: Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Louder, please. I've got Speak up. I'm sorry. In our industry Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 91 3/22/16 1 one of the things that needs to be removed from our gas 2 stream is water vapor. 3 glycol dehydrator. 4 through very briefly how that reboiler or how that dehy 5 system works. 6 essentially a large vat containing triethylene glycol 7 operated at a very high temperature, and I'll just kind 8 of walk you through. 9 out any water in constituents that are in the glycols, so To do so, we typically use a So with that in mind, I'll walk you It's composed of a reboiler, which is That 400-degree glycol vat takes 10 dry glycol exits the reboiler, and the first thing it 11 tends to do is to go through a heat exchanger. 12 intent there is to cool it down, but warm up any glycol 13 as it's returning to the reboiler, and that makes it a 14 more efficient process. 15 better job of stripping water vapor out of our contact 16 tower. 17 benefit, as well. 18 enters into a pump. 19 pumps it into our glycol tower where it enters onto the 20 top, and essentially it overflows from one level to the 21 next to the next, with natural gas coming into the bottom 22 and then percolating up through that triethylene glycol, 23 so it enters the tower as what we call lean or dry 24 glycol. The That cooler glycol can do a Therefore, that's also -- that's part of the So it cools. It cools down. It then That pump then takes that glycol and And as it's working its down through -- in this Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 92 3/22/16 1 case, they're depicting trays, and it's picking up more 2 and more moisture, but it's also picking up some volatile 3 organic compounds, as well, until the point where it is 4 now what we call rich or spent glycol, and it is then 5 returned out of that contact tower. 6 ever seen our facilities, the contact towers typically 7 are from 36 to 60 inches in diameter. 8 rather tall. 9 Midstream facilities, just to give you, I guess, a If you guys have They tend to be They're probably the tallest vessel on most 10 reference point. But that returning glycol then comes 11 in, and it's got a heat exchanger into what's called the 12 still column. 13 vent here in a moment. 14 to cool down that vapor that's coming out of the reboiler 15 to the point where the triethylene glycol will 16 recondense. 17 significant amount replacing triethylene glycol, because 18 it's hot enough that there's some amount of it that's 19 also trying to vaporize and to go up to your tank. 20 it's cooling that down to the point where steam -- it's 21 still hotter than steam, so typically you're going to 22 target -- let's talk in Celsius because the numbers are a 23 little easier. 24 degree temperature of your resulting vapor coming out of We'll talked a little bit about a still But what it's purpose is there is Otherwise, you would end up spending a So You're going to try to get like 110- Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 93 3/22/16 1 your still vent. 2 of a closed system there. 3 you had the old moonshine stills, it actually looks like 4 the worm inside of that still, and then it exits out and 5 goes into the flash drum. 6 It then comes in. Again, that's kind Basically it looks like -- if The flash drum does two things. First off, again, 7 that triethylene glycol, one could consider it to be a 8 little bit fizzy like soda pop with entrained methane in 9 it or at least typically your lighter red hydrocarbons, 10 methane, ethane. 11 it's gotten hotter -- pardon me. 12 gotten preheated to some small extent through that still 13 column, so that's also encouraging some of the other 14 emulsion-type behavior that existed prior to break, so 15 now it's more cleanly breaking into triethylene glycol 16 and then some amount of volatile organic liquids that are 17 floating on top, and so those are separated in your blast 18 separator. 19 Additionally, it's gone through and Additionally, it's Coming out of there, it then comes through the heat 20 exchanger that I talked about earlier. It's not trying 21 to warm itself back up so that when it now dumps into the 22 reboiler, it doesn't take as much energy, you know, from 23 our burner tube and the reboiler to get it up to 24 temperature. As it's hitting that reboiler, that cooler Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 94 3/22/16 1 typically 200-ish-degree glycol hits that, and now it 2 immediately is coming into contact with this 400-degree 3 glycol. 4 essentially that boiling is all the water that was -- you 5 know, that was contained within that is now essentially 6 being dried out. 7 -- that resulting vapor is what we call our still vent 8 vapor. It begins to boil violently, and within that, So that boils violently and that vapor 9 There's two pieces that I want to talk about. The 10 flash drum vapor is completely separate from the still 11 vent vapor. 12 It's 95-plus percent steam. 13 so, is mandating that if you want to put this back into 14 your flame zone, into your reboiler, you're going to have 15 to condense it first. 16 burn. 17 burn, so they've handled that provision nicely. 18 there are instances where -- and most of your -- most of 19 your energy actually comes out of your flash gas. 20 large, if I were looking at it from a BTU perspective, 21 something like 80-plus percent of your energy is coming 22 out of your flash vapor, and even after you, you know, 23 send this through a condenser, which is essentially a 24 heat exchanger which cools that water vapor down to the The still vent vapor is by and large steam. So the State, and rightfully Otherwise, it's just not going to It's just got way too much water vapor in there to Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 But By and Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 95 3/22/16 1 point where water becomes water, by and large most of 2 your energy is coming from the flash drum; as we call it, 3 flash vapor. 4 primary fuel source on their dehy. 5 experience at least with one of our common manufacturers, 6 Exterran, their dehys come configured that way from the 7 factory, that by default the flash vapor is -- the flash 8 gas is used as the primary fuel for that reboiler, and 9 there currently doesn't exist any provisions within the That's what producers tend to use as a In fact, it's been my 10 G35-C, that I can see, that would allow a company, if 11 they should so choose, to use that flash vapor as a 12 primary fuel source while not, for whatever reason, 13 deciding that it was economical or effective to condense 14 the water out of this stream to get that little bit more 15 energy. 16 of the things we wanted to talk about today, and that's 17 why we're showing you this. So I think that's what -- you know, that's one 18 BY MR. YAUSSY: 19 Q Stay up there just for a second. So the still 20 column should legitimately be running through a 21 condenser. 22 A You're not disagreeing with that. I am not. Unless you're going to put it into 23 a thermal oxidizer, which is a whole different process. 24 But, yes if it's being returned to the flame zone of the Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 96 3/22/16 1 reboiler, I'm not aware of anybody that's ever even 2 attempted to do that without first condensing it. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Q Because if you didn't, you'd have all that water vapor and it could put the flame out. A Yes. You would almost certainly have reliability issues there. Q But off of the flash gases -- and those do not necessarily need to go through a condenser? A That's a great point. I should have pointed 10 out the flash gases -- again, no significant amount of 11 heat has been added to it at this point, so it's not 12 boiling off water. 13 saturated with water, just like 100 percent humidity air 14 is saturated with water, but that's a lot different from 15 -- you know, from a steam bath. 16 you're getting out of your still column. 17 can and often is used as a primary fuel source in that 18 state, and it works reliably and effectively. That gas will come out what we call That's essentially what So that product 19 Q Without running through a condenser. 20 A Without running through a condenser. 21 Q But the G35-C, as you read, it would require 22 23 24 you to run those flash gases through a condenser first. A No, it requires that the still vapor be required to go through a condenser and that the flash Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 97 3/22/16 1 vapor, after I've done that, can be used as a primary 2 fuel source. 3 I'm not sure I understand why the State would require 4 that I do anything here. 5 calculate emissions from each, our still vent as well as 6 flash gas. 7 them our GlyCalc report, and the State would very easily 8 be able to see, and they do routinely see, what these 9 emissions would be. To me, they are two separate processes, and We typically use GlyCalc to So when we submit to the State, we provide And within GlyCalc I can tell the 10 State that I'm going to use no control on this vapor, 11 that it is simply going to go out as steam, out of my 12 still vent, and GlyCalc equally will allow me to then 13 assume that my flash gas is used as a heat source for my 14 reboiler and I would argue other sources. 15 That dehy burner doesn't burn 24 hours a day. It's 16 on and off as required, much like your furnace is at 17 home. 18 that fuel or that resultant vapor to your fuel system, 19 and you would allow your dehy to burn it as appropriate, 20 and if you had a natural gas-fired engine onsite, it 21 would probably burn some percentage of it, as well. 22 So, you know, in that case you would probably take Q So the problem isn't so much that it's an 23 inappropriate requirement for the still columns to go 24 through a condenser or to allow the flash gases to be Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 98 3/22/16 used -- 2 A In tandem with that. 3 Q -- in tandem with that. 4 Correct. It's the idea that you have to do them -- 5 A Both. 6 Q -- both. 7 A And there are certainly some cases out there 8 where producers opt not to want to have to go through the 9 incremental expense of installing a condenser and -- 10 Q And it would be -- 11 A It would be much more economical to use that 12 13 flash gas on its own as a primary fuel source. Q You heard me ask Mr. Williams -- and you can 14 have a seat again -- about language that could be put in 15 7.1.8.b, the glycol dehydration units. 16 -- you just explained how that -- how it all works. 17 would you rewrite 7.1.8 point -- well, 7.1.8 to allow the 18 kind of situation you described up there where the flash 19 gases were used, but the still vent was vented to the 20 atmosphere. 21 A Could you explain How Well, I guess -- let me start by, I guess, if 22 I can walk back up here, to try to at least explain where 23 my mind's at on this because I'm a little confused as to 24 how these differ. 