Document NKwNJq15QyKBGJEjr0ZxOEJw

To: From: Sent: Subject: Jackson, Ryan[jackson.ryan@epa.gov] Zachary Simpson Mon 9/11/2017 6:26:32 PM Subpart OOOO Materials Ryan, I have attached some background information per your request. I am happy to discuss further if you have questions. Zachary Simpson Corporate Counsel (o) 405-252-4608 3001 Quail Springs Pkwy. Oklahoma City, OK 73134 zsimpson@gulfportenergy.com 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000831 -00001 USEPA Questions/Concerns 8/5/2015 1. What is the current oil/gas well production per pad? 2. Requesting the actual time of day that the tanks were gauged on Monday, 8/3/15 3. Stick flare vs. Combustor: separate functions - what operations serve which one? a. Stick Flare - emergency flare when the VRU is not operating, the gas off the LP equipment will vent to the stick flare b. Combustor - gas from the tank battery 4. Would like to see the flare/combustor manufacturer specs and operating recommendations: operating temperatures to operate at maximum % efficiency burn a. To achieve X efficiency, what temperature must be achieved/sustained? b. Same company/manufacturer? 5. Why doesn't the flare/combustor have an auto alert that sends notification communication when the pilot is out (operating status)? a. Concerned with delays/length of time that combustor is not operating i. Production pads have intermittent/discontinuous daily inspections & pumpers are not alerted to circumstances 6. Why do some pads have Gun Barrel Tanks "GB" and other do not? a. Early design - a settling tank to separate the oil and water b. Used when atmospheric pressure, gravitational force, and retention time are sufficient for adequate separation of oils, water, and gas where no heat is required for separation c. Gravity feed allows water to enter oil tanks - Discontinued the installation on our pads 7. Note: Interested in the fact that the dump valves and fuel gas supply valves release gas under normal operations 8. What notification is received that list which sites are "Quad 0"...40 cfr. 60 subpart 000? Group 1 or 2? Trying to get a sense if combustor needs to be in operation. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000832-00001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000832-00002 August 24, 2015 Natalie Topinka US EPA Region 5 77 West Jackson Bvld. Chicago, IL 60604 RE: Post Inspection Information Request Gulfport Energy Dear Ms. Topinka: Gulfport Energy respectfully submits this letter per the information request following recent inspections at our facilities in Southeast Ohio on August 3 and 4,2015. Below is a list of questions and answers per your request 1. What emissions do the "stick" flares control? These flares are designed to capture emissions from the LP system in the event the LP compressor (VRU) goes down or is unable to handle the amount of flash being generated in LP separator, heater treater or vapor recovery tower (VRT). 2. Provide downtime for any of the combustors at the sites visited from January 1,2014 to August 4,2015. How is it determined that the combustor is down? Gulfport has been working on tying in the flares to our SCADA system which will send an alarm to the field and management when combustor pilot is not lit. This alarm works off a thermocouple which senses heat from the pilot gas flame. Since January of this year, we have pulling wire from our PLC to all the combustors in the field. As of August 10,2015, we now receive email notification when a combustor is down. See "Attachment 1Combustor Downtime Alarms" for copies of email notifications demonstrating combustor downtime alarms. We also receive a notification when the alarm is resolved. I have also attached a few records of invoices dating back to January of 2015 to illustrate are efforts in tying in the combustors to our SCADA system. See "Attachment 2-Combustor Monitoring Invoices". In addition to the combustor alarm notifications, we now receive an hourly or monthly report by facility illustrating the flare downtime in hours through our field visor system. 3. Manufacture specifications for the flares and combustors at each site visited. See "Attachment 3-Combustor and Flare Specs". 4. The latest tank gauging activities prior to the visit on August 3 or 4,2015. See "Attachment 4-Tank Gauging". 