Final Report 

of the 

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on 

EPA’s Planned Proposed Rule 

Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources in the 

Oil and Natural Gas Sector 

August 2015 
2

Table of Contents 

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................4

2. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF RULEMAKING................................................................ 5

2.1 Regulatory History........................................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Description and Scope of Existing Rule ....................................................................................... 5

2.3 Regulatory Options Likely to be Proposed ................................................................................... 6

2.4 Related Federal Rules ................................................................................................................... 6

3. APPLICABLE SMALL ENTITY DEFINITIONS................................................................................... 7

4. LIST OF SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES................................................................................. 7

5. SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITY OUTREACH ................................................................................... 9

6. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES ..............................10

6.1 Summary of May 19, 2015 Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting ........................................................... 10

6.2 Summary of Written Comments and Questions from Potential SERs.............................................. 12

6.2.1 Summary of Comments on Hydraulically Fractured Oil Well Completions......................12

6.2.2 Summary of Comments on Fugitive Emissions.................................................................. 13

6.2.3 Summary of Comments on Pneumatic Pumps.................................................................... 14

6.2.4 Summary of Comments on Pneumatic Controllers............................................................. 14

6.2.5 Summary of Comments on Compressors............................................................................ 14

6.2.6 Summary of Comments on Liquids Unloading .................................................................. 14

6.2.7 Summary of Comments on Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements..........................14

6.2.8 Summary of Comments on Compliance ............................................................................. 15

6.2.9 Summary of Comments on Scope of the Rulemaking ........................................................ 15

6.2.10 Summary of Comments on Rulemaking Timeline.............................................................. 16

6.2.11 Summary of Comments on Regulatory Flexibility ............................................................. 16

6.3 Summary of June 18, 2015 Panel Outreach Meeting.................................................................. 16

6.4 Summary of Written Comments and Questions from SERs............................................................. 19

6.4.1 Summary of Comments on Hydraulically Fractured Oil Well Completions.............................19

6.4.2 Summary of Comments on Fugitive Emissions......................................................................... 21

6.4.3 Summary of Comments on Pneumatic Pumps........................................................................... 23

6.4.4 Summary of Comments on Pneumatic Controllers.................................................................... 24
3

6.4.5 Summary of Comments on Compressors................................................................................... 24

6.4.6 Summary of Comments on Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements ................................25

6.4.7 Summary of Comments on Compliance .................................................................................... 26

6.4.8 Summary of Comments on Scope of the Rulemaking............................................................... 26

6.4.9 Summary of Comments on Rulemaking Timeline..................................................................... 27

7. PANEL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS............................................................................................ 27

7.1 Number and Types of Entities Affected...................................................................................... 27

7.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance Requirements........................................ 27

7.3 Related Federal Rules ................................................................................................................. 27

7.4 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives............................................................................................. 27

7.4.1    Oil Well Exemptions............................................................................................................ 28

7.4.2 Fugitives ‐ Leak Detection Methods.................................................................................... 31

7.4.3 Fugitives – Survey Frequency.............................................................................................. 32

7.4.4 – Fugitive Emissions at Well Sites.............................................................................................. 32

7.4.5 Fugitive Emissions at Production and Processing Sites, and Compressor Stations at

Transmission and Storage Sites .......................................................................................................... 33

7.4.6   Well Site Compressors........................................................................................................ 33

7.4.7 Pneumatic Pumps ............................................................................................................... 34

7.4.8  Reciprocating Compressors ...................................................................................................... 34

7.4.9 Centrifugal Compressors............................................................................................................ 34

7.4.10 Pneumatic Controllers ............................................................................................................. 34

7.4.11 Recordkeeping and Reporting for High Bleed Controllers....................................................... 35

7.4.12 Liquids Unloading..................................................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX A: List of Materials EPA shared with Small Entity Representatives.....................................36

APPENDIX B: Written Comments Submitted by Small Entity Representatives.......................................37
4

1. INTRODUCTION 

This report is presented by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel or Panel) 

convened to review the planned proposed rulemaking on the Emission Standards for New and 

Modified Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector. Under section 609(b) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

of 1996 (SBREFA), a Panel is required to be convened prior to publication of the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that an agency may be required to prepare under the RFA. 

In addition to EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chairperson, the Panel will consist of the 

Director of the Sector Policies & Programs Division of the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning 

& Standards, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the 

Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

This report includes the following: 

 Background information on the proposed rule being developed; 

 Information on the types of small entities that may be subject to the proposed rule; 

 A description of efforts made to obtain the advice and recommendations of 

representatives of those small entities; and 

 A summary of the comments that have been received to date from those representatives. 

Section 609(b) of the RFA directs the Panel to consult with and report on the comments of small 

entity representatives (SERs) and make findings on issues related to elements of an IRFA under 

section 603 of the RFA. Those elements of an IRFA are: 

 A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which 

the proposed rule will apply; 

 A description of projected reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements 

of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be 

subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of 

the report or record; 

 An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; A description of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable 

statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on 

small entities. This analysis shall discuss any significant alternatives such as: 

o the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables 

that take into account the resources available to small entities; 

o the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting 

requirements under the rule for such small entities; 

o the use of performance rather than design standards; and 

o an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 

entities. 

Once completed, the Panel Report is provided to the agency issuing the proposed rule and is 

included in the rulemaking record. The agency is to consider the Panel’s findings when 

completing the draft of the proposed rule. In light of the Panel Report, and where appropriate, the 
5

agency is also to consider whether changes are needed to the IRFA for the proposed rule or the 

decision on whether an IRFA is required. 