7.1.8.b says that, "The reboiler shall Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 99 1 only be fired with vapors from the still column and the 2 flash tank, and natural gas might be used as a 3 supplemental fuel." 4 these flash gases and this water vapor, after being 5 condensed -- that's in the paragraph above -- can be used 6 as a primary fuel. 7 overheads -- again, your flash vapor and your still vapor 8 -- "from the still column may be introduced into the 9 flame zone of the reboiler" -- that's exactly the same So essentially it's saying that Okay. 7.1.8.c says these vapors and 10 place I was talking about with b -- "as the primary fuel 11 or with the primary fuel before the combustion chamber." 12 For me, I'm unclear of how they -- of how those two 13 differ. 14 to get back to what I believe the State is intending 15 here. 16 that we take this vapor and that we fully combust it at 17 all times while the dehy is running, and if that's -- if 18 that's what the State is after, then -- 19 20 21 What I had proposed instead would be trying just What I believe the State's intention here is is Q This is the language I asked Mr. Williams to consider, the still vent. A Okay. Thank you. Then my proposed wording 22 was, "If still vent vapors and/or flash tank vapors are 23 to be routed to the reboiler flame zone with enough 24 sufficient design to ensure that they are combusted at Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 100 3/22/16 1 all times through the dehy's burner cycle." So 2 essentially what I'm trying to do is boil out, if there 3 is a difference between b and c, and just simply try to 4 get to what I believe the State is intending, which is 5 that we thermally oxidize any of the VOC that's within 6 the system and to try to make that maybe a little bit 7 clearer. 8 cases producers, for whatever reason, might choose to 9 install a condenser and only use the still vent vapor. And then I'm saying "and/or" because in some 10 In other cases, as I discussed a moment ago, they might 11 choose to use the flash vapor as their primary fuel 12 source. 13 for a producer to use either/or or both as a fuel source 14 for their reboiler. 15 Q I'm simply trying to allow for the flexibility Mr. Crowe, that brings us to issue 9, 16 reporting emission bypasses to the director in writing. 17 WVONGA has appealed this issue because it doesn't feel 18 that all emission bypasses should have to be reported to 19 the director in writing as opposed to being logged. 20 you explain to us why that is an onerous condition? 21 A Can The -- when that -- I guess one of the bigger 22 concerns becomes that we in the office become aware that 23 there's that issue, so there becomes the difficulty in 24 communicating that out to our team. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 I don't know that my Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 101 3/22/16 1 position is necessarily that it's onerous. I've had to 2 make those reports on several occasions actually to West 3 Virginia, and I found them to be very reasonable to work 4 with. 5 where they would probably be less than interested. 6 instance, we talked about a case where I've got several 7 combustors at a facility, and production has fallen back 8 to the point where I really only needed one of them. 9 now let's say I've got four combustors, which is not I believe, though, that there would be instances For And 10 untypical, and I only need three of them to function at 11 any given time, and one of my four, for whatever reason, 12 fails in the middle of the night, and quite frankly, I 13 probably don't even become aware of it immediately, 14 because the other three carry on, continue to destroy the 15 product. 16 pick that up with any detection equipment. 17 argue that in instances where you're still within your 18 permit, where you haven't increased incremental pollution 19 -- where there are no resulting incremental pollution in 20 your permit, that it probably should not be required. 21 I'm not saying again that it's onerous. 22 stating that I don't know that the State wants to waste 23 their time any more than I want to waste mine identifying 24 them of an issue that has zero impact on the site's I don't -- you know, I wouldn't necessarily Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 So I would I'm simply Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 emissions. 102 3/22/16 So that, I think, would be one. And I talked a little bit about a case where if you 3 had built in some downtime when you were calculating your 4 potential to emit from a device, I would like to think 5 that you would be able to use that downtime or that 6 incremental emission that you had built in without 7 potentially having to notify the State. 8 my two instances where that might be the case. 9 Obviously, on the location the operator is still going to 10 document that that failure occurred, what the root cause 11 was, and the information that the State requires. 12 simply asking that maybe in those instances that the 13 State consider a little different approach. 14 15 Q Those would be I'm So all those events where there's a bypass or a failure of a control have to be put into the log. 16 A That is correct. 17 Q And you have to describe what happened and how 18 long you were down and emissions -- 19 A Incremental emissions, the root cause. 20 Q And you believe it would be reasonable that if 21 there were no significant incremental emissions as a 22 result of the bypass or the downtime, that it just be 23 something put in the log instead of a written report for 24 the director? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 A I believe that that would be more timely for all involved. 3 4 103 3/22/16 MR. YAUSSY: I have nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. WANDLING: 7 Q Mr. Crowe, Jason Wandling. 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q I have a few questions about your testimony 10 here today. 11 you okay? 12 A 13 Nice to meet you. Would you like to take a break first, or are I could probably use another cup of coffee. MR. WANDLING: Well, if the Board doesn't 14 want to take a full break, perhaps if we could grab 15 something to drink, that's fine. 16 17 CHAIRMAN KOON: You want to take just a second to do that? 18 THE WITNESS: 19 CHAIRMAN KOON: 20 (WHEREUPON, a recess 21 24 We'll take five minutes. was taken.) 22 23 Sure. CHAIRMAN KOON: session. All right. We're back in Mr. Wandling, go ahead. MR. WANDLING: Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Thank you very much. Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 BY MR. WANDLING: 2 Q 3 104 3/22/16 Again, Jason Wandling for DEP. Did you personally submit any comments to the G35-C? 4 A I did not personally. 5 Q And did you do any work on this permit during 6 the development phase? 7 A I did not. 8 Q Do you have any permit writing experience? 9 A I worked with the State for the G70-B permit, 10 but as a permit writer, no, I do not. 11 Q You've never worked for a regulatory body? 12 A I have not. 13 Q The whole point of a general permit versus a 14 Rule 13 permit is to create a sort of faster, less 15 complicated permitting product. Correct? 16 A That is my understanding, yes. 17 Q And you'll agree with me that a general permit 18 is not going to fit every producer's needs. 19 A I do agree with that. 20 Q And I apologize from the start. I realize I 21 may be kind of loud, but that's simply for the court 22 reporter. I'm not trying to make a point or anything. 23 A That's fine. 24 Q Okay. Let's talk about each of these issues Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 in turn then. 2 them. 3 was needed for safety. 3/22/16 105 I have a few brief questions about each of First, you testified that light in your opinion Correct? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q And you said that companies might be hesitant 6 to use the general permit because of light and noise? 7 Was that accurate? 8 9 A Might be hesitant to use it as it's currently written because it's unclear as to what those provisions 10 would require the company to later on do to become in 11 compliance. 12 Q Would you agree with me that if a permittee 13 doesn't believe that the provisions on light and noise 14 contained in the G35-C would apply well in their 15 situations, they could apply for a Rule 13 permit 16 instead? 17 A Yes, I would. 18 Q And, in fact, are you aware of any companies 19 that have in fact applied for Rule 13 permits that 20 include provisions that regard light and noise? 21 A I am not, no. 22 Q And did you personally submit any comments 23 24 requesting a specific quantification of noise? A No, I did not. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 Q 106 3/22/16 And let me rephrase that given your prior 2 testimony. 3 comments regarding a specific quantification of noise? 4 A 5 for a fact. 6 Q Do you know whether WVONGA submitted any I believe that they did, but I don't know that So you don't know if they said a certain 7 decibel level of noises would be better or not. 8 don't have any information about that? You 9 A I do not. 10 Q Is your answer the same with regard to light? 11 A Yes. 12 Q What other states regulate light in this 13 14 instance? A Do you know? I've only worked in the States of West 15 Virginia and Ohio, and I'm not aware that either of them 16 do typically. 17 Q Do you know if Ohio regulates noise? 18 A I don't recall them regulating noise. 19 Q And you're not aware, sitting here today, 20 whether or not other states across the United States have 21 any regulations whatsoever with regard to noise or light 22 in this situation? 23 A I'm not. 24 Q Now, issue 2, I don't have any questions about Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 107 3/22/16 1 that. Issue 3 was resolved, so we don't need you for 2 that today. 3 recall testifying about that today? Issue 4 turns us to the LDAR issue. Do you 4 A Sure. 5 Q Now, the proposed OOOOa requires that closed 6 vent systems must operate with no detectable emissions. 7 Is that correct? 8 9 COURT REPORTER: Repeat that. I'm sorry. BY MR. WANDLING: 10 Q Sorry. The proposed OOOOa requires that 11 closed vent systems must operate with no detectable 12 emissions. Correct? 13 A That is correct. 14 Q And once that becomes a federal rule, a final 15 and effective federal rule, you'll have to comply with 16 that. Correct? 17 A That is correct. 18 Q Do you know when the new OOOOa will be 19 finalized by EPA? 20 A No, I do not. 21 Q But it's not currently in effect. 22 A That's correct. 23 Q And it could still change between now and when 24 it goes into effect. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Correct? Correct? Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 108 3/22/16 1 A Sure. 2 Q And you testified that if the rule is 3 different or if it changes, then it will be costly to 4 companies to change their compliance with that rule. 5 Correct? 6 A That is correct. 