5. Monthly production data to include condensate and produced water from January 1,2014 through July 31, 2015. See "Attachment 5-Production Data". 6. Provide any 0000 initial notification submitted to a regulatory agency. 14313 Noah May Avenue, Sehe ICO Ohkihcma Cny, Gklaherne 73134 - (45) 84-b7 ~ I ax 848-861G 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000833-00001 We have all GP 12.1 and 12.2 permits and have accepted a voluntary limit to restrict the potential VOC emissions from each storage vessel to less than 6 tons per year. All of our condensate sites have a closed vent system with VRU's capturing flash vapors that is routed to sales and a stick flare as a backup. We have installed combustors destructing tank emissions. Additional Detail In addition to the information request, Gulfport would like to address the issue with the leaking thief hatches on the tanks. We have been conducting our quarterly FLIR camera inspections per the GP 12 air permit and have recognized the issue with leaking hatches during those inspections. We have purchased and installed a new style hatch with a heavier spring which will mitigate the problem. Not all of the hatches have been installed at this time but we are working toward complete installation across the board. Another area of concern is the flame arresters at the combustor. We recently disconnected the piping to inspect the flame arrestors and found many were clogged. This caused back pressure to the tanks resulting in emissions releasing from the hatches. We have seen improvement after installing the new thief hatch and cleaning out the flame arrestors and have implemented a thief hatch and flame arrestor maintenance program. Our last effort is investigating the facility design of our closed vent system with the assistance of an outside engineering firm. We have already started the process previous to the inspections by running a Hysis model to evaluate emissions to the stick flare and tanks. See "Attachment 6-Hysis Model Stick Flare" and "Attachment 7Hysis Model Condensate Tank". Gulfport will continue to refine and improve our operations in order to fulfill our commitment to conduct business in a manner that protects human health and the environment while also respecting the social license provided to us by the public and the various governmental organizations that oversee our activities. It goes without saying, if you have any questions or need additional information, do not hesitate to call me at 405-242-4965. Respectfully, Jeff Seal Environmental Manager Attachments 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000833-00002 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 .... 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 DEC 2 2 2iK pre rr, m umum C CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED . c Judson Shreves, Operations Manager Gulfport Energy Corporation 14313 North May Avenue. Suite 100 Oklahoma City. Oklahoma 73134 i ' ' ) ; LAN 0 4 Uji/ Re: Finding of Violation Gulfport Energy Corporation : Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ------,,,r._. Dear Mr. Shreves; . The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing the enclosed Finding of Violation (FOV) to Gulfport Energy Corporation (you) under Section 113(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. ? 7413(a)(3). We find that you are violating Section 1J J of the Clean Air Act, and the Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Distribution found in 40 C.F.R. Part 60. Suhpart OOOO, at a number of your oil and gas production facilities . located in Ohio. . ........ . . T. Section 113 of the Clean Air Act gives us several enforcement options. These options include issuing an administrative compliance order, issuing, an administrative penalty order and bringing a judicial civil or criminal action. We arc offering you an opportunity to confer with us about the violations alleged in the FOV. The conference will give you an opportunity to present information on the specific findings of violation, any efforts you have taken to comply and the steps you will take to prevent future violations. In addition, in order to make the conference more productive, we encourage you to submit to us information responsive to the FOV prior to the conference date. Please plan for your facility's technical and management personnel to attend the conference io discuss compliance measures and commitments. You may have an attorney represent you al this conference. ............. s ftecyCiiff/Rer.ycIqble <- .V<:l 17c.v1906 Sierra Club v. EPA t .).M IO >.