The Panel’s findings and discussion will be based on the information available at the time the 

final Panel Report is drafted. EPA will continue to conduct analyses relevant to the proposed 

rule, and additional information may be developed or obtained during the remainder of the rule 

development process. 

Any options identified by the Panel for reducing the rule’s regulatory impact on small entities 

may require further analysis and/or data collection to ensure that the options are practicable, 

enforceable, environmentally sound, and consistent with the Clean Air Act and its amendments. 

2. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF RULEMAKING 

2.1 Regulatory History

 

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA Administrator to list categories of 

stationary sources, if such sources cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA must then issue 

performance standards for such source categories. These standards are referred to as new source 

performance standards (NSPS). The EPA has the authority to define the source categories, 

determine the pollutants for which standards should be developed, identify the facilities within 

each source category to be covered, and set the emission level of the standards. 

2.2 Description and Scope of Existing Rule 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing a rule that proposes to reduce 

emissions of greenhouse gases, including methane, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

under its New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the oil and natural gas industry. Those 

cost-effective standards, issued in 2012, currently are reducing VOC emissions from several 

sources in the oil and natural gas industry. EPA is considering adding equipment and processes 

to those sources currently covered by the standards. Equipment and processes the agency is 

considering adding to the NSPS include hydraulically fractured oil wells, pneumatic controllers 

and pumps, leaks from new and modified sites, and compressor stations. 

On Jan. 14, 2015, the Obama Administration announced its next steps to cut methane emissions 

under the March 2014 Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions. That strategy, part of the 

Administration’s Climate Action Plan, identified the oil and gas industry as a key source of 

methane emissions and set out a series of steps to reduce those emissions while allowing 

continued responsible growth in U.S. oil and natural gas production. 

As part of that strategy, on April 15, 2014, EPA released for external peer review and public 

input five technical white papers on potentially significant sources of emissions in the oil and gas 
6

sector. The white papers set out data and information available to us at that time on potentially 

significant sources of emissions in the oil and gas sector and options for reducing those 

emissions. EPA used the papers, along with the input received from the peer reviewers and the 

public, to identify potential commonsense, cost-effective approaches to achieve emission 

reduction from these sources. Peer reviewers’ comments, and instructions for reading input from 

the public are available at on EPA’s website 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/whitepapers.html. 

Additional information about EPA’s strategy for reducing air pollution from the oil and gas 

industry can be found at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/20150114fs.pdf. 

2.3 Regulatory Options Likely to be Proposed 

Through Agency review of data available in the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and stakeholder 

input, a broad range of program improvements and opportunities for significant cost-effective 

reductions of VOCs and methane have been suggested across the oil and natural gas sector. From 

these, EPA identified those which could only be addressed through regulation change, and 

further limited to those which would provide the most protective impact. The following is a 

listing of regulatory revisions currently being considered and evaluated by EPA, and is not final 

at this time. The options being considered include requirements across the oil and natural gas 

sector for: 

 Work practices for completions of hydraulically fractured oil wells; 

 Requirements for monitoring and repair of fugitive emissions from new and modified 

sites; 

 Emission standards for pneumatic pumps; 

 Emission standards for pneumatic controllers; 

 Emission standards for centrifugal compressors; and 

 Work practices for reciprocating compressors. 

Potential control strategies that the Agency may consider are summarized in the technical white 

papers described above. 

2.4 Related Federal Rules 

In addition to the 2012 NSPS, there are two National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) rules that apply to certain equipment and processes in the oil and natural 

gas sector. These rules, listed below, address air toxics, primarily benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene 

and xylenes (collectively referred to as BTEX) and n-hexane. These two rules, which were 

updated concurrently with the 2012 NSPS, were promulgated under section 112 of the Clean Air 

Act and are codified in 40 CFR Part 63: 

 Subpart HH – Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production (including processing); and 

 Subpart HHH – Natural Gas Transmission and Storage. 

Additionally, 40 CFR Part 98 Subpart W is a greenhouse gas reporting requirement that applies 

to petroleum and natural gas systems. Owners or operators of facilities that contain petroleum 
7

and natural gas systems and emit 25,000 metric tons or more of GHGs per year from process 

operations, stationary combustion, miscellaneous use of carbonates, and other source categories 

are required to report emissions from all source categories located at the facility for which 

emission calculation methods are defined in the rule. Owners or operators are required to collect 

emission data; calculate GHG emissions; and follow the specified procedures for quality 

assurance, missing data, recordkeeping, and reporting. 

3. APPLICABLE SMALL ENTITY DEFINITIONS 

The proposed rule may affect entities in the following segments of the oil and natural gas sector: 

2012 NAICS

Code

NAICS Description Small Business

Threshold

Estimated

Number of Small

Entities

211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas

Extraction

500 employees 6,444

211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction 500 employees 107

213111 Drilling Oil and Gas Wells 500 employees 2,085

213112 Support Activities for Oil and Gas

Operations

$38.5 million in receipts 8,561

486110 Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil 1,500 employees 28

486210 Pipeline Transportation of Natural

Gas

$27.5 million in receipts 80

486910 Pipeline Transportation of Refined

Petroleum Products

1,500 employees 28

486990 All Other Pipeline Transportation $37.5 million in receipts 6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2012. http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/

SBA Size Standards, 13 CFR 121. 201 

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide regarding entities likely 

to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed here could also be affected. 

The potential new standards may affect numerous entities engaged in a variety of activities 

related to the oil and natural gas industry. As the NSPS affect new sources in the future, there is 

uncertainty about which entities may be specifically affected by these potential standards. To 

inform the assessment of potential costs and identify entities that may be affected under the 

potential NSPS additions, the Agency evaluated a variety of data sources, ranging from oil and 

natural gas production data to information in trade media. 