7 Q But that regardless, once OOOOa is finalized 8 and in effect, your companies and WVONGA will have to 9 comply with it? 10 A Absolutely. 11 Q Do you have any reason whatsoever to doubt Mr. 12 Williams's testimony here today that once that federal 13 rule becomes final and is in effect, that the G35 permit 14 will be changed to reflect those changes? 15 A No, I do not. 16 Q Let's move on to tanks then. Now, under the 17 G35-C that we're talking about today, that's not required 18 for all tanks, is it? 19 permit if you'd like. And take your time and look at the 20 A Can you kind of point me in a direction? 21 Q I'm sorry. Hold on a second. It's in Section 22 5.0, but that's not exactly pinpointing it. 23 few pages there. 24 A (Examines document.) Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 There's a Are you referring to Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 109 3/22/16 1 5.1.4? 2 Q Yes, sir, 5.1.4. 3 A And what was your question? 4 Q That doesn't apply to all tanks, does it? 5 A I believe that 5.1.4 would. "The registrant 6 shall determine the VOC emission for each storage vessel 7 to determine the effective facility status." 8 9 Q Okay. But under 5.1.6, that's the section that required the site-specific sampling. Correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And under that provision, that doesn't apply 12 13 14 to all tanks, does it? A (Examines document.) I actually read it that it would. 15 Q Okay. Please just read 5.1.6 for me then. 16 A Sure. "Site-specific sample. (Only for 17 storage vessels with no air pollution control devices or 18 VRUs)." 19 20 Q sampling. And your testimony was about the site-specific Correct? 21 A It is. 22 Q Okay. 23 24 And so that site-specific sampling isn't required for all tanks, is it? A No. It would only be those tanks that you'd Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 3 4 5 6 110 3/22/16 believe to be lower than the 6-tons-per-year threshold. Q How many tanks is that, do you think, in the State of West Virginia? A I would have no idea. I can tell you more on a specific facility. Q Okay. Any facility that you're working on 7 permitting issues for right now, how many sites would 8 that be? 9 10 A Where there are tanks that exist without a control device? 11 Q Yes, and that -- 12 A And that site-specific sampling would 13 therefore be required. 14 Q Yes, sir. 15 A Most of our -- most of our facilities that are 16 producing lean or lower BTU gas, that are pumping lower 17 BTU gas, this would almost certainly apply, so we've got 18 two, but they're in Ohio, two sites that I'm working on 19 right now, and all tanks at each of those facilities 20 would fall under this sampling provision. 21 22 Q But if that's a hardship, then you can still apply for a Rule 13 permit. Correct? 23 A You could. 24 Q And you're not forced or compelled to get the Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 3/22/16 111 G35-C for those sites, are you? 2 A No. I don't know that my testimony was that 3 I felt that this was onerous. 4 simply instances where getting a sample of, you know, 5 volatile organic compounds might not be possible, and in 6 those cases I didn't know what the State wanted you to 7 do. 8 Q I simply -- there are And just to be clear -- and this is for my 9 understanding less than, frankly, to make a point -- was 10 it your testimony that it would be reasonable to require 11 testing, but only if the State defines what condensate to 12 test for? 13 A I believe it would be more applicable if they 14 could speak with some people who actually sample to 15 determine what amount of condensate within a tank would 16 be an appropriate amount to get, at that point, a 17 representative sample. 18 top of my head, but I can imagine that a quarter of an 19 inch of condensate would never allow you to get a good 20 representative sample. 21 22 Q I don't know what that is off the Do you know whether DEP DAQ, spoke to anyone about that issue? 23 A I do not. 24 Q Did you submit a comment to DAQ about that Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 3/22/16 112 issue during the comment process on the G35-C? A No. At the time that that was in comment, I 3 was actually working for a production company, which is 4 why I worked with Jerry on the G70-B as opposed to the 5 G35-C. 6 Q Do you know whether WVONGA submitted a 7 comment to DEP DAQ about that issue during the comment 8 period? 9 A I do not know. 10 Q Let's move on to issue number 6, if you don't 11 mind, the emission control devices issue. 12 A Sure. 13 Q You testified about thermal oxidizers, but you 14 heard Mr. Williams testify earlier today that those are 15 permitted by the G35-C. Correct? 16 A Yeah. I think that's correct. 17 Q And you testified that the G35-C does indeed 18 already contemplate some control devices running in 19 tandem? 20 A Yes, and I can see that in the permit myself. 21 Q And the G35-C contemplates having backup 22 23 24 control devices. A Correct? From Mr. Williams's testimony, yes, that became clear. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 Q 113 3/22/16 You anticipated my very next question, that Mr. Williams testified about that. Correct? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And you don't have any reason to doubt his 5 testimony in that regard? 6 A Absolutely not. 7 Q And you recognize that different control 8 device setups, either for backup or redundancy, could be 9 approved in a Rule 13 permit. 10 A Yes, they can. 11 Q Now, with regard to redundancy, do you 12 understand that the federal government does not permit 13 the DEP to permit for malfunctions? 14 A I do not. 15 Q Do you know what an SSM SIP call is? 16 A I do not. 17 Q Okay. Are you aware of how the federal 18 government takes issue with how, say, West Virginia in 19 its state implementation plan treats the startup, 20 shutdown, and malfunction issue with regard to 21 permitting? 22 A Again, I do not. 23 Q Do you know whether EPA is requiring DEP to 24 place specific conditions in a permit for malfunctions Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 114 3/22/16 like that? 2 A I do not. 3 Q But if it were and if that were the case, then 4 that would be a reasonable reason to include that in the 5 G35-C? 6 A Correct. 7 MR. YAUSSY: Well, I'm going to object. 8 You're asking him for conjecture based on something that 9 he doesn't know anything about? 10 MR. WANDLING: 11 BY MR. WANDLING: 12 Q Okay. Let's move on to flares. I'll withdraw it. Now, could a flare 13 that has a control efficiency of 98 percent, but was 14 allowed a 5-percent downtime -- could that meet the 95 15 percent standard in 40 CFR 60, Subpart OOOOa, as it 16 stands today? 17 A Can you repeat? 18 Q I sure can. Could a flare that has the 19 control efficiency of 98 percent, but was allowed a 5- 20 percent downtime -- could that meet the 95 percent 21 standard in 40 CFR 60, Subpart OOOOa? 22 A I do not know. 23 Q Fair enough. 24 So you would not know, then, whether allowing for a 5-percent downtime for flares Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 1 could affect the applicability of the NSPS OOOO in 2 question? 3 A I do not. 4 Q And so you couldn't comment on whether 115 5 allowing for that downtime, that you testified, would 6 essentially place the G35-C in a state of noncompliance 7 with federal law. 8 A No, I couldn't testify to that. 9 Q Fair enough. Now, if you don't mind, let's 10 talk about what I call dehy, my favorite new technology 11 I've learned about. 12 today, how many companies operating in West Virginia 13 can't meet the requirement as written? To your knowledge sitting here 14 A As written in G35-C? 15 Q C. 16 A There would have been sites at two of the 17 companies that I worked for in previous -- I don't know 18 how to quantify that across the board, but two out of the 19 three that I've worked for would have issues with that as 20 it's currently written. 21 Q And if that's a problem, then they could 22 submit a Rule 13 permit application to cover that. 23 Correct? 24 A Yes, that's correct. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 Q 116 3/22/16 And you offered a rewrite of 7.1.8 here today. Correct? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Was that your -- was that your language that 5 you drafted? 6 A It was. 7 Q That's not language that you submitted to DEP 8 during the comment period, is it? 9 A No. 10 Q And, in fact, today is the first time DEP has 11 seen that language. Correct? 12 A That's probably correct. 13 Q Unless something's -- 14 A Unless something's afoot. Again, I hadn't 15 worked in -- you know, at the time of the comment period, 16 I was working for a production company. 17 Q Well, just to be clear -- and I keep 18 forgetting that -- WVONGA didn't submit that language to 19 DEP during the comment period. 20 A That's correct. 21 Q And with regard to the last issue, reporting 22 bypasses of emission control devices, you testified it's 23 not onerous to report them. 24 A Isn't that correct? We've had to do so in the past. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 3 Q 117 3/22/16 And the bottom line is you have to keep a record of those bypasses anyway. A That's correct, as well. My testimony is more 4 that I'm not sure that the State would be interested in 5 instances where there are no incremental emissions in 6 that provision. 7 Q But they might be. 8 A They might be. 9 10 Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN KOON: Mr. Yaussy, do you have any redirect? MR. YAUSSY: 14 Yes, just briefly. REDIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. YAUSSY: 16 Q You were asked questions by Mr. Wandling about OOOOa as it would relate to the G35-C permit. Correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And your concern was with inconsistencies? 20 A It is. 21 Q And you've laid those out for the Board 22 I don't have anything else for you. 13 17 They might be. MR. WANDLING: 11 12 Correct? already. 23 A Correct. 24 Q Has any of his questions changed your belief Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 118 3/22/16 1 with regard to whether the LDAR provisions in the G35-C 2 ought to be there? 3 A I don't believe that they have. Again, I 4 believe that what it's going to end up doing is requiring 5 most likely twice the amount of work, because the work 6 management system and processes are going to have to be 7 developed for this general permit and then at some point 8 in the very near future are going to need to be thrown 9 out and restarted with most companies to, at that point, 10 11 12 comply with federal regulations. Q You were asked about Section 5.1.6, site- specific sampling? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And its applicability. Are storage vessels 15 that contain just condensate and produced water pretty 16 common in the Midstream arena? 