> 'r-y !i>: ./.-JM ' h ' > n . .' ED_001523_00000834-00001 The EPA contacts in this matter are Natalie Topinka and Constantinos Loukeris. You may contact Ms. Topinka at (312) 886-3853 or topinka.nataliew'epa.gov, or Mr. Loukeris at (3)2) 353-6198 or loukeris.consiantinosftficpa.gov. to request a cortfeicnce. You should make the request within 10 calendar days following receipt of this letter. We should hold any conference within 30 calendar days following receipt of this letter. .. Sincerely'. P y Edward Nam ... ' Director Air and Radiation Division Enclosure cw. Bob Hodanbosi. OEPA Melisa Witherspoon. < )EPA -i7TM-ianA Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000834-00002 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS IN THE MATTER OF: Gulfport Energy Corporation Oklahoma City , Oklahoma ' ' Proceedings Pursuant to the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. OV ) A A . ..W ) FINDING OF VIOLATION ) ) EPA-5G7-OH-08 ) ) ) ) 2 FINDING OF VIOLATION flic U.S. Environmental Protection Agcncs (EPA) is issuing this Finding of Violation (FOV) under Section 113(aR 3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 42 U.S.C. 5 7413( a)( 3i. Based on available information and as explained below. EPA finds that Gulfport Energy Corporation (Gulfport) is violating Section IJ 1(e) of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7411(e). Specifically. Gulfport is violating the Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production. Transmission, and Distribution found in 40 C.F.R. Part 60. Subpart OOOO as follows: Statuton and Regulatory Authority ... J. The CAA is designed to. among other things, protect and enhance the quality of the nation's air so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population. See Section J 01 (h)( I) of the CAA, 40 U.S.C. 74(H(b)(l). 2. Section 1 G('b) of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 741 1(b), requires EPA io publish a list of categories of stationary sources of air pollution if those sources cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, and io promulgate regulations establishing federal standards of performance for new sources within the source category. These emission standards are known as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). and are codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 60. 3. The NSPS includes Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution, found in 40 C.F.R. Part 60. Subpart OOOO CSubpart OOOO"). 4. Subpart OOOO, at 40 C.F.R. 60.5430. among other things defines "storage vessel" as a tank or other vessel that contains an accumulation of crude oil. condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon liquids, or produced water, and that is constructed primarily of non - earthen materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, fiberglass, or plastic) which provide structural support. ..... : :: .. .. .. : ......... . 5. Subpart OOOO. at 40 C.F.R. 60.5365. provides, among other things, that owners and operators of one or mure storage vessel affected facilities constructed, modified or -i7TM/-ianR Qicrra Ch ih v EPA ED_001523_00000834-00003 reconstructed after August 23, 2011, and on or before September 18, 2015. are subject to the applicable provisions of Subpan OOOO. 6. Subpart OOOO. al 40 C.F.R. 60.5365(c). provides that a storage vessel affected facility is a single storage vessel located in the oil and natural gas production segment, natural gas processing segment or natural gas transmission and storage segment, and has the potential for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions equal to or greater than six tons per year as determined according to 40 C.F.R. 60.5365. The potential for VOC emissions must be calculated using a generally accepted model or calculation methodology, based on the maximum average daily throughput determined for a 30-day period of production prior to the applicable emission determination deadline specified in 40 C.F.R. 60.5365. The determination may take into account requirements under a legally and practically enforceable limit in an operating permit or other requirement established under a Federal. State, local or tribal authority. 