4. LIST OF SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES 

EPA consulted with Advocacy to develop the list of small entity representatives (SERs) in the 

table below. EPA issued a press release inviting self-nominations by affected small entities to 

serve as potential SERs. The press release directed interested small entities to a web page where 

they could indicate their interest in serving as a SER. EPA launched the website January 28, 
8

2015 and accepted self-nominations until February 11, 2015. EPA sent Advocacy a Formal 

Notification with the suggested list of potential SERs on March 24, 2015 and Advocacy 

responded on April 9, 2015. 

Table 1. Potential Small Entity Representatives1

Name Affiliation Contact Information 

Tom Murphy2

Manager, Environmental 

Compliance 

Unitil Service Corp 

New Hampshire 

murphyt@unitil.com

603-379-3829 

Michalene Reilly 

Executive Director 

Hoosier Energy REC, Inc 

Indiana 

mreilly@hepn.com

812-935-4711 

David Stewart 

Corporate Director, EHS & 

Regulatory Compliance 

Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc 

Colorado 

dstewart@bonanzacrk.com

720-225-6696 

Julie Lang 

Director of Regulatory 

Affairs 

Prism Midstream LLC 

Texas 

jlang@prism-midstream.com

817-803-5265 

Chuck Cornell 

Senior Regulatory Lead 

Jonah Energy LLC 

Colorado 

chuck.cornell@jonahenergy.com

720-577-1251 

Rudy F. Vogt, III 

Geologist/Partner AND 

Current President of the KY 

Oil & Gas Association 

Cumberland Valley 

Resources LLC 

Kentucky 

rvogt@cvresources.com

502-479-9056 

Doug Mehan 

Director of Health, 

Environmental & Safety 

PennEnergy Resources LLC 

Pennsylvania 

dgmehan@pennenergyresources.com

412-275-3209 

Robert Mitchell 

Vice President 

Carrera Gas Companies LLC 

Oklahoma 

rmitchell@carreragas.com

918-710-4128 

Arthur Stewart 

President 

Cameron Energy Company 

Pennsylvania 

camelot1@atlanticbb.net

814-968-3337 

Jerry James 

President 

Artex Oil Company 

Ohio 

jjames@artexoil.com

740-373-3313 

                                                            

1

 Gas Processors Association, represented by Matt Hite and Mark Sutton; and Independent Petroleum Association of 

America, represented by Matt Kellogg will serve as Helpers. 2

 Pam Lacey from American Gas Association will serve as Tom’s helper
9

Name Affiliation Contact Information 

Doug Jones 

Vice President, Catalyst 

Energy 

Pennsylvania Grade Crude 

Oil Coalition (PGCC) 

dj@catalystenergyinc.com 412-325-

4350 

Shane Kriebel3

Production Business 

Manager, Kriebel Companies 

Pennsylvania Independent 

Oil & Gas Association 

(PIOGA) 

SCKriebel@kriebelgas.com

814-226-4160 

Kathleen M. Sgamma 

Vice President of 

Government & Public Affairs 

Western Energy Alliance 

Colorado 

ksgamma@westernenergyalliance.org

303-501-1059 

Mari Ruckel 

Vice President, Government 

and Regulatory Affairs 

Texas Oil and Gas 

Association 

mruckel@toga.org

512-478-6631 

Sarah Bartlett 

Lead Air Quality EHS 

Professional 

PDC Energy, Inc. 

Colorado 

Sarah.Bartlett@PDCE.com

303-831-3969 

James Elliot 

Counsel, 

Spillman, Thomas & Battle 

Independent Petroleum 

Association of America 

(IPAA) 

jelliott@spilmanlaw.com

717-791-2012

5. SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITY OUTREACH 

The EPA conducted a meeting/teleconference with potential small entity representatives (SERs) 

on May 19, 2015. To help SERs prepare for the meeting/teleconference, EPA sent initial 

materials to each of the potential SERs via email on May 11, 2015, and additional materials on 

May 18, 2015. A list of the materials shared with the potential SERs during the pre-Panel 

outreach meeting is contained in Appendix A. For the May 19, 2015 pre-Panel outreach meeting 

with the potential SERs, the EPA also invited representatives from the Office of Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the 

Office of Management and Budget. A total of 11 potential SERs participated in the meeting. The 

EPA presented an overview of the SBREFA process, an explanation of the planned rulemaking, 

and technical background. 

The EPA conducted a Panel outreach meeting/teleconference with the SERs on June 18, 2015. A 

total of 11 SERs participated in the meeting. Appendix A lists materials shared with the SERs 

prior to the outreach meeting. Comments raised during the May 19, 2015 pre-Panel outreach 

meeting, the June 18, 2015 Panel outreach meeting and written comments submitted by the 

potential SERs are summarized in Section 6 of this document. 

                                                            

3

Dave Ochs and Roy Rakiewicz will serve as helpers. 
10

6. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM SMALL ENTITY 

REPRESENTATIVES 

6.1 Summary of May 19, 2015 Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting 

The Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting was conducted as follows: 

 Welcome and Introductions (Nicole Owens, EPA Office of Policy) 

 SBAR Panel Process Overview (Nicole Owens, EPA Office of Policy) 

 Presentation on the Proposed Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources in the 

Oil and Natural Gas Sector (Bruce Moore, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards) 

 Questions and Discussion (All Participants) 

 Summary and Closing (Nicole Owens, EPA Office of Policy) 

Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting attendance: 

 Nicole Owens, EPA Office of Policy 

 Bruce Moore, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

 Amy Branning, EPA Office of General Counsel 

 David Rostker, Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy 

 Pat Delehanty, Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy 

 Jan Gilbreath, EPA Office of Policy 

 Nathan Frey, Office of Management and Budget 

 Aaron Szabo, Office of Management and Budget 

 Suzie Waltzer, EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs 

 David Cozzie, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (phone) 