17 A Somewhat. Most -- you know, most storage -- 18 it depends on the percentages. Right? You're never 19 going to find pure brine water with zero VOCs on it, and 20 you're never going to find pure condensate with no brine 21 water within it. 22 the majority of the time they tend to be in separate 23 tanks, but, again, the concern I've got with that is that 24 there are many instances where you've got a brine tank But by and large, my experience is that Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 119 3/22/16 1 which is going to contain the vast majority of brine 2 water with a very, very small amount of condensate in it, 3 and at that point how am I going to gather a sample? 4 Could it possibly be representative, and are we not 5 really kind of wasting all of our time trying to gather 6 that sample? 7 condensate in there, then, you know, I don't know that 8 that's an onerous provision. 9 one-time activity. 10 Q If there's a sampleable amount of It's a one-time -- it's a Reporting the bypasses. The issue there was 11 reporting in writing and any additional followup. 12 Correct? 13 A Yeah, it is. I mean, it is a time-consuming 14 process. In my experience it probably took, just in 15 terms of my own time the last time we had a control 16 device malfunction -- I'm going to say it probably took 17 something like 20 hours of my time to track down the 18 required information to provide the State with a full and 19 complete report of what happened, why it happened, how 20 long it occurred for, what the incremental emissions were 21 in that instance. 22 MR. YAUSSY: 23 CHAIRMAN KOON: 24 Board? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Nothing further. Any questions from the Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 (No response.) 2 CHAIRMAN KOON: 3 THE WITNESS: 4 (Witness stood aside.) 5 CHAIRMAN KOON: 6 MR. WANDLING: 7 MR. YAUSSY: 8 MR. WANDLING: 9 Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wandling? Have you guys rested? We do. Well, in that case, I will call Mr. Jerry Williams. 10 11 120 3/22/16 (Witness previously sworn.) WHEREUPON, 12 JERRY WILLIAMS 13 WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS, DULY SWORN, AND TESTIFIED 14 AS FOLLOWS: 15 DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. WANDLING: 17 Q Good morning, Mr. Williams. I'm not going to 18 ask you about any of your credentials because I assume 19 they haven't changed from this morning. Correct? 20 A No. 21 Q To assist the Board, we're here to discuss a 22 general permit, not a specific Rule 13 permit. 23 describe to the Board what the difference is? 24 A Sure. Could you As I said earlier, when we go decide Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 121 3/22/16 1 we're going to develop a general permit, it's usually 2 because we have already experienced a large number of 3 sources applying for similar processes. 4 is we'll make a determination of what emission units 5 exist for that industry type, what control devices exist 6 for that industry type, what type of emissions we can 7 expect, and then from there we'll look at the possible 8 rules that may apply, and we try to attempt to write an 9 encompassing document that will take into consideration So what we'll do 10 all the various emission units that may exist and the 11 possible control devices and try to cover as many sources 12 in that industry type as we can. 13 a general permit would be more general than a specific 14 permit for a company. 15 specific permit, what you're doing there is you're 16 looking at exactly what it is that the company's going to 17 do, the exact emission units, the exact operating 18 parameters, the control devices. 19 time we can be much more specific and prescriptive as to 20 what would be needed to meet the regulations for those 21 sources rather than a general permit. 22 Q So a lot of times like So when you look at a Rule 13 So at that point in Does the agency expect that a general permit 23 will be able to cover 100 percent of all the sources in 24 one category? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 1 A No. 2 Q In fact, there's no requirement for general 3 122 permits at all, is there? 4 A No. 5 Q So why do we have a general permit? 6 A Well, a general permit, like I said, if we 7 have a lot of sources that apply for the same type of 8 permit, it is a more efficient process, not only for the 9 companies to obtain registration under, but also for the 10 agency since the permit itself is already written, so we 11 don't have to continue to review and write the same 12 requirements over and over. It's done one time. 13 Q How many general permits do we have? 14 A We have 10 general permits in our air program. 15 Q And what types of sources are covered by 16 17 general permits? A We have general permits for coal preparation, 18 hot mix asphalt, the natural gas industry, like rock 19 crushing and concrete batch plants, and emergency 20 generators. 21 Q 22 23 24 What if a particular source doesn't meet a general permit? A What do they get then? If a source cannot meet the requirements of a general permit, then they would be required to apply for Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 123 3/22/16 a 45 CSR 13 construction permit. Q Now, what's the process for creating and 3 designing a general permit like the one we're talking 4 about today? 5 A You know, when you go to develop a general 6 permit, like I said earlier, you look at the types of 7 sources that have applied for, like in this case, a 8 compressor station permit in the past and what type of 9 emission units they have, what type of control devices 10 they use, what type of emissions you can expect, and what 11 rules apply, and you take all that information, and from 12 there you can determine what the operating parameters 13 should be that would be placed in that permit. 14 15 16 Q Is that permit then, as drafted, sent out for public comment? A Yes. Once we develop a draft general permit, 17 then we would go to public notice with it. 18 notice in newspapers across the State of West Virginia 19 notifying the public and also industry and also EPA that 20 we plan to issue this permit and we're asking for public 21 comments, and that's a 30-day public comment period. 22 23 24 Q And even if the source is eligible for a general permit, do they have to use it? A We publish a No. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 Q 124 3/22/16 And we've talked about how you can get a 2 specific permit for your own needs. 3 general permits that DAQ has, have any of these permits 4 been modified or changed since the time the permits were 5 originally issued? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Can you think of one? 8 A Yes. 9 Now, of the 10 All of our general permits except for one has been modified at least once. The only one that 10 has not been modified is we have a Class I general permit 11 for small engines for the natural gas industry. 12 permit has been in effect for seven years, and we've only 13 done nine registrations under it, so it's a very 14 underutilized permit, if you will. 15 16 17 Q That How many iterations of the permit we're talking about today have there been? A The G35-A -- well, I mean the G35. There's 18 one -- the permit that's in effect right now is G35-A, 19 and so we were in the process of modifying that permit to 20 G35-B, but we ended up pulling that general permit back, 21 so it never actually amounted to anything, so what 22 happened was this permit now is the only modification to 23 the G35-A that exists. 24 version, just once. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 There's no B, so it's the C Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 Q And aside from citizens, does industry have a chance to offer input on the general permits? 3 A Yes. 4 Q All right. 5 125 3/22/16 issues in particular. Let's talk about each of these Okay? 6 A Okay. 7 Q Let's start with noise and light. And why 8 would DEP impose a noise or light condition in the first 9 place? 10 A From feedback that -- from feedback that we 11 had got from citizens regarding this issue. 12 taking that level, I mean, if a citizen comments on 13 things, you know, we take those issues very seriously. 14 So as I said before to Mr. Yaussy that, you know, we had 15 worked with companies in the past where I know of several 16 occasions where we have placed noise and light language 17 in Rule 13 permits. 18 we'd put that language in there to make sure that we 19 wouldn't have issues with this in the future so as to a 20 company that would apply for a general permit would be 21 able to avoid the provisions that we have placed in Rule 22 13 permits in the past. 23 24 Q I mean, So when this permit went to notice, And in addition to comments from industry, like WVONGA, you receive comments from citizens. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 126 3/22/16 Correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Did you receive comments with regard to noise 4 and light during this process from citizens? 5 A Yes. 6 Q What was the gist of those comments? 7 A Some in support of the language that we placed 8 in the general permit, some that they wished that we 9 would do more than what was in the general permit, the 10 draft version, yes. 11 Q When you say "do more," what do you mean? 12 A Outside of shutting the natural gas industry 13 down? 14 where they were in favor of the language that we had 15 placed in there, but in other situations where they 16 wanted us to assign a numerical value to the noise level, 17 if you will, in that permit. 18 No, I'm just making a joke. Q There were situations But your joke reveals that DEP had a 19 consideration for whether or not one sort of extreme or 20 another should be pursued with this new permit. Correct? 21 A I'm not sure I understand your question. 22 Q Well, you joked about having limitations so 23 extreme that it would shut the entire industry down. 24 you remember that? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Do Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 127 3/22/16 1 A It was a joke, yes. 2 Q I know, but that's a consideration. 3 4 Right? While you're drafting the permit? A I mean, I don't know -- I don't know that I 5 understand the question. So as I talked about earlier, 6 how we had issued permits that had specific noise 7 language in it, Rule 13 permits, and the permits that I 8 was involved in, we had prescribed a certain emission 9 reduction for the silencers that were to be used on the 10 engines. I mean, that's an easier process to go through 11 in a Rule 13 permit because you can look at the exact 12 pieces of equipment you're dealing with, and you know 13 what the end result would be at the closest receptor. 14 General permits, it's more difficult to do that because 15 you have -- every situation is going to be different. 16 You won't know who the closest receptor may be. 17 don't know that level that may affect. 18 certain numerical value to that, I believe, would be 19 difficult to do. You So assigning a 20 Q Let's move on to issue 4, shall we? 21 A Sure. 22 Q Can you explain once again for the Board what 23 24 LDAR is? A It's leak detection and repair. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 3 Q 3/22/16 128 And what kind of leaks are you talking about in the broad picture here? A We're talking about fugitive leaks that may 4 happen at -- as Mr. Crowe said, you have flanges or 5 valves, things of that nature, fittings that, you know, 6 possible leaks could occur. 7 8 9 Q And what are OOOO requirements -- OOOOa requirements? A Okay. 40 CFR 60, Subpart OOOOa, is a proposed 10 rule where they did propose LDAR standards that would 11 prescribe to a company, if the rule became final, what 12 they would need to do in order to meet those LDAR 13 requirements. 14 Q And when did the rule become final? 15 A It has not. 16 Q A proposed rule is not a promulgated rule. 17 Correct? 18 A Correct. 19 Q And as it stands right now, NSPS OOOOa is a 20 promulgated rule? 21 A No. 22 Q Could you explain the difference for the Board 23 24 between a proposed rule and a promulgated rule? A Sure. In this case, this is a new source Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 129 3/22/16 1 performance standard that's a EPA -- it's a federal rule, 2 so when they go to propose a rule, they make the rule, 3 the proposed rule, available for the public, and they 4 also begin a public comment period. 5 comment period, they obviously solicit comments on the 6 rule that they would then have to review and then respond 7 to. 8 the proposed rule is, meaning that it could be slightly 9 different or significantly different than what was During that public History has shown that the final rule is never what 10 proposed. 11 chance to review and respond to all the public comments, 12 at that point in time the rule becomes final or 13 promulgated. 14 formal declaration, a proclamation, if you will, that the 15 new rule is in effect. 16 17 18 Q So once the comment period ends and EPA has a I mean, promulgation is essentially a If or when that happens, what would the agency do with regard to the G35-C? A As we stated in our response to the comment 19 document, if 40 CFR 60, Subpart OOOOa, becomes a final 20 rule, that we would modify the general permit to 21 incorporate all those standards in the general permit, 22 which would include the LDAR language that's in question. 23 24 Q Let's move on to issue 5, the produced water storage tanks. Does the DAQ have the authority to Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 3/22/16 130 regulate storage tanks? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And what rules provide the authority for that 4 under G35-C? 5 A It would be 45 CSR 13 and 40 CFR 60, Subpart Q What is DAQ's common practice regarding 6 7 8 9 OOOO. storage tanks? A The common practice of the DAQ regarding 10 storage tanks is that the DAQ has a policy on permitting 11 storage tanks -- it's on our website -- which states that 12 we reserve the right to set emission limits, throughput 13 limits, tank turnovers, vapor pressure, things of that 14 nature on storage vessels. 15 would be if a specific rule applied to the storage vessel 16 or if the facility itself may be close to major source 17 status. 18 would remain below major source thresholds. 19 Additionally, 40 CFR 60, Subpart OOOO, which is final -- 20 Well, I take that back. 21 registrants to determine their VOC emissions in order to 22 determine effective facility status under 40 CFR 60, 23 Subpart OOOO, which requires the applicant to do an 24 emissions determination. Times that we would do that That way we could ensure in the permit that they Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 The Permit G35-C requires the Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 131 3/22/16 1 Q But they're required by federal law. 2 A Yes. 3 Q And the DAQ has required only those tanks that 4 will have no controls and claim to have yearly potential 5 emissions below the NSPS threshold to take a one-time 6 sample. 7 A Actually, it's only -- we require a one-time 8 sample for tanks that have no controls. 9 has no controls, they have to do a site-specific sample. 10 11 Q So if the tank Does that language appear in any other DAQ general permits? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Which one? 14 A It's in General Permit G70-B. 15 Q And has anyone appealed that condition? 16 A No. 17 Q Now, when Mr. Yaussy was asking you questions, 18 he asked you about what might be in the condensate in the 19 liquid, and it's my understanding that you acknowledged 20 there could be varying substances in that liquid. 21 that accurate? 22 A Yeah. 23 Q Why is that? 24 A Well, every situation is different. Is It's unknown. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 You have Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 132 3/22/16 1 different areas. I mean, they could even be close by 2 where in one area you have something with a lot of 3 hydrocarbons and in another you don't, but without a 4 sample of that general area, you would have no idea what 5 -- I mean, I would have no idea what's in that tank. 6 Q Is that why sampling's important? 7 A Yes. 8 Q During the comment period, did anyone to your 9 10 11 memory comment about the sampling issue, tell you that it would be impossible? A The comment that we got about the sampling 12 issue was whether -- in the original permit we had 13 required pressure and temperature instrumentation, and we 14 were asked to have that removed because of third parties 15 that would be doing the sampling, that they would have 16 their own measurements. 17 that, but no one commented on the actual not sampling the 18 material, if that was your question. 19 Q So we went ahead and removed Issue 6, control devices. How did the DAQ 20 determine the emission reduction devices and control 21 devices listed in the actual G35-C? 22 A You know, we went and we looked at the common 23 compressor stations that we see for permits, you know, 24 for the Rule 13 permits that we got, and made a Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 133 3/22/16 1 determination that the air pollution control devices and 2 emission reduction devices that are listed in that 3 general permit were the ones that were common to this 4 industry that we've been permitting in the past. 5 under no circumstances will a general permit accommodate 6 every possible control device that's out there, but we've 7 made every effort to make sure that the general permit 8 provided the greatest permit coverage. 9 10 11 12 13 Q And so And do you have the permit in front of you? Isn't it up there? A It is gone. (Counsel tenders document to the witness.) Okay. Q Now, in their appeal WVONGA is asking DAQ to 14 allow any applicant to use any control device so long as 15 it's named in their registration. 16 for a general permit registration application? 17 A Why is this a problem When we developed the general permit, you 18 know, we tried to accommodate all emission reduction 19 devices and air pollution control devices that were 20 common to this industry. 21 issued, it can't be changed unless we modify it. 22 permit a -- or to allow any type of control device or 23 emission reduction device that may exist without 24 parameters in the permit, it would make that -- you know, Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 So once a general permit is So to Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 134 3/22/16 1 it would not be fairly enforceable, so in order for us to 2 approve a control device or emission reduction device, we 3 would have to have the proper monitoring and record- 4 keeping reporting and/or testing in the permit to make it 5 fairly enforceable. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q What if the source wants to use a control device that's not listed in the general permit? A They would not be eligible for the general permit, and they would need to apply for a 45 CSR 13 construction permit. Q Now, you don't have it in front of you, but in 12 issue 6 of the appeal, WVONGA wrote, "There are many 13 types of emission control and reduction devices that 14 could be found in a permitted facility that would be 15 useful and should be covered under the permit. 16 example, flares controlling blowdowns or pigging should 17 be allowed." 18 period did anyone request flares controlling blowdowns 19 during the -- did anyone request flares controlling 20 blowdowns? For To your recollection, during the comment 21 A Not to my knowledge, no. 22 Q Did anyone during the comment period for the 23 G35-C request the pigging that's mentioned on item 6 of 24 their appeal? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 135 1 A No. 2 Q Why can't all the possible controls be written 3 4 into a general permit? A It's hard to -- it's impossible to predict 5 what the future may hold and what control devices may 6 come about. 7 operate in a certain manner for it to be effective, so 8 that operating -- those operating parameters would need 9 to be written into a permit to ensure that that control If you have a control device, it has to 10 device, whatever it may be, would be effective in 11 achieving the emission reduction that we would set forth 12 in the permit. 13 Q Let's move on to issue 7, flare operation. In 14 general, are controls allowed to -- or essentially do you 15 permit for non-operation time or downtime? 16 A In a general permit, no. 17 Q Why not? 18 A Once again, a general permit is general in 19 nature, and it has to accommodate any specific source 20 that would apply for it. 21 general permit without any type of monitoring or record- 22 keeping to justify that would be impossible. 23 Additionally, you could get into a situation where that 24 downtime would result in a synthetic minor, because you Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 So to permit downtime in a Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 3/22/16 136 1 would have to require additional data to show that it was 2 below major source threshold possibly, which synthetic 3 minors are not allowed under a general permit. 4 5 Q Okay. In the G35 permit, what control efficiencies are assigned to flares? 6 A 98 percent. 7 Q And how is that determined? 8 A Okay. 9 The flare control devices are regulated under federal NSPS 40 CFR 60.18 which states what the 10 operating parameters of a flare must be, and EPA has said 11 that if the flare meets those operating parameters, then 12 it's assumed that the flare is getting 98 percent 13 reduction -- destruction efficiency for VOCs. 14 Q And could a flare meet the 98 percent control 15 requirement of this general permit with 5 percent 16 downtime? 17 A My opinion is no. 18 Q And that would put the permit in violation of 19 federal law. 20 A In an instance, if a flare was controlling a 21 storage vessel, and so if you just picture it for ease of 22 discussion that the storage vessel would have -- or there 23 would be 100 tons VOC emissions from the storage vessel, 24 and the flare was getting 98 percent, it would reduce it Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 137 3/22/16 1 down to 2 percent -- I mean to 2 tons. So if you allowed 2 that flare 5 percent downtime, so if you applied 95 3 percent to the 98 percent, then that would mean that it 4 was only being reduced by 93.1 percent. 