7. Subpart OOOO. at 40 C.F.R. 60.5411 (b). requires owners and operators of storage vessel affected facilities to ensure that covers on storage vessels meet certain requirements, including that the cover and all openings on the cover shall form a continuous impermeable barrier over the entire surface area of the liquid in the vessel; each cover opening shall be secured in a closed sealed position except when certain activities are ongoing: and that each storage vessel thief hatch shall be equipped, maintained, and operated with a weighted mechanism or equivalent, to ensure the lid remains properly seated. 8. Subpart OOOO, at 40 C.F.R. 60.541 J (c). requires owners and operators of storage vessels using a control device to control emissions to design its closed vent system to route all gases, vapors, and fumes emitted from the material in the storage vessel to a control device that meets the requirements of 40 C.F.R. 60.5412(c) and (d): and to design and operate a closed vent system with no detectable emissions, as determined using olfactory, visual, and o auditory inspections. .. T . T T; " ..... 5 . 9. Subpail OOOO. at 40 C.F.R. 60.54 12(d), requires that each control device used to meet the emission reduction standard in 40 C.F.R. 60.5395(d) for storage vessel affected facilities must he installed according to 40 C.F.R. 60.5395(d)(l) through (3), as applicable. As an alternative to 40 C.F.R. 60.5395(d)( I), owners and operators of storage vessel affected facilities may install a control device model tested under 40 C.F.R. 60.5413(d). which meets the criteria in 40 C.F.R. 60.5413(d)( 11) and 60:54T3(e). ' . .......... .. 10. Subpart OOOO, at 40 C.F.R. 60.5412(d)( 1)(ii). requires that each enclosed combustion device must have installed and operate a continuous burning pilot flame. J1. Subpart OOOO, at 40 C.F.R. 60.5413(c). requires owners or operators of combustion control devices tested by the manufacturer to demonstrate that the control device achieves the performance requirements in (d)(1 1) of this section by installing a device tested under paragraph (d) of this section and complying with the criteria specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (71 of this section. 12. Subpart OOOO. at 40 C.F.R. 60.5413(e)(2). requires that a pilot flame on the combustion control device must be present at all times of operation, . > 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000834-00004 11 Subparl OOOO. al 40 CTfR. 60.5410(h). requires owners and operators of y storage vessel affected facilities In demonstrate initial compliance with Subpart OOOO for cadi storage vessel. In order to demonstrate initial compliance with Subpart OOOO, owners and operators must have completed five compliance requirements found elsewhere in Subpart (>OOO: determining the potential VOC emission rate (40 C.F.R. 60.5365(e)); reducing VOC emissions (40 C.F.R. 60.5395(d)): meeting certain cover, closed vent and control device requirements, as applicable (40 C.F.R. 60.5395(e). referencing, among other things, 40 C.F.R. 60.5411(b) and (c)k meeting reporting requirements, including an initial annual report due no later than 90 days after the initial compliance period (40 C.F.R. 60.5420(h)); and maintaining appropriate records (40 C.F.R. 60.5420(c)). 14. Subpart WOO. at 40 C.F.R. 60.5370(b), requires that at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, owners and operators shall maintain and operate any affected facility including associated air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include but is not limited to, monitoring results, opacity observations, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the ; source. .. . t . <... .. . Relevant Factual Background J 5. In August 2015. EPA staff inspected and observed several oil and natural gas production well pads owned and operated by Gulfport in Belmont, Harrison, and Guernsey counties in eastern Ohio. These well pads include but arc not limited to those identified in ; Attachments A and B to this Finding of Violation (FOV t. 16. In July of 2016. EPA issued to Gulfport an information request under Section 114 of the CAA. 17. On October 14. 