 Alex MacPherson, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (phone) 

 Lisa Thompson, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (phone) 

 Douglas Jones, Pennsylvania Grade Crude Oil Coalition 

 Pam Lacey, American Gas Association, serving as a helper (phone) 

 Jim McCarthy, Innovative Environmental Solutions, Inc., serving as a helper (phone) 

 Julie Lang, Prism Midstream LLC (phone) 

 Chuck Cornell, Jonah Energy LLC (phone) 

 Rudy Vogt, Cumberland Valley Resources LLC (phone) 

 Doug Mehan, PennEnergy Resources LLC (phone) 

 Robert Mitchell, Carrera Gas Companies LLC (phone) 

 Matt Hite, Gas Processors Association, serving as a helper (phone) 

 Mark Sutton, Gas Processors Association, serving as a helper (phone) 

 Jerry James, Artex Oil Company (phone) 

 Shane Kriebel, Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association (phone) 

 Dave Ochs, Kriebel, serving as a helper (phone) 

 Roy Rakiewicz, All4 Inc, serving as a helper (phone) 

 Ryan Streams, Western Energy Alliance (phone) 
11

 Sarah Bartlett, PDC Energy, Inc (phone) 

 Jim Elliott, Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), PLLC (phone) 

Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting Summary 

 Nicole Owens (EPA Office of Policy) asked if any participants had questions about the 

process or the presentation they were provided in advance of the meeting, “An Overview 

of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Process”. 

o The presentation addressed what an SBAR Panel is, how it fits into the 

rulemaking process, how Small Entity Representatives (SERs) participate in the 

Panel process, what the Panel does with SER recommendations, and what to 

expect in future Panel meetings. 

 David Rostker (SBA Office of Advocacy) 

o Emphasized the goal of the Panel is to develop regulatory alternatives that 

minimize the burden on small entities while allowing EPA to fulfill its statutory 

obligations. 

 Bruce Moore (EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards) delivered “Pre-Panel 

Outreach Briefing: Emissions Standards for New and Modified Sources in the Oil and 

Natural Gas Sector” 

o The presentation offered a description of the oil and natural gas sector, an 

overview of New Source Performance Standards, the Obama Administration’s 

Methane Strategy, and descriptions of emissions sources covered in EPA’s White 

Papers, including: 

 Hydraulically Fractured Oil Well Completions, 

 Fugitive Emissions at Well Sites, Gathering and Boosting Stations, and 

Compressor Stations, 

 Pneumatic Pumps, 

 Pneumatic Controllers, 

 Compressors, and 

 Liquids Unloading 

o The presentation also addressed the potential impacts small entities could expect 

to experience through the proposed rulemaking, and requested input on: 

 The number of small entities that could be impacted by this action, 

 Recommendations for reducing recordkeeping and reporting burdens of 

small businesses, 

 Overlapping federal rules that apply to small businesses, and 

 Recommendations for reducing the burden on small businesses while 

reducing emissions from the white paper sources. 

 Questions/Comments 

o A potential SER asked if coverage under the rule was based on emissions per 

operator or emissions per well. Another SER asked if there was a production 

threshold per well for being covered by this rule, or if low producing wells would 

be exempted. 

 EPA Response: EPA is considering ways to avoid undue burden on small 

operators and will consider suggestions from the SERs on appropriate 

thresholds.
12

o A potential SER asked if EPA was considering different control mechanisms for 

controlling methane emissions versus VOC emissions. 

 EPA Response: The existing NSPS contains BSERs for VOC emissions, 

and noted that these controls also reduce methane emissions. 

o One potential SER asked if rules for compressors would be different for the 

production, processing, and transmission segments, and if compressors used for 

storage of LNG will be covered. 

 EPA Response: The proposed rule covered compressors throughout the 

production, processing, and transmission sectors. Compressors used in 

LNG storage in these segments will be covered. 

o One potential SER stated that the cost of converting a wet seal to a dry seal is 

$100,000 plus $500,000 in labor. 

 EPA Response: Converting to a dry seal was ruled out as a BSER for 

retrofits. 

o A potential SER asked EPA to consider market constraints in providing control 

equipment in the given timeframe to avoid equipment shortages. 

 EPA Response: Availability of control equipment will be considered in the 

rule. 

o Several potential SERs asked EPA to evaluate the burden of overlapping state and 

local rules which complicate compliance, including Pennsylvania Exemption 38, 

and rules in Ohio and Colorado. 

 EPA Response: Asked the SERs to notify the Panel on overlapping 

regulations and recommend ways to reduce the burden on small businesses 

while reducing emissions from the white paper sources. 

6.2 Summary of Written Comments and Questions from Potential SERs 

At the conclusion of the Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting, potential SERs were asked to submit 

written questions and comments to EPA. Seven entities submitted written materials to EPA. The 

following subsections summarize these submissions. 

6.2.1 Summary of Comments on Hydraulically Fractured Oil Well Completions 

Cumberland Valley Resources, LLC noted that the amount of gas produced per barrel of oil is 

less than 1Mcf/day per barrel, and decreases quickly with production, and without the ability to 

vent or flare the gas produced, oil development would come to an end. 

Cumberland Valley Resources, LLC noted that the cost to install and maintain a continuously 

burning pilot flame for a well that pumps for only a few hours a day would be an expensive 

burden on the operator. 

Cumberland Valley Resources, LLC asked what volume of natural gas vented from an individual 

well is acceptable to EPA. 
13

PDC Energy, Inc asked EPA to explain the difference between existing gas well completion 

requirements and new oil well completion requirements. 