5 Subpart OOOOa, for storage vessels says that if a flare 6 was going to be -- or if a storage vessel was going to be 7 more than 6 tons, it would have to reduce its emissions 8 by 95 percent. 9 was controlling a storage vessel and you allowed 5 Well, 40 CFR 60, So my opinion would be that if a flare 10 percent downtime, then I don't believe that it would meet 11 the 95 percent reduction efficiency that's required in 12 the federal rule. 13 Q So you're bound by that federal rule. 14 A Yes. 15 I mean, if they have more than 6 tons of emissions from a storage vessel, they must reduce -- 16 COURT REPORTER: 17 THE WITNESS: 6 what? Excuse me 6 tons per year. If they 18 have more than that, then they are required to reduce 19 their emissions by 95 percent. 20 BY MR. WANDLING: 21 Q Okay. 22 A Okay. 23 Q Glycol dehy. 24 Let's move to number 8 in the appeal. Do us all a favor and walk us through Section 7.1.8 of the G35-C. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 A Okay. 138 3/22/16 Not to repeat myself, but this started 2 back in 2008 when we were working on the development of 3 the G35-A general permit, and DAQ worked with members of 4 WVONGA and IOGA in developing this language. 5 was, I guess, improved upon or updated to current 6 standards to include condensers and flash tanks. 7 intent of this was to outline what would happen if a 8 condenser was used or if a flash tank was used, and when 9 we went to notice with this originally, the permit And then it So the 10 requirement in 7.1.8 did say that the registrant may 11 claim a catch and control efficiency of 50 percent for 12 these units meeting the requirements of a and b. 13 was not our intent, but that's what ended up -- you know, 14 this document -- it's a big document, so we had an issue 15 there, so we did go back to say that it would only apply 16 if it was a or b. 17 deals with situations where a condenser would be 18 utilized, and Section b of the requirement would apply in 19 a situation where you had a flash tank situation. 20 That And so Section a of that requirement Today was the first time that, you know, that I had 21 a chance to listen to what Mr. Crowe had to say in 22 regards to this issue, and I'm not -- like I'd said 23 earlier, you know, we'd be more than happy to look at 24 that and make a determination of whether or not we felt Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 139 3/22/16 1 that that met what we needed, but this is the first time 2 that I've heard what intent -- like I said earlier, the 3 intent was to look at it whether it was condenser or 4 flash tank, so there's new information to us today that I 5 had not known up to this point. 6 that during the comment period, and WVONGA didn't make us 7 aware of this until today, so I don't really feel that I 8 could speak to what Mr. Crowe has proposed, but, you 9 know, we can look at that, I believe. 10 11 12 Q No one had commented on Would you say you made the best decision you could at the time with the information you had? A Yes. I mean, based upon our past dealings 13 with WVONGA and IOGA on this issue and from numerous Rule 14 13 permits over the years that we've issued to this 15 industry, this was the first time that this came up to us 16 that there was a problem with this language. 17 18 19 20 Q And at the time that you drafted the permit, how many companies said they couldn't meet this issue? A Only one company has ever claimed that they could not meet this. 21 Q If you would, let's move on to issue 9. 22 A Okay. 23 Q This is the control device bypass reporting to 24 the DEP. Why does permit condition 7.5.2 require the Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 140 3/22/16 registrant to notify DEP if a control device is bypassed? 2 A The reason we ask for the notification is we 3 feel that this requirement ensures that the capture and 4 control efficiency that this permit allows is being met. 5 We believe that if the control device is bypassed, that 6 it's highly possible that rule circumvention has 7 occurred, so we want to be sure that no rule has been 8 circumvented by bypassing the control device. 9 10 Q And such bypasses already have to be recorded. Correct? 11 A Correct. 12 MR. WANDLING: 13 Williams, thank you very much for your time. 14 nothing further. 15 THE WITNESS: 16 CHAIRMAN KOON: Just one second. 17 Mr. I have Thanks. Mr. Yaussy? CROSS-EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. YAUSSY: 19 Q Mr. Williams, you testified that the purpose 20 of the general permit is to do something that is useful 21 for both the State and for industry. 22 23 24 A And to ensure that all regulations are met, Q Fair enough. yes. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 But the idea is -- the goal is Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 141 3/22/16 1 to prepare something useful. 2 made your job easier as a permit writer. 3 industry's job easier because they know what to expect. 4 A I believe you testified it It makes Long-term, it makes it easier for the program 5 itself to review these type of applications, and it also 6 makes it -- it makes it -- everyone has an even playing 7 field. 8 they have to do to meet the permit and meet the rules. 9 We believe that the permit as written meets all the You know, industry knows exactly what it is that 10 rules, so we don't have to recreate it every single time 11 that a company would apply for a permit. 12 it easier for our enforcement staff because they know 13 exactly what it is that they need to look at when they go 14 out to these facilities, so, yeah, and it ensures that 15 all regulations are met. 16 process, I believe, more efficient for all parties. 17 Q It also makes So, yes, it is an easier So that is one of the goals, something that's 18 more efficient that still complies with the regulations 19 and the law. 20 A Yes. 21 Q Now, you wouldn't say that there's no limit on Correct? 22 what you can put into the permit. 23 some limits on what you can put in the permit? 24 me give an example. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Correct? There are Well, let You couldn't put a stormwater Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 142 3/22/16 monitoring condition in that permit. Correct? 2 A No. 3 Q Okay. 4 A Because that would be covered under the Water 5 6 Why not? and Waste Section of the DEP. Q Do you have authority, though, to do that? 7 Let me ask you this. 8 Division of Air Quality is authorized to regulate certain 9 things. 10 Under Chapter 22, Article 5, the Correct? A Yes. Before we go too far with this, I want 11 to make it clear that -- I mean, I'm not at the executive 12 planning type level maybe to answer some of these 13 questions. 14 Q I'm more of a technical person. If you can't answer the question, that's fine. 15 But you're authorized to regulate the emissions into the 16 air of solids, liquids, and gases. Correct? 17 A Correct. 18 Q And if you emit a solid and it lands on the 19 ground and runs off in the stormwater, you still wouldn't 20 say you could regulate that. Right? 21 A I wouldn't say that. 22 Q Okay. 23 A No. 24 Q Is light a solid, a liquid, or a gas? Is noise a solid, a liquid, or a gas? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 143 3/22/16 1 A No. 2 Q Where then do you get the authority to 3 4 regulate those things in a general permit or otherwise? A Yeah, I think I'm just going to repeat what I 5 said earlier when you asked me these questions -- it's 6 that based upon, you know, comments that we had received, 7 you know, from the public on these issues and the fact 8 that a general permit is a voluntary process, we felt it 9 was a reasonable condition under Section 5.11 of Rule 13 10 to place that in there, especially with the record that 11 we had in the past where we have issued Rule 13 permits 12 with the noise language in there. 13 Q Let me ask you about those general -- those 14 individual permits. Did the permit applicant come to you 15 and ask to be regulated for noise and light? 16 A No. 17 Q Did you insist on it? 18 A I can only speak to three of those, because I 19 20 21 22 was only involved in three of those. Q What you testified about, so whatever you testified about. A So two of those we had approached the company 23 about that issue because of public meetings that we had 24 had with residents on those issues. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 The other, the third Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 144 3/22/16 1 one that I can talk about, I didn't ask the company if we 2 could do that. 3 noise and light. 4 the permit, and we received no comments from the company 5 about that, and it was issued. 6 Q There was concern from citizens about We put the noise and light language in Mr. Williams, would you have issued the 7 permits if people had said -- if the applicant had said, 8 "No, we just don't want those conditions in there"? 9 talking about the conditions prohibiting noise and light 10 11 12 13 I'm at certain levels. A I'm not the final decision-maker on whether a permit gets signed or not. Q Would you have recommended that -- would you 14 have recommended approval of a permit that you were 15 writing where you imposed a noise and light condition, 16 and the applicant said, "No, I don't want that in there"? 17 A I don't know how to say this other than the 18 fact that, yes, I make recommendations. 19 permit application. 20 what to do with this, and then I would submit that to 21 management. 22 what we have with noise and light, if there was outcry 23 from citizenry about noise and light, I would go to 24 management about that and suggest what it is that we do. Okay? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Like, I review a I would make a recommendation as to So if -- based upon past history of Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 145 3/22/16 1 I mean, but to say that would I recommend that, I mean, I 2 don't know what you mean. 3 4 5 Q I mean -- What I mean is those applicants really have no choice at all, do they? MR. WANDLING: I'm going to object. He's 6 already asked for speculation, and now he's adding an 7 argument on top of the speculative question. 8 MR. YAUSSY: I think what I'm asking is 9 whether anybody could refuse those conditions such that 10 they are actually voluntary or whether you're, in fact, 11 requiring the same thing. 12 THE WITNESS: I think that whether it was 13 noise and light or whether I said that -- not I, but, I 14 mean, whether or not the DAQ put noise and light 15 requirements in a permit or we go in and say that you 16 have to monitor your hourly emission rate for an engine 17 nonstop, okay, you as a company, in my opinion, would be 18 able to appeal that. 19 noise and light requirements. 