2016. Gulfport responded to the information request. Gulfport's responses to the information request included, among other things, emissions evaluations of the storage vessels a( all the well pads listed in Attachments A and B. 18. Each of Gulfport's well pads listed in Attachments A and B includes storage vessels that contain an accumulation of condensate or produced water, and that are constructed primarily of non-earthen materials. .............. . ( :..... ... :C 19. Gulfport's storage vessels al well pads listed in Attachments A and B were all constructed after August 23. 2011 but before September 18. 2015. 20. Gulfport's storage vessels at well pads listed in Attachments A and B all had the potential for VOC emissions equal to or greater than six tons per year in their first 30 days of production. ' 3 4-7^, Qiarro r'lllh \/ RPA ED_001523_00000834-00005 21. During the August 2015 inspections. EPA staff detected emissions from thief hatches or pressure relief devices on storage vessels at all the well pads listed in Attachment A. 22. During the August 2015 inspections, EPA observed that the combustion control devices at the well pads listed in Attachment B were not operating with a continuous pilot flame while vapors were being directed to them. ........... ; . .. 2.. AL..... .. XhilMions 23. Gulfport's storage vessels at well pads listed in Attachment A are subject to Subpart OOOO. and based on the above described delectable emissions from storage vessels observed by EPA staff Gulfport has failed to ensure that the covers on its storage vessels meet certain requirements, including that the covers and all openings shall form a continuous impermeable barrier over the entire surface area of the liquid in the vessel, and that each cover opening shall be secured m a dosed, sealed position except when certain activities are ongoing, violating 40 C.F.R. 60.5411(b), 24. Based on the above described detectable emissions from storage vessels observed by EPA staff. Gulfport has failed to design its closed vent systems to route all gases, vapors and fumes emitted from the material in the storage vessels to a control device, and to design and operate dosed vent systems with no detectable emissions, as determined using olfactory, visual arid auditory inspections, violating 40 C.F.R. 60.5411(c). ; c 25. Based on, among other things, Gulfport's failure to meet certain cover, closed vent and control device requirements, demonstrated by the above described detectable emissions from storage vessels observed by EPA staff, Gulfport has failed to demonstrate initial.......... compliance at its storage vessel affected facilities listed in Attachment A. violating 40 C.F.R. 60.5410(h). 26. Gulfport's storage vessels at well pads listed in Attachment B are subject to , Subpart Of 00. and based on Gulfport's failure to operate its combustion control devices with a present and continuously burning pilot flame at its storage vessel affected facilities listed in Attachment B. Gulfport has violated 40 C.F.R, 60.5412(d), .................... 27. Based on the above described delectable emissions from storage vessels, and absence of a present and continuously burning pilot flame on its combustion control devices observed by EPA staff during the August 2015 inspections, Gulfport failed to operate its storage vessel affected facilities in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions, violating 40 C.F.R. 60.5370(b). Environmental Impact of Violations 28. These violations have caused or can cause excess emissions of VOC. 4 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000834-00006 29. Excess VOC emissions can cause eye. nose, and throat imiianon. headaches, bm of coordination, nausea and damage lo li ver. kidney and the central nervous system. ' ....... y 3(i. VOC emissions arc a precursor to ground-level ozone. Breathing ozone contributes to a variety of health problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground-level ozone also can reduce lung function and inflame lung tissue. ........ c .. 