PennEnergy Resources, LLC stated that increasing flare efficiencies of the flare stack could 

result in unintended consequences including triggering local nuisance noise issues, and noted 

that this equipment is not readily available. 

PIOGA stated EPA must evaluate complications caused by low pressure wells and separation 

from energized wells. 

PIOGA stated EPA’s emission standards for conventional operations are not appropriate because 

they appear to be based on modern unconventional shale plays. PIOGA stated that it’s not clear 

if EPA’s data includes representative data in the Appalachian basin from both historic stripper 

well fields and modern shale plays. 

6.2.2 Summary of Comments on Fugitive Emissions 

Cumberland Valley Resources, LLC stated the cost to the small operator to find and repair very 

small leaks on an old gathering system could be quite high. 

Cumberland Valley Resources, LLC asked if adding a new well to an old system would make it 

an effected facility, and stated that, if so, that would preclude any further development and 

effectively shut down new drilling and gas production. 

Gas Processors Association (GPA) noted that gas processing accounts for less than 10% of the 

emissions EPA is trying to control. GPA asked how EPA will ensure a cost-effective fugitive 

emission reduction program for processing plants. GPA further asked how EPA will ensure that 

compliance cost will not negatively impact small businesses. 

GPA stated that an LDAR program for a small plant can run anywhere from $15,000 to $30,000 

per year, a significant cost for small businesses. 

PDC Energy, Inc asked for additional information on the scope of LDAR requirements to the 

upstream oil and gas sector. 

PennEnergy Resources, LLC stated that any enhanced leak detection program should build in 

flexibility by providing multiple ways to demonstrate compliance. 

PIOGA urged EPA to retain the options to demonstrate compliance in Subpart OOOO. 

Western Energy Alliance urged EPA to avoid the Colorado Regulation 7 LDAR program as a 

national model, as it would be extremely burdensome for small operators. The frequency of 

inspections and reporting requirements are costly, especially for operators with remote operation 

that require extensive travel time. The Colorado LDAR program suffers from a lack of air quality 

modeling to verify program benefits, and it renders many marginally economic wells 

uneconomic. Losing marginal wells could risk putting many small operators out of business. 
14

6.2.3 Summary of Comments on Pneumatic Pumps 

GPA stated that gas processing plants have a very small number of pneumatic pumps and noted 

that there is little benefit in trying to control pneumatic pump emissions from gas processing 

plants. GPA said it would be very beneficial to know if EPA plans to focus on pneumatic pumps. 

PDC Energy, Inc asked EPA to describe the changes to the existing pneumatic requirements. 

6.2.4 Summary of Comments on Pneumatic Controllers 

GPA asked if EPA is proposing switching to or requiring an instrument air system for pneumatic 

controllers, as these systems are extremely costly and could be cost prohibitive for small gas 

processing operations. 

6.2.5 Summary of Comments on Compressors 

GPA stated that vapor recovery systems are costly and problematic for small entities. GPA noted 

that a number of these facilities are in remote locations and are only used if they are absolutely 

necessary. GPA stated it would be helpful to know if EPA is considering vapor recovery systems 

as an option. 

PDC Energy, Inc asked if the small compressors at wellsites will be subject to the requirements 

discussed in the white papers. PDC Energy, Inc asked if there are any differences between the 

current requirements and those for small, remote compressors. 

PIOGA stated that the compressor standards discussed in the white papers are concerning 

because they imply that the proposed standards will be derived from larger compressors, which 

won’t be applicable to the small reciprocating compressors some small entity producers use at 

their wells. 

Western Energy Alliance stated that a methane control strategy for upstream oil and natural gas 

operations skews economic hardship towards small upstream operators. Western Energy 

Alliance stated that upstream compressor controls would be extremely burdensome to small 

operators. 

6.2.6 Summary of Comments on Liquids Unloading 

PDC Energy, Inc asked EPA to describe the requirements for well liquids unloading, including 

applicability to gas and/or oil wells and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

6.2.7 Summary of Comments on Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 

GPA stated that EPA’s paperwork requirements should be minimal and simple as small 

companies do not have the extra staff to monitor complicated regulatory systems nor the budget 

to purchase such systems. GPA noted that most small businesses track all record keeping and 

compliance documents in excel spreadsheets. GPA asked what steps EPA is considering to 
15

lessen the potential burdens (time, labor, costs) of recordkeeping and reporting to small 

businesses. 

PennEnergy Resources, LLC stated that Pennsylvania’s reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements are extensive, and additional requirements from the EPA are redundant, and time 

and resource consuming. 

PennEnergy Resources, LLC asked EPA to clearly define reporting requirements. 

6.2.8 Summary of Comments on Compliance 

GPA stated that EPA should not charge excessive fines and should provide a way to resolve 

compliance issues for small businesses in a non-punitive/financial way. 

PIOGA urged EPA to consider the availability of consultants and equipment to come into 

compliance in a timely manner. 

6.2.9 Summary of Comments on Scope of the Rulemaking 

Jonah Energy, LLC asked if EPA’s proposal focuses on tightening standards on emission source 

categories that are already regulated, or categories that aren’t currently covered by existing 

regulations. Jonah Energy, LLC asked if emission source categories that are not covered in 

EPA’s five white papers being considered. 

PennEnergy Resources, LLC and PIOGA described Pennsylvania’s Exemption 38 and expressed 

concern about double coverage or redundant requirements. PIOGA stated that, to avoid overlap 

and ambiguity, the EPA needs to review and consider the requirements of each SIP to determine 

if additional and redundant air quality regulations at the federal level are truly required for small 

entity operators. 