20 monitor my engine hourly," and you could appeal it, and 21 if you appeal it and it would come out that we were 22 incorrect, then -- You could say, "I don't want the 23 MR. YAUSSY: 24 THE WITNESS: Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 I don't want to have to What would you --- but no one appealed it. Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 146 3/22/16 1 I mean, we had six permits that we issued with that in 2 there, and to my knowledge no one appealed any of those. 3 BY MR. YAUSSY: 4 Q What would you be appealing? 5 appealing -- you'd deny the permit. 6 would be appealing. 7 8 9 A You'd be That's what you Correct? I mean -- well, I mean, you're appealing the issue, so what are you appealing? MR. WANDLING: Again, I'm going to 10 interpose the same objection. 11 and he's being questioned about permits that have been 12 issued and not appealed and are final that have nothing 13 to do with this actual permit. 14 MR. YAUSSY: We're talking about G35-C, Well, no, he's saying you 15 could go -- if you don't like the noise and light 16 requirement, go get an individual permit, and what I'm 17 finding out from him is that you can't necessarily get an 18 individual permit without that condition unless you want 19 to get that imposed on you, or if it gets imposed you, 20 you can take it up on appeal and spend a lot of money and 21 a lot of time fighting the condition. 22 find out what exactly the cost -- what's involved in 23 this, if it really is a choice I can get an individual 24 permit without noise and light conditions. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 And I just want to Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 147 3/22/16 CHAIRMAN KOON: Mr. Yaussy, I don't know 2 that there's any more that you're going to get from that 3 line of questioning. 4 5 I think you ought to move on. MR. YAUSSY: I will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 6 BY MR. YAUSSY: 7 Q Talking about the LDAR requirements, Mr. 8 Williams, I think we'd agree with you that the OOOOa is 9 not yet effective, and, therefore, you couldn't impose 10 its requirements in the G35-C. 11 here is what other provisions of federal law would have 12 required the LDAR requirements in the permit? 13 A Okay. I guess what I'm asking I'll talk about LDAR at a high level 14 rather than getting into the details of it all because 15 I'm not an LDAR expert. 16 requirements that would possibly require LDAR, one, I 17 think the way this thing started off with is like 18 fugitive leaks from this industry is -- it's a high level 19 of concern, and if you -- you know, if you've done any 20 research on this at all, you will see that there is a 21 high level of concern from, you know, EPA as to what 22 leaks occur at these facilities. 23 concern considering that they have recently proposed LDAR 24 requirements. So as far as other federal Obviously, there is a So Section 5.11 of Rule 13 allows us to Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 148 3/22/16 1 impose reasonable conditions on facilities, and so we 2 believe through that process that we should develop LDAR 3 language to minimize fugitive leaks because there were a 4 lot of leaks from these facilities that were -- and I'm 5 not trying to say that what Mr. Crowe said is not true. 6 I mean, maybe he's very diligent in making sure that his 7 facilities have no leaks, but everyone may not be as 8 diligent as him, and you could have facilities that 9 essentially had no internal LDAR monitoring, if you will, 10 and they had, you know, a lot of leaks that were going 11 into the atmosphere. 12 that actually -- there are LDAR programs for federal in 13 an NSPS, and I believe that would be Subpart BB and BBa 14 of 40 CFR 60. 15 going to ask me specific questions about that, I will not 16 be able to answer them. 17 Q But as far as federal programs go But I'm not an LDAR expert, so if you're Nor am I. I will not ask you any specific 18 questions about those. 19 different than the ones you have in the G35-C, then 20 companies will have to redo their programs. 21 A True. If the OOOOa requirements are Correct? But I would like to elaborate on that 22 issue, something that Mr. Crowe had said that I would 23 just like to -- it was just a level of concern when I 24 heard him. He had said, like, okay, if they would follow Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 149 3/22/16 1 the LDAR program that is in General Permit G35-C, and 2 then 40 CFR 60, Subpart OOOOa comes out, and it differs, 3 that they would have two separate programs and the 4 expense and the time that would go into that. 5 comment period for the G35-C, WVONGA and other companies 6 proposed to us that we put the LDAR language from the 7 proposed rule in the permit in lieu of the language that 8 we developed. 9 becomes final, then Mr. Crowe would be in the same exact During the Had we done that, and then if OOOOa 10 position he's in right now, because he would have 11 implemented the proposed rule that WVONGA suggested 12 versus the final rule that hasn't been promulgated yet. 13 So I still think that two programs would be warranted if 14 we would have taken the path that WVONGA had proposed in 15 their draft -- I mean, in their comments. 16 17 Q Although generally those proposed rules come out pretty similar to the final rule. 18 A Not always. 19 Q Mr. Williams, you heard Mr. Crowe testify 20 about getting samples from tanks. 21 his testimony that sometimes you just can't get a 22 representative sample? 23 24 A Do you disagree with I'm not a field sampler, so I don't think that I could answer that. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 3 Q 150 3/22/16 If somebody couldn't get a representative sample, what should they do in that situation? A Not that I can ask Mr. Crowe a question, but 4 can I express something that he said that I might not 5 have fully understood? 6 Q Sure. 7 A Okay. So when he says that they can't get a 8 sample from -- maybe there's not enough condensate on top 9 of the brine, so he didn't feel that he could get 10 something that was representative. 11 ProMax, which I'm aware of, but I guess what my thoughts 12 are, if you don't have the sample or the constituents 13 that are in that sample itself, what information would 14 have been input into that computer modeling program to 15 develop -- to come up with what the emissions were? 16 mean, I don't know what you would put in. 17 have a sample, what would you put into the program in 18 order to get the output of what your emissions are? 19 guess my concern is if you don't know what you have, how 20 can you conclusively say what your emissions are on the 21 back end? 22 23 24 Q He talked about using I If you don't So I I think the point was if it's so little, it wouldn't make any difference. A Well, there have been produced water tanks Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 151 3/22/16 1 that have blown up and deaths have occurred, so I'm not 2 comfortable with saying that that's true. 3 Q 4 answer that. 5 what you were saying about the fact you can't account for 6 every control device that might be invented between now 7 and then, between now and whenever, before the end of 8 this general permit, but certainly combinations of 9 control devices are allowed. 10 A Well, perhaps we can put Mr. Crowe on to Regarding the control devices, I understand Correct? I believe that we established that earlier, 11 yes, with the mindset that all that information was 12 provided in the permit application. 13 getting at is if like -- if you don't say that you have a 14 backup flare to a VRU, but you installed it and it was 15 not part of your application or part of what the 16 registration was approved on, then you would be in 17 violation. 18 known up front. 19 Q So I guess what I'm All that information would have to be made With regard to the flare operation and 20 downtime, do you agree with Mr. Crowe that -- and not 21 just flare operation, but control equipment -- that 22 control equipment can't be expected to work 100 percent 23 of the time? 24 A I agree with that, yes. Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 Q 152 3/22/16 You indicated why a 5 percent downtime might 2 be problematic. Is there some amount of downtime that 3 would be reasonable without causing the State to be 4 concerned about compliance? 5 A I'm not sure that you could put a numerical 6 value on it. 7 specific situation where a flare would control a storage 8 vessel. 9 from the storage vessel of VOC are greater than 6 tons The point I was trying to make earlier is a You know, the rule says that if the emissions 10 per year, that you have to install a control device that 11 gets a 95-percent destruction efficiency. 12 whatever control device it was that you were utilizing 13 and the percent that was assigned to it -- so if it was a 14 flare, it was 98 percent -- if you have 5 percent 15 downtime of that flare, then it would not meet the 16 federal rule. 17 Q I understand that. So if you had I understand your point 18 with regard to the 5 percent, but there could be some 19 downtime that would not interfere with that compliance, 20 wouldn't there? 21 A And Section 4 of the permit outlines, you 22 know, about -- I think it's 4 -- you know, if you do have 23 malfunctions of control devices. 24 nothing ever works 100 percent of the time, as Mr. Crowe Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 I mean, obviously, Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 said. 153 3/22/16 So, but -- 2 Q So are you saying that -- 3 A -- but for us, for the agency to allow 4 downtime of equipment to assign a numerical value of it, 5 that's impossible to do simply because of -- you know, of 6 what's involved. 7 we've established what those control efficiency are, so 8 if we say that, you know, we're allowing you to claim X 9 percent destruction efficiency for a specific control I mean, and what we've said as far as 10 device, if we then say you can have downtime, how can you 11 ensure that you're going to meet that control efficiency? 12 And like I said, if you wanted to permit a specific 13 amount of downtime or you don't want to use the flare 14 1,000 hours per year or whatever that may be, then we 15 need to write those requirements in a permit where we 16 have the proper monitoring and record-keeping and 17 reporting to ensure that compliance is shown, and that 18 could not be done through a general permit. 19 need to be done through a Rule 13 permit. 20 Q That would Sounds like the 98 percent, then, already 21 includes some downtime, if you have a 99-percent 22 efficient flare. 23 24 A that. I don't know that I necessarily agree with You have flare manufacturers that will claim, you Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 154 3/22/16 1 know, different percentages of what the destruction 2 efficiency is. 3 flare, you get 98 percent destruction efficiency, meaning 4 that's it. 5 may want to take a chance on whether or not that would be 6 allowed, that's on them. 7 have a flare, you get 98 percent destruction efficiency. 