2 , Edward Nam Director Air and Radiation Division -iTruianR SiArra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000834-00007 ATTACHMENT A Facility Air / Facility Name Permit ID Wells Supplying the Facility 06-07-01-5013 1 Amanda AMANDA 1-14H AMANDA 4-14H 06-34-00-5043 : BK Stephens BK STEPHENS 1-16H BK STEPHENS 2-16H BK STEPHENS 3-16H BOY SCOUT 1-33H 06-34-00-5048 ; Boy Scout BOY SCOUT 2-33H BOY SCOUT 4-33H BOY SCOUT 5-33H 06-34-00-5045 Clay CLAY CLAY CLAY 1-4H 2-4H 3-4H CLAY 4-4H FAMILY 1-32H 06-07-01-5005 06-34-00-5070 l Family i:T FAMILY 2-32H FAMILY 3-32H GUSTINA-BEAR 1-23H Gustina-Bear GUSTINA-BEAR 2-23H GUSTINA-BEAR 3-23H HAYES 1-1H 06-07-01-5009 < Hayes HAYES 2-1H HAYES 3-1H HAYES 4-1H INHERST 1-14H 06-07-00-50'10 Inherst INHERST 2-14H INHERST 3-14H MCCORT 1-28H 06-07-01-5004 McCort MCCORT MCCORT MCCORT 2-28H 3-28H 4-28H 06-34-00-5072 ; Milliken MILLIKEN MILLIKEN MILLIKEN 1-4H 2-4 H 3-4H 06-34-00-5049 i 06-07-04-5002 Ryser Sandra RYSER 1-25H RYSER 2-25H , RYSER 3-25H RYSER 4-25H SANDRA 1-31H SANDRA 2-31H Facility GPS Latitude 39.88943 Facility GPS Longitude i County | -81.17016 Belmont 40.18536 i -81.16774 Harrison 40.25840 -81.21459 Harrison 40.17340 -81.22704 Harrison 40.05669 -81.10384 Belmont 40.19058 -81.18653 Harrison 40.04481 T -81.12047 Belmont U 39.88939 -81.17680 Belmont 39.91963 1 -81.21521 Belmont 40.17478 J -81.23982 Harrison 40.21567 -81.20079 Harrison 40.04085 -81.10851 Belmont 17c.v1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000834-00008 Facility Air Permit ID 06-07-01-5003 06-56-05-5001 06-07-01-5008 Facility Name Shugert 12 Stutzman Wesley Wells Supplying the Facility SHUGERT 1-12H SHUGERT 1-1H SHUGERT 2-12H SHUGERT 2-1H SHUGERT 3-12H SHUGERT 3-1H SHUGERT 4-12H SHUGERT 4-1H STUTZMAN 1-14H STUTZMAN 3-14H WESLEY 1-8H WESLEY 2-8H Facility GPS Latitude Facility GPS Longitude County 40.03269 t -81.14577 Belmont 39 89056 39 89255 -81 17089 -81 15874 Belmont Belmont 17c.v1906 Sierra Club v. EPA Z ED_001523_00000834-00009 ATTACHMENT B Facility Air Permit 10 Facility Name 06-34-00-5070 Gustina-Bear 06-07-01-5009 Hayes 06-07-01-5012 Swallie Wells Supplying the Facility GUSTINA-BEAR 1-23H GUSTINA-BEAR 2-23H GUSTINA-BEAR 3-23H HAYES 1-1H HAYES 2-1H HAYES 3-1H HAYES 4-1H SWALLIE 210041 IC SWALLIE 210041 2B Facility GPS Latitude 40.19058 Facility GPS Longitude County -81.18653 Harrison 40.04481 81 12047 Belmont 40.03896 -81 13895 Belmont -17rv1 QOA SiArra Club v. EPA ED_O01523_00000834-00010 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING L Kathy Jones, certify that I sent a Finding of Violation, No. EPA-5-17~Of i-08. by Ceni lied Mail. Return Receipt Requested, to: ; Judson Shreves. Operations Manager Gulfport Energy Corporation J 4313 N. May Ave. Suite 100 : Oklahoma City. OK 73134 I also certify that I sent copies of the Finding of Violation by first-class mail to :: Bob Hodanbosi V Chief. Division of Air Pollution Control Ohio Environmental Protection Agency : ^b- h oda n bos i; mepa ,oh i o. g (> v and Melisa Witherspoon Assistant Chid'. Southeast District Office (>hio Environmental Protection Agency : meHsa. wi ther.spc>on:,mepa.ohi o .gov Jl On the _ day of ; Dumber _2016 Kathy Jones ......... Program Technician AECAB, PAS CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT NI IMBER: 70^ [QjO 1Mb -iTruiann Siprra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000834-00011 Name Robert Peachey Gulfport Energy Corporation Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Meeting atUM EPA, Region 5 February 7,2017 Sign-In Sheet Affiliation Telephone and E-mail U.S.EPA: (312) 353.4510 ! peachey.robert@epa.gov Jr2 - J Jge Mil1 l^k r4 fit A t fS} <j . W0 r>-y Apj f J 31?, i^S .ff Wp jSfBGSI't v k G*-v <a.-55-4(i ooUaX C^sJoni.n.sig 4v 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000835-00001 Gulfport March 10, 2017 VIA E-Mail & Certified Mail Ms. Natalie M. Topinka - Environmental Scientist United States Environmental Protection Agency - Region 5 ("US EPA") 77 West Jackson Boulevard ........ Chicago, Illinois 60604 President and CEO, Rhino Exploration, LLC Re: Finding of Violation EPA-5-17-OH-08 Dear Ms. Topinka; On December 22, 2016 the US EPA issued Findings of Violation EPA-5-17-OH-08 ("FOV") to Gulfport Energy Corporation ("Gulfport") under Section 113(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(a)(3). The alleged violations were cited under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. and the Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Distribution found in 40 C.F.R Part 60, Subpart OOOO. These alleged violations were more fully described in Paragraphs 23-27 of the FOV and related to a number of Gulfport's facilities, which were listed in Attachments A and B to the FOV ("Gulfport Facilities"). On February 7, 2017, Gulfport met with