PIOGA stated that creating a new set of methane NSPS for the exploration and production 

segment of the industry is unnecessary and will disproportionately affect small entities, and 

recommended keeping the next set of regulations limited to additional VOC regulations. 

PIOGA requested that EPA survey existing state requirements and minimize duplication of 

requirements, and allow consistency between state and federal requirements where possible. 

PIOGA stated stripper wells should be categorically exempt from the proposed regulations. 

PIOGA stated that the additional environmental benefit of additional regulations on small entity 

operators is unlikely to outweigh the economic impact on their operations. 

PIOGA stated that EPA’s cost/benefit analysis should use actual local prices of natural gas to 

determine the economic impact of new regulations on small entity operators. 

Western Energy Alliance stated regulating upstream source categories at natural gas production 

sites will provide very little methane reduction. 
16

6.2.10 Summary of Comments on Rulemaking Timeline 

 

Jonah Energy, LLC asked if EPA is considering lengthening the current rulemaking timeline, 

noting that small businesses need ample time to budget for potential regulatory impacts. 

Western Energy Alliance stated that EPA’s rulemaking timeline appears overly aggressive and 

may not provide EPA adequate time to review SBAR input and incorporate meaningful changes 

into the draft rulemaking. 

6.2.11 Summary of Comments on Regulatory Flexibility 

Jonah Energy, LLC asked if EPA is considering off-ramp provisions for various emissions 

source categories to allow for less regulatory burden as well production declines. 

PennEnergy Resources, LLC and PIOGA stated that a minimum threshold, such as the GHG 

reporting threshold, should be considered for inclusion in the rule. 

6.3 Summary of June 18, 2015 Panel Outreach Meeting 

The Panel Outreach Meeting was conducted as follows: 

 Welcome and Introductions (Nicole Owens, EPA Office of Policy) 

 Panel Process Questions (Nicole Owens, EPA Office of Policy) 

 Presentation on the Proposed Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources in the 

Oil and Natural Gas Sector (Bruce Moore, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards) 

 Questions and Discussion (All Participants) 

 Summary and Closing (Nicole Owens, EPA Office of Policy) 

Panel Outreach Meeting attendance: 

 Alexander Cristofao, EPA Office of Policy 

 Nicole Owens, EPA Office of Policy 

 Jan Gilbreath, EPA Office of Policy 

 Bruce Moore, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

 Jameel Alsalam, EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs 

 Lilian Harris, EPA Office of Small Business Programs 

 Kevin Bromberg, Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy 

 Nick Mastron, Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy 

 Aaron Szabo, Office of Management and Budget 

 Andrea Grossman, Office of Management and Budget 

 Jim Elliott, Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), PLLC 

 Matt Hite, Gas Processors Association, serving as a helper 

 Roy Rakiewicz, All4 Inc, serving as a helper 

 Pam Lacey, American Gas Association, serving as a helper 
17

 David Cozzie, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (phone) 

 Lisa Thompson, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (phone) 

 Tom Murphy, Unitil Service Corp. (phone) 

 Julie Lang, Prism Midstream LLC (phone) 

 Chuck Cornell, Jonah Energy LLC (phone) 

 Rudy Vogt, Cumberland Valley Resources LLC (phone) 

 Doug Mehan, PennEnergy Resources LLC (phone) 

 Robert Mitchell, Carrera Gas Companies LLC (phone) 

 Douglas Jones, Pennsylvania Grade Crude Oil Coalition (phone) 

 Shane Kriebel, Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association (phone) 

 Ryan Streams, Western Energy Alliance (phone) 

 Tom Monahan, Texas Oil and Gas Association (phone) 

 Doug Mehan, PennEnergy Resources LLC (phone) 

 Dave Ochs, Kriebel, serving as a helper (phone) 

 Jim McCarthy, Innovative Environmental Solutions, Inc., serving as a helper (phone) 

Panel Outreach Meeting Summary 

 Nicole Owens (EPA Office of Policy) asked if any participants had questions about the 

process or the presentation they were provided in advance of the meeting, “An Overview 

of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Process”. 

 Bruce Moore (EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards) delivered “Panel 

Outreach Briefing: Emissions Standards for New and Modified Sources in the Oil and 

Natural Gas Sector” 

o The presentation offered a description of the oil and natural gas sector, and 

descriptions of emissions sources in the Oil and Gas Industry, including control 

options, SER comments and requested input from SERs on the following EPA 

White Paper sources: 

 Hydraulically Fractured Oil Well Completions, 

 Fugitive Emissions at Well Sites, Gathering and Boosting Stations, and 

Compressor Stations, 

 Pneumatic Pumps, 

 Pneumatic Controllers, and 

 Compressors. 

o The presentation also addressed unit costs and emission reduction potential from 

the control options discussed. 

 Questions/Comments 

o General: 

 A SER asked when the SBAR Panel was convened. 

 EPA Response: June 16, 2015 

o Hydraulically Fractured Oil Well Completions: 

 A SER expressed concern that they may experience difficulty getting 

equipment and consultants needed as large entities buy up equipment and 

consultants. 
18

 A SER asked EPA to clarify the average duration of an oil well 

completion. 

 EPA Response: 3 days 

 A SER stated that they won’t know the production or pressure from an oil 

well until they drilled, so it’s hard to provide input on what an appropriate 

production or pressure threshold would be. 

 A SER stated they couldn’t provide comment on how long a REC takes to 

perform because they haven’t done these before. 

o Fugitive Emissions 

 Several SERs stated that EPA should consider other technologies for 

detecting fugitive emissions or not be prescriptive in setting regulations in 

order to allow flexibility as lower cost and innovative technologies 

become available. Further, the SERs requested flexibility in demonstrating 

repairs have taken place. 