8 And I know there's been hearings in the past where it's 9 been proven that the 99.9 percent wasn't something, I 10 11 What this permit says is, if you have a So the burden of how the -- how a registrant What we're saying is if you mean, that was enforceable. Q You made a comment with regard to Section 12 7.1.8 that it was -- in response to Mr. Wandling's 13 questions that it was the first time you ever heard about 14 this kind of concern about the difference between a flash 15 tank and a reboiler. 16 first time you'd seen the language that -- 17 A Do you remember that? It was the I believe what I said was the language that 18 Mr. Crowe proposed, today was the first time that I saw 19 that language. 20 Q But you're not saying it was the first time 21 the issue had been raised. 22 comments. 23 24 A It was raised in the There was an issue raised in the comments about whether or not 7.1.8 would include flash tanks, and Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 155 3/22/16 1 we said that it would, and we added that language to 2 there because it wasn't in the original draft. 3 not believe that anyone had ever came to us and said that 4 -- I mean, to be perfectly honest with you, we've had 5 this discussion before on 7.1.8, and it was never clear 6 until today, when Mr. Crowe explained his position on 7 this, what it was that WVONGA and/or -- I remember 8 specifically another company who commented -- what their 9 goal was, what language that they wanted to see. But I do The 10 only thing that we ever heard was that it's possible that 11 the vapors couldn't be routed to the reboiler because of 12 their high water content, but no one had ever explained 13 that to us why that was. 14 look at it historically, and we've only had one company 15 that has ever told us, "We can't do this," and since we 16 developed this language with WVONGA and IOGA in the past, 17 even in the G70-B when we worked with members of WVONGA 18 and IOGA in a secular process, this is the first time 19 that this has been brought to our attention. 20 no idea that this was an issue. 21 22 23 24 Q And so when we go back and we So we had And now you do know, and perhaps we can discuss that more later. A I think that we would -- you know, that we could look at the language that you want to propose, and, Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 156 3/22/16 1 you know, if we feel that it meets, you know, our needs 2 of what we need to regulate these sources, we can talk 3 about it. 4 5 MR. YAUSSY: Could I have just a second, Mr. Chairman? 6 (Brief pause.) 7 MR. YAUSSY: 8 I have nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 9 CHAIRMAN KOON: 10 MR. WANDLING: 11 Any redirect? Just one question. REDIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. WANDLING: 13 Q Mr. Yaussy asked you whether the goal with the 14 general permit is to make something useful. That's true, 15 but it's also true that it's not to create something 16 universal. Right? 17 A Correct. 18 Q And so the Rule 13 individual permits are 19 20 still out there. A Correct? Yes. 21 MR. WANDLING: 22 CHAIRMAN KOON: Any more questions from DOCTOR HANSEN: Do we know who regulates 23 24 Thank you very much. the Board? Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 157 3/22/16 1 noise and the light at this time? 2 written that puts somebody here in charge of that? 3 4 THE WITNESS: Is there a statute I'm not a lawyer. I don't know that I can answer that question. 5 DOCTOR HANSEN: Are you aware of any 6 statute that gives power of noise and light pollution to 7 anybody in the government at this point, in the state 8 government? 9 MR. WANDLING: I haven't done an 10 exhaustive briefing on it. 11 argument, I would love for the -- 12 DOCTOR HANSEN: 13 argument. 14 statute out there. 15 talked about it. 16 17 I'm not trying to do oral I'm just trying to find out if there's a It was just a curiosity since we've MR. WANDLING: There's no department of noise and light pollution. 18 19 If you'd like to do oral DOCTOR HANSEN: That's what I was afraid of. 20 MR. MILLS: I can just add a little to 21 that because I've done research on that. 22 a nuisance complaint. 23 DOCTOR HANSEN: 24 MR. MILLS: Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 It's only under Okay. It's whatever you think -- to Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 158 3/22/16 1 a law enforcement agency, and some municipalities 2 actually have decibels. 3 Nobody else. The railroad has decibels. 4 MR. WANDLING: 5 CHAIRMAN KOON: Any other questions from DOCTOR HANSEN: One more. 6 Right. There's no general. the Board? 7 8 is it to get a general permit modified? 9 the process for modifying it? 10 THE WITNESS: Okay. How difficult I mean, what's So we'll just go with 11 the OOOOa requirement. So if OOOOa is a federal rule, it 12 becomes final. 13 Quality is that we would go into the G35-C as it exists 14 right now, and we would remove any conditions from the 15 G35-C that would conflict with this new proposed -- with 16 this new rule, and then we would incorporate the new rule 17 into the permit. 18 the changes. 19 around the state which would begin a 30-day public 20 comment period. 21 period, we would address all comments that we received 22 and make any necessary changes to the permit that were a 23 result of those comments, and then we would issue a 24 modified general permit. What we would do as the Division of Air And so what happens is we would make We would publish legal ads in newspapers At the end of the 30-day public comment Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 So it's not like it's a real Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 159 3/22/16 1 difficult process except for when it gets appealed, and 2 we have to come here. 3 4 DOCTOR HANSEN: That's all I have. 5 MR. BISHOP: 6 the original, to B. 7 between B and C? 8 9 Thank you. Could you explain what happened in THE WITNESS: in 2008. We went from G35-A, which was Sure, yes. G35-A was issued Last year, 2015, we decided that we were going 10 to update the G70-A that affects the natural gas industry 11 and the G35-A that affects the natural gas industry so 12 that we can incorporate new rules that have came about 13 since then and also any new technologies or controls that 14 may exist that wasn't in the permit prior. 15 with the G70-A and did the G70-B, and then the G35-A was 16 next. 17 Those documents went to public notice, and after a couple 18 of days of those documents being at public notice, the 19 decision was made by the agency to pull those documents 20 from public notice and make a change to it. 21 had already went to notice as the G35-B, we just scrapped 22 that completely once we pulled that back from public 23 notice. 24 document, we went back out with the G35-C. So we started We had prepared documents to go to public notice. So since it So then after we made the change to that Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 1 2 MR. BISHOP: What were the changes that were -- 3 4 THE WITNESS: It had to do with noise and light issues -- 5 COURT REPORTER: 6 MR. BISHOP: 7 I'm sorry. I was asking what these changes were. 8 THE WITNESS: 9 MR. BISHOP: The noise and light issue. Okay. 10 CHAIRMAN KOON: 11 (No response.) 12 CHAIRMAN KOON: 13 Any other questions? Okay. THE WITNESS: 15 (Witness stood aside.) 16 CHAIRMAN KOON: 17 MR. WANDLING: Thank you. We have nothing further, CHAIRMAN KOON: MR. WANDLING: 22 CHAIRMAN KOON: 24 All right. So you're resting? 21 23 Mr. Wandling? sir. 19 20 You may step down. Thank you. 14 18 160 3/22/16 Yes, sir. Do either of you wish to make closing statements? MR. YAUSSY: Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Your Honor, as redirect I was Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 161 3/22/16 1 just going to put on Mr. Crowe to answer the question 2 about how you configure ProMax when you don't have a 3 sample, but if the Board doesn't want to hear it -- 4 5 CHAIRMAN KOON: that? 6 (No response.) 7 CHAIRMAN KOON: 8 Does anybody want to hear I think we're okay. So do either of you want to make a closing? 9 MR. WANDLING: I don't think it's 10 necessary. I mean, I speak for myself, not Mr. Yaussy, 11 but I don't think it's necessary. 12 this, and I'm sure you will see our closing arguments in 13 those briefs. 14 MR. YAUSSY: 15 CHAIRMAN KOON: We'll be briefing I agree. Well, then as we have done 16 before, the parties will be allowed to present proposed 17 findings of fact and conclusions of law. 18 waive their right, obviously. 19 to submit the findings and conclusions, they must submit 20 them within 30 days after the Board receives its copy of 21 the transcript, and the Board will send the parties 22 notices to the effect of when we receive the transcript. 23 The notice will provide the date the proposing findings 24 of fact are due. The parties may Should the parties choose Then within 14 days after the proposed Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQB 162 3/22/16 1 findings of fact and conclusions of law are filed by the 2 parties, each party may file a response to the other 3 party's findings and conclusions. 4 simply reinforce the evidence that's been provided to the 5 Board today and should not encompass any new information 6 that wasn't provided at the hearing. 7 be available to all parties from the court reporter, so 8 you may talk to her afterwards if you wish. 9 parties wish to purchase an official copy from the court These documents should The transcript will If the 10 reporter, they must make arrangements with her. A copy 11 is available at the Board's office and is open for public 12 review and may be copied subject to the Freedom of 13 Information Act. 14 any party? Are there any further questions from 15 MR. WANDLING: No, sir. 16 MR. YAUSSY: 17 CHAIRMAN KOON: No, sir. All right. We thank you 18 then for your time today and for your civility in working 19 through the process, and we're adjourned. 20 (Hearing concluded at 12:40 p.m.) Nancy Danesi Wolfe, CCR Garrett Reporting Service 304-346-0460 Appeal No. 16-02-AQI3 3/22/16 163 REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF KANAWHA, to-wit, I, Nancy Danesi Wo fe, Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public, hereby certify that the foregoing is, to the best of my skill and ability/ a true and accurate transcription of proceedings had and testimony taken on March 22, 2016, in the aforementioned matter. I certify that the attached transcript meets the requirements set forth within Article 27, Chapter 47 of the west virginia Code. Given under my hand this llth day of April, 2016. OFF]CLAISEAL NOllARY PUBLIC 8thTE OFWEST VIFIGINIA NANOY DANESI WOLFE i2O4 Fatrfex Lonel Oro8S IJlnes, VA/ 25318 Wry Comml88lOn Expires August 11I 2020 a My commission expires August ll, 2020. Nancy Danesi Wo fe, CCR Gclrrett Reporting Servioe 304-346-0460