the US EPA to review and discuss the FOV. Please accept this letter as our written response to the FOV. GeneralObiections As a preliminary matter, Gulfport disputes the alleged violations based on US EPA's technical methodology employed to conduct emissions evaluations at Gulfport Facilities. In order to issue the FOV, US EPA utilized an optical gas-imaging ("OGI'') infra-red camera, which observed vapors emitting to the atmosphere from the thief hatches or pressure relief devices on certain production tanks. Gulfport notes two problems with this technique: 1. First, the OGI camera is an observation tool and lacks the ability to determine flow rate or concentration of vapors being emitted. As such, the OGI camera is incapable of determining the volume of emissions. It is untenable to conclude that a device which lacks the capability to conclusively evaluate emissions volumes should be employed to determine whether a particular tank meets the volumetric yearly emissions necessary to trigger Subpart OOOO jurisdiction. For example, consider the US EPA Video, see Attachment "B" (MOVJ326), which was filmed during an August 2015 inspection of Gulfport's Hayes location. The Hayes wells made 2.88 bbls of condensate and 3,184 bbls of water for the month of August 2015. Utilizing standard gravity back calculations, it is easily ascertained that the bbls/ per day extrapolated out for one year is a total of .02 tpy volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") per tank of condensate and .08 tpy VOCs of produced water. In short, the Hayes location video is depicting very small emissions volumes, and, when viewing the video relative to videos taken at other Gulfport Facilities, the emissions appear to be indistinguishable. 2. Secondly, the OGI camera is incapable of distinguishing between VOCs and non regulated greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. Meaning, US EPA's emissions evaluation utilized to issue the FOV lacked the ability to proportionately determine the composition of emissions that were observed in the OGI camera footage. It is undisputed that a portion 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000836-00001 of the observed emissions are non-regulated GHG emissions, and if US EPA's observation technique cannot determine composition, the observed emissions are misrepresentative of VOC emissions and should not be utilized to determine whether the Gulfport Facilities are subject to Subpart OOOO jurisdiction. In summation, US EPA's emissions evaluation technique is insufficient and incapable of reasonably determining that the Gulfport Facilities meet the requisite volumetric requirements to be subject to Subpart 0000 jurisdiction. .. .. As a second preliminary matter, Gulfport fundamentally disputes US EPA's interpretation and use of `'potential to emit 6 tons per year ("tpy")" as a basis for determining Subpart OOOO jurisdiction for the Gulfport Facilities. Despite the disagreement in interpretation, US EPA's emissions evaluation technique lacks the necessary components to determine volume and composition of emissions - thus, US EPA is unable to adequately determine '`potential." When evaluating the US EPA's findings in the FOV, fundamental flaws are quite apparent. For example, consider the sixteen Gulfport Facilities related to the FOV. Based on hydrocarbon production rates in 2016, ten of these facilities are mathematically incapable of emitting the necessary 6 tpy VOC - even assuming Gulfport had no emissions controls devices n place. As evidence, I would direct you to Attachment "A" for 2016 production rates and PTE calculations. Calculations were based on commonly used E&P tanks v2.0 and the highest Ib/bbl rating from previous pressurized sampling was used. Clearly, these Gulfport Facilities are not only incapable of emitting 6 tpy of VOCs but come nowhere close to the required threshold. Yet, US EPA determined in the FOV that each of these locations was subject to Subpart OOOO jurisdiction, based on OGI videos and a loose interpretation of "potential to emit". Specific Responses .. ... Gulfport makes the following specific comments to Paragraphs 23-27 of the FOV. 23. Gulfport's storage vessels at well pads listed in Attachment A are subject to Subpart OOOO, and based on the above described detectable emissions from storage vessels observed by