 A SER stated that the cost of repairing a leak has not be adequately 

accounted for. 

 A SER stated that annual emissions monitoring is most beneficial as there 

won’t be many leaks after initial survey. 

 A SER stated that the existing reporting requirements are already 

burdensome. 

 A SER recommended using the 6 tons per year threshold from OOOO, 

and another SER stated that 150 psi is a good threshold to use as no 

LDAR works for lines. 

 A SER stated that linking thresholds to throughput or pressure would 

make compliance easier. 

 Regarding reporting requirements, a SER recommended keeping data on 

site and not necessarily reporting, or that EPA accept the reporting already 

required by the State. 

o Pneumatic Pumps 

 A SER stated that there are not a lot of pneumatic pumps in the 

transmission segment. 

 A SER stated that there are very few emissions from pneumatic pumps as 

compared to other sources. 

 A SER noted that instrument air may not be available in every location. 

 Several SERs noted that they do not have existing controls (e.g., flares, 

combustors) at their facilities, but did have storage tanks with controls. 

o Pneumatic Controllers 

 A SER asked if the capital costs for pneumatic controller control options 

included the cost of retraining personnel. 

 A SER asked for clarification if the city gate transfer was included in 

transmission or not. 

 A SER stated that there are very few emissions from pneumatic controllers 

as compared to other sources. 

o Compressors 

 A SER noted that well site compressors are not permanent units, they are 

usually rented. 
19

 A SER stated that a set schedule for rod-packing replacement doesn’t 

work and condition based maintenance is more effective. 

o Liquids Unloading 

 A SER stated that thief hatches are for safety and emissions cannot be 

safely controlled as a well is unloaded. 

o Unit Reductions and Costs from Potential Control Options 

 A SER noted that most upstream compressors are reciprocating. 

 A SER stated that they may not own the gas so annualized costs that 

include gas savings may not be appropriate. 

6.4 Summary of Written Comments and Questions from SERs 

At the conclusion of the Panel Outreach Meeting, SERs were asked to submit written questions 

and comments to EPA. Seven entities submitted written materials to EPA. The following 

subsections summarize these submissions. 

6.4.1 Summary of Comments on Hydraulically Fractured Oil Well Completions 

IPAA stated that EPA’s natural gas recovery estimate of 800-900 Mcf/year is difficult to 

evaluate as small entities are not required to report emissions. IPAA stated that it is unclear if 

emissions calculations take into account that the actual venting of gas only takes place for a 

fraction of the completion time. If it is not accounted for, then the reported benefit in recovered 

product is overstated. 

IPAA stated that all vertical oil wells should be exempt from RECs because there is insufficient 

wellhead pressure to operate a two or three phase gas/liquid separator. These wells require and 

artificial lift in order to flowback the completion fluids. IPAA stated that any well that requires 

an artificial lift should also be exempt because there is not enough gas and sufficient pressure to 

operate a separator. 

IPAA stated that low pressure wells should be categorically exempt and could be based on a 

threshold sales line/gathering line of approximately 250 psi or a simple water gradient formula of 

0.465 psi/foot. The emissions associated with these types of wells are so low that even if a 

separator can be operated for some short period of time, the value of gas does not exceed the cost 

associated with bringing equipment to the site. IPAA stated that basing an exemption on volume 

or GOR can be more complicated because these parameters cannot be known with absolute 

certainty prior to drilling. Sufficiently conservative thresholds such as 15 bbl per day or a GOR 

of 500 scf/bbl would provide small entities some relief without risking the release of significant 

emissions. 
20

PIOGA stated that stripper wells should be categorically exempted from proposed regulations. 

PIOGA stated that operators are able to gauge whether a given well will be a stripper well prior 

to drilling. 

PIOGA stated that the costs for RECs on stripper wells in prohibitively expensive. PIOGA stated 

that in Pennsylvania, the duration of flowback where the flow is gas or oil dominant is very short 

(a few hours), making it nearly impossible for an operator to recoup the cost of a REC through 

gas sales. PIOGA stated that it will cost an operator of a stripper well $5,000 to $7,000 per day to 

effectively separate and flare gas or feed gas to a sales line. 

PIOGA recommended EPA establish an overall applicability threshold based on production, 

emissions, well depth, formation, or revenue to limit potential impact of future regulations on 

small entities. 

PIOGA stated that for a combustion device to work properly, the well must be equipped with 

much of the same equipment during completion that is required for a REC, meaning significant 

costs are still incurred without any benefit in terms of product preserved for sale. This equipment 

includes: chokes, sand traps, separators, flare units with auto ignition, pressure test and certified 

iron to plumb the system together, and personnel. 

PIOGA stated that much of the flowback associated with stripper wells is dominated by liquid 

flow, making combustion generally technically infeasible. 

PIOGA stated that production volume associated with unconventional shale wells are over 11 

times greater than stripper wells, and so a one-size-fits-all approach is unreasonable and results 

in a disproportionate technical, resource, and financial burden on small operators. 

PIOGA stated that stripper wells that produce less than 15 barrels of oil or 90 MCF per day 

should not be subject to additional regulation. 

PIOGA stated that the use of RECs on stripper wells could impact their productivity. After a 

stripper well is hydraulically fractured, the water used to fracture the well must efficiently flow 

from the well at the time of flowback. Restricting the flowback through the use of a choke 

system will likely result in an increased amount of trapped fluid left in the reservoir. In addition, 

the permeability of the reservoir can be altered due to the effects of the fracturing fluids left 

behind in reservoirs, hindering the flow of oil and gas. If excessive amounts of fracturing fluids 

are trapped in the stimulated formations, it could have an adverse effect on the well’s ability to 

produce oil and gas efficiently. 

