1. We count four state air monitors in active production areas of the Permian Basin in West Texas: one monitor tracking sulfur dioxide, in Big Spring; one monitor for air toxics, in Odessa; and two for fine particles, one in Odessa and one in Lubbock. Does this match up with TCEQ’s records? Does the agency have any other type of air monitoring, mobile, temporary or permanent? The four monitors identified represent the current monitoring activities in the Permian Basin region of West Texas. 2. Does the TCEQ have plans to add or remove any air monitors in West Texas? If so, where, when and tracking what? No 3. The state’s sulfur dioxide monitor is 120 miles from the Waha gas processing plant, which releases sulfur dioxide during frequent emission events, and 130 miles from Reeves County, where companies have built at least half a dozen gas processing plants since 2016. How is the state trying to get a handle on sulfur dioxide impacts in this part of the state, given the distance to the nearest monitor? The referenced sulfur dioxide monitor in Big Spring was deployed to characterize SO2 air quality around the Sid Richardson Carbon Black Plant in accordance with the federal SO2 Data Requirements Rule. This monitor is not intended to measure SO2 concentrations representative of a larger regional area. Requirements directing the deployment of regional or area-wide SO2 monitoring are based on calculating a population-weighted emissions index that accounts for the population of a core base statistical area and the emission inventory for that area. No areas in the Permian Basin or, more generally in West Texas, meet this population and emissionsinventory based threshold for SO2 monitoring, at this time. 4. The Permian has a substantial amount of hydrogen-sulfide-heavy production areas. How is this affecting sulfur dioxide emission levels in the Permian, for instance through flaring? The hydrogen sulfide must be removed from the field natural gas before the natural gas can be put into the midstream pipelines. This process is called sweetening the gas. Normally the H2S is removed using an amine solution. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s literature the recovered hydrogen sulfide gas stream may be: vented, flared, incinerated, or used to produce elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid. Most of the H2S in the Permian Basin area is either flared or passed through a tail gas incinerator, where the H2S is oxidized to sulfur dioxide. In reviewing emissions inventories data, the sulfur dioxide emission estimates have increased from 8,189 tons per year in 2011 to 22,349 TPY in 2016 for oil and gas point and area sources during routine operations located in the 61 county Permian Basin area. 5. The Permian Basin is in the midst of what the industry describes as an unprecedented boom. What steps is the TCEQ taking to protect groundwater and air quality during this period of intense activity? The Texas Railroad Commission has primary jurisdiction over oil and gas exploration, production, and transportation (for more information about jurisdiction, see Who Regulates Oil and Gas Activities in Texas?). Regardless of geographic location or regulated activities, TCEQ applies the same regulatory process. When looking at oil and gas exploration and production, the TCEQ’s primary role is regulating air emissions and ensuring air quality, as well as limiting any impact on water quality. However, oil and gas activities have an impact on multiple programs, such as public water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, air quality, solid waste disposal, dust control, and surface water usage. The TCEQ continues to conduct monitoring, on-site investigations, and enforcement activities in areas of oil and gas exploration and production to complement our permitting activities. The TCEQ also responds to all complaints that are received and we consider this to be a core mission of the agency and take the handling of complaints very seriously. TCEQ staff uses hand-held equipment and an array of other equipment to aid in the identification of emission sources during investigations. Any violations that are documented during TCEQ investigations are addressed using standard agency protocols and are handled consistently statewide. TCEQ and RRC regularly collaborate on matters of similar or overlapping jurisdictions, hold joint meetings and engage in information sharing with each other, the public and industry at various events and conferences. These include cooperation over matters of groundwater and air quality protection. Protection of groundwater sources related to oil and gas activity is largely the role of the RRC, however, TCEQ must be notified of groundwater contamination in cases of oil and gas drilling through a landfill, or cases in which groundwater contamination may affect a drinking water well. The TCEQ has many resources available to assist with compliance efforts. As part of its oil and gas communication effort, the agency has created and maintains a multi-media website (www.TexasOilandGasHelp.org) to provide information to local governments, industry, and the public. Companies may also contact the TCEQ’s Environmental Assistance Division or the TCEQ Region Office in which their operations are located. In addition, oil and gas companies are increasingly utilizing the provisions of the Texas Environmental, Health, and Safety Audit Privilege Act (“Audit Act”), which allows businesses and governments to perform comprehensive assessments of compliance with environmental regulations and permits. If the requirements of the Audit Privilege Act are met, including disclosure of violations and corrective action, a company may receive limited evidentiary privilege for certain information gathered in a voluntary self-audit and immunity from administrative and civil penalties. The TCEQ ensures that all violations disclosed under this program are corrected. 6. Last year, operations in Texas’ portion of the Permian pumped out more than 80,000 tons of pollutants during air emission events, largely carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. That’s a third of the statewide total for emission events. Thirteen of the 20 counties with the highest amount of pollutants released during emission events last year were in the Permian (as defined by the Railroad Commission’s list of Permian counties). Does that match up with the agency’s understanding of the situation? Emissions event reports are dynamic, and emission estimates are updated as information becomes available. According to TCEQ’s current review of reports for calendar year 2017, 16 of the 20 counties with the highest amounts of emissions reported are in the Permian Basin. Our estimates show that emissions events in the Permian Basin counties resulted in approximately 77,000 tons of emissions. This is about 33 percent of the total emissions from calendar year 2017 from emissions events (approximately 232,763 tons). Please note that the TCEQ prepares an Annual Enforcement Report by Dec. 1 of each year. These reports are based on the State’s Fiscal Year which runs from Sep. 1 through Aug. 31 of the following year. The report contains information on the enforcement actions for each type of regulatory program in the agency for the most recent fiscal year, as well as the preceding five fiscal years. Additionally, the report contains statistical indicators and a comparative analysis for several activities, including reportable emissions events (please see chapter 5 of the report). However, the reported number of incidents and quantity of emissions, as well the number of investigations and enforcement actions (notices of violations and notices of enforcement) is tracked by region, not by county. 7. A 2017 Texas Tribune investigation looking at prior years of emission events found similar trends, and showed that the TCEQ rarely penalizes operators for these incidents. Is that changing? The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality complies with all requirements of both the State and Federal Clean Air Act. TCEQ consistently pursues administrative, as well as civil enforcement, against non-compliant regulated industries in accordance with a vigorous, clearly articulated regulatory framework. TCEQ has a multifaceted approach to minimize emissions from maintenance activities and upsets. When sources exceed permitted limits due to unplanned maintenance, startup, shutdown activities or malfunctions, Texas reviews these events against criteria located in the Texas Administrative Code to determine if the event was avoidable and assesses whether operators took measures to minimize emissions. Texas has extensive reporting requirements for these types of events, and every incident reported to the agency is reviewed. Reports submitted by companies are reviewed against rule criteria and emissions limits per investigator protocols. The agency also has a set of criteria to categorize violations and a penalty policy to determine fines, both of which are available on the TCEQ website and can be viewed by the regulated community and the public. Once a report is received, investigators first determine whether or not the event was excessive. This determination hinges on six criteria relating to the frequency; cause; quantity and impact of emissions; duration; percentage of annual operating hours during which the emissions event occurred; and the need for MSS activities. To assess the quantity and impact on human health or the environment for excessive emissions events, air modeling of the emissions is conducted. The results are compared to standards such as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and evaluated by TCEQ toxicologists. 8. As of mid-June, there were 80 public water providers in Texas’ Permian Basin with voluntary or mandatory water restrictions to avoid shortages. Almost half are in counties where mining operations — including oil and gas — are a substantial draw on the resource, accounting for more than 10 percent of water withdrawals within the county in 2015, according to the newest U.S. Geological Survey data. Is there anything about that comparison that we should be aware of? For instance, do some public water systems in West Texas rely on water sources outside their counties? (If so, which ones?) The TCEQ tracks public water systems’ implementation of the different drought or emergency response stages of their Drought Contingency Plans. A public water system’s DCP may have both voluntary and mandatory restrictions based on different water production and supply triggers. Public water systems are required to notify the TCEQ within five business days of the implementation of any mandatory provisions of their DCP. TCEQ rules also require wholesale and retail public utilities to report to the TCEQ when the water system has 180 days or less water supply. Of the 80 systems that self-reported voluntary or mandatory restrictions: 14 systems reported implementing restrictions due to high temperatures and no rain 17 systems reported implementing restrictions due to low lake, reservoir or river levels Of the 17 systems:  5 have Ogallala Aquifer wells  2 have Edwards Trinity Aquifer wells  4 have Alluvial Wells  4 have Lipan Aquifer wells  1 has Antlers Aquifer wells  1 purchases groundwater from a system that has Edwards Trinity and Antlers Aquifer wells 26 systems reported they were not experiencing a problem, but had implemented a stage of their Drought Contingency Plan for conservation 3 systems reported implementing restrictions due to the wholesale providers implementation of restrictions 2 systems reported implementing restrictions due to mechanical problems 1 system reported implementing restrictions as part of their summer seasonal conservation plan Of these 80 systems, 47 self-reported this information to the TCEQ between 2011-2013 and 33 of the systems reported to the TCEQ between 2014-2018. The TCEQ does not track data in way that would provide information on why water sources are in another county outside of a system’s primary service county. There could be several reasons a system may locate their water sources outside of their primary service county based on:  geographic location o close proximity to county line o serve a wide service area which includes more than one county o have an available resource in an adjacent county which is more economical or reliable  undesirable source water quality within their primary service county such as naturally occurring fluoride, arsenic, nitrate/nitrite, and radionuclides  areas of the state that do not have adequate sources of water which would require them to seek a source outside the county to meet public water system demands TCEQ does not have the authority to regulate groundwater production or use. Groundwater is managed at the local level with local groundwater conservation districts where they are established. 9. What does the TCEQ require of companies regarding H2S before they flare? Are companies always required to treat the gas to remove the HS2? If not always, how often and under what circumstances? Oil and gas activities must obtain air authorization from the TCEQ if they meet the definition of facility as defined in Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 382. The THSC defines a facility as: Facility - means a discrete or identifiable structure, device, item, equipment, or enclosure that constitutes or contains a stationary source, including appurtenances other than emission control equipment. A mine, quarry, well test, or road is not considered to be a facility. Once the oil and gas activities are required to obtain authorization from the TCEQ, the flaring activities are subject to TCEQ rules, regulations and guidance. The different authorizations include: permit by rule 30 Tex. Administrative Code § 106.352 (a)-(k) or 30 TAC § 106.352(l), 30 TAC § 116.620 (Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities), non-rule Standard Permit for Oil and gas Handling and Production Facilities, or a New Source Review case-bycase permit. PBR and Standard Permit authorizations will have baseline requirements and limits for the handling and emitting of H2S. Each authorization will then have more stringent requirements based on the actual amount of H2S at the site. For example, if a site in the Permian Basin is authorized by a permit by rule (the most common authorization for oil and gas production sites) and emits ‘sour crude’ or ‘sour gas’, which is defined as having more than 1.5 grains of hydrogen sulfide per 100 cubic feet, then there are specific requirements that will need to be met. Some of these requirements will be that the site is at least ¼ mile away from the nearest receptor, that the total emissions of sulfur compounds, excluding sulfur oxides (SO2) will not exceed 4.0 pounds per hour, and that the vent heights (which includes flares) will need to be a certain height based on the actual amount of H2S being emitted. Facilities that cannot qualify for a PBR or a standard permit must be authorized with an NSR permit. The pre-construction permitting requirements consist of a technical review that primarily relates to source identification and air emission quantification, analysis of the off-property health impacts of those emissions, determination of best available control technology, and applicability of any source category or emission-based state and federal regulations. The NSR permit will contain special conditions to limit the impact from flaring H2S at the site and contain a means for compliance demonstration. The design, operation, and emissions at the site will dictate the appropriate authorization mechanism. Although most companies will treat the gas, to some extent, due to the corrosive properties of the H2S, treating the gas is only one of many options that can be used to achieve compliance with the permit limitations and other appropriate rules and regulations.