EPA staff, Gulfport has failed to ensure that the covers on its storage vessels meet certain requirements, including that the covers and all openings shall form a continuous impermeable barrier over the entire surface area of the liquid in the vessel, and that each cover opening shall be secured in a closed, sealed position except when certain activities are ongoing, violating 40 C.F.R. 60.541 I (b). Gulfport Response: Gulfport elected to opt out of Subpart OOOO through the Ohio GP 12.1/12,2 permits by accepting to voluntarily limit and restrict the potential VOC emissions from each storage vessel to less than 6 tons per year per 40 CFR 60.5365(e). 24. Based on the above described detectable emissions from storage vessels observed by EPA staff, Gulfport has failed to design its closed vent systems to route all gases, vapors and fumes emitted from the material in the storage vessels to a control device, and to design and operate closed vent systems with no detectable emissions, as determined using olfactory, visual, and auditory inspections, violating 40 C.F.R. 60.5411 (c), Gulfport Response: 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000836-00002 Gulfport elected to opt out of Subpart 0000 through the Ohio GP 12.1/12.2 permits by accepting to voluntarily limit and restrict the potential VOC emissions from each storage vessel to less than 6 tons per year per 40 CFR 60.5365(e). 25. Based on, among other things, Gulfport's failure to meet certain cover, closed vent and control device requirements, demonstrated by the above described detectable emissions from storage vessel observed by EPA staff, Gulfport has failed to demonstrate initial compliance at its storage vessel affected facilities listed in Attachment A, violating 40 C.F.R. 60.54 10(h). Response: Gulfport elected to opt out of Subpart 0000 through the Ohio GP 12.1/12.2 permits by accepting to voluntarily limit and restrict the potential VOC emissions from each storage vessel to less than 6 tons per year per 40 CFR 60.5365(e). 26. Gulfport's storage vessels at well pads listed in Attachment B are subject to Subpart 0000, and based on Gulfport's failure to operate its combustion control devices with a present and continuously burning pilot flame at its storage vessel affected facilities listed in Attachment B, Gulfport has violated 40 C.F.R. 60.5412(d). GulfportResBonse: Gulfport elected to opt out of Subpart 0000 through the Ohio GP 12.1/12.2 permits by accepting to voluntarily limit and restrict the potential VOC emissions from each storage vessel to less than 6 tons per year per 40 CFR 60.5365(e). 27. Based on the above described detectable emissions from storage vessels, and absence of a present and continuously burning pilot flame on its combustion control devices observed by EPA staff during the August 2015 inspections, Gulfport failed to operate its storage vessel affected facilities in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions, violating 40 C.F.R. 60.5370(b). .. Gulfport Response: Gulfport's combustors and flares did utilize a continuously burning pilot at the time of the inspection, however the pilot was out. Gulfport was in the process of installing flame rod sensors to detect the presence of a flame for all combustors prior to the inspection. The sensor installation was completed by the end of August 2015. In the event the pilot goes out, an alarm is sent to the pumpers through our SCADA system. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Gulfport objects to the FOV. Regardless of Subpart 0000 jurisdiction, Gulfport continues to work to develop new techniques that would limit emissions from thief hatches and welcomes the opportunity to work with US EPA to resolve this matter. Sincerely, .. .. . .... GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION Jeff Seal - Environmental Manager 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000836-00003 racnitv Amanda FamiSy Hayes Inherst McCort Sandra Shugert 12 Stutzman SwaHie Wesley Attachment "A" Emissions Rate Wb) * 4.58 4.58 4.58 4.58 4.58 458 4.58 4.58 4.58 4.58 2016 Condensate Production (bbisj ' ' 0 0 28 0 150 0 2427 0 395 0 2016 PTE VOC W/O Convois (tpy/tank) 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.06 0.0 1.84 0.0 0.3 0.0 Attachment "B" 9 M0VJ.mp4 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00000836-00004