WEA recommended that EPA not use GOR for exemptions from oil well requirements because 

this information is not available at the pre-fracturing stage. WEA stated that it would be more 

effective to base exemptions on field-wide production in barrels per field or company size in 

revenue or number of employees, rather than GOR or well production thresholds. 
21

WEA stated that EPA’s estimate that methane is 46% of the volume of gas produced during an 

oil well completion is high inaccurate. WEA stated a more accurate number would be between 

40-80%, with many basins producing gas that is over 60% methane. WEA stated that the 

remaining volume of gas is not entirely VOCs; VOC emissions are likely 10-30% of total 

volume. 

WEA stated that small operators tend to be on the high end of completion costs, and typically 

conduction completions less frequently than larger operators. WEA stated a one-size-fits-all cost 

estimate would likely not adequately represent the cost burden faced by small operators. 

6.4.2 Summary of Comments on Fugitive Emissions 

Carrera Gas Companies, LLC stated that their experience is that cameras can cost more than 

$80,000 per unit, and contractors charge over $6,000 per day and are not always available. 

Carrera Gas Companies, LLC stated that cameras are cost prohibitive and other methods such as 

Method 10 or soap testing should be included as acceptable leak detection methods. 

Carrera Gas Companies, LLC stated that frequency of testing should be no more than once per 

year. 

Carrera Gas Companies, LLC stated that there should be a “standard exemption” from LDAR for 

small facilities, and recommend a 6 tpy fugitives threshold for inclusion in an LDAR program. 

Carrera Gas Companies, LLC recommended a compliance allowance of 5 missed sources or 5% 

of total sources before fines are issued. 

IPAA stated that LDAR does not require a quantification of the amount of natural gas leaked, so 

it is difficult to assess if EPA’s estimate of 30-160 Mcf/year for well pads is accurate. 

IPAA stated that averaging of the costs and benefits for all well pads may be misleading as a 

small percentage of the overall well pads may be responsible for a disproportionate share of 

emissions. Consequently, small entities may be expending large sums of money to meet the 

LDAR requirements without seeing any of the benefits. 

IPAA stated that Colorado’s Regulation 7 (particularly Table 20 on page 15) misses important 

costs including: 1) camera – the table does not include costs to train inspectors to use the camera 

(~$2000) or maintenance of the camera (~$2500 to $3000), 2) Vehicle – the table does not 

include the costs of operating or maintaining the vehicle, 3) recordkeeping – the table does not 

include the capital costs to develop a software program to manage this recordkeeping or the costs 

to maintain it, 4) repair – the table does not include the costs of repairs, including additional 

time/labor, and 5) re-monitoring – the table does not include the cost for time and labor to fulfil 

the re-monitoring requirements after a repair. IPAA further noted that Colorado’s Regulation 7 

does not include the costs for AVO labor and time, and does not offer an exit ramp for this 
22

requirement. IPAA strongly stated that EPA should not use Colorado’s Regulation 7 as a model 

for its LDAR program. 

IPAA stated that EPA should not be prescriptive and dictate the technology for identifying leaks. 

Allowing a variety of technologies spurs innovation and reduces costs. 

IPAA stated that LDAR requirements are particularly burdensome to small entities as they are 

time consuming and may require travel to diverse geographic locations. IPAA recommended 

three tiers of LDAR requirements. For certain sources, there should be no LDAR requirements is 

there isn’t a significant emission source, such as a simple well pad with no combustion devices 

and a storage vessel not subject to Subpart OOOO. Similarly, well pads with gathering lines or 

well head pressure less than 150 psi should not be subject to LDAR requirements. Similarly, a 

second tier should be established which applies to small entities above the 150 psi but below a 

daily production level. 

IPAA stated that small entities should be given 180 days or more from the start of production to 

conduct the initial survey. Thereafter, the survey frequency should be no more than annually. 

PRISM stated that EPA should consider options for Method 21 and Soap Test in addition to the 

IR Camera for leak detection. Providing no alternative to the IR Camera pus the small business 

at a disadvantage when the demand is high and supply is limited. 

PRISM stated that if IR Cameras are required there should be an extension of the deadline, or a 

rolling grace period to allow small businesses to acquire the necessary contract services. 

PRSIM stated that leak detection survey frequency should be no more than once per year, with 

an exemption or a different monitoring frequency for remote locations and low emitting sources, 

much like the tank exemptions in a previous NSPS OOOO rulemaking. 

TXOGA recommended that soap bubbles should be considered a viable technology for leak 

detection, particularly for small entities unable to bear the cost of an IR camera. 

TXOGA stated that EPA should seek additional input on a comprehensive list of cost items that 

would be incurred by small entities when repairing a leak. 

TXOGA stated that EPA should seek input on cases where cost for repair is unreasonably high 

and consider establishing exemptions for such cases. 

TXOGA stated that EPA should seek input of establishing criteria for exempting small leaks 

from repair requirements. 

TXOGA stated that EPA should provide flexibility for operators to make a site-specific 

determination if a repair is or is not appropriate. 
23

WEA stated that EPA should not use Colorado’s Regulation 7 as a national model. WEA 

referred to a study that determined that Colorado’s LDAR program has high compliance costs 

that would make many marginal wells un-economic. 

WEA stated that after initial leaks are found and fixed, the rate of leak frequencies drop 

dramatically, and so the benefits of subsequent rounds of inspection diminish greatly over time. 

WEA stated that additional costs must be accounted for in an LDAR program, including 

reporting, cost of repair parts, cost of time to repair leaks, cost of time to resurvey leaks, cost of 

IR cameras and maintenance, vehicle maintenance, and cost of identifying accurate component 

counts. 

WEA recommended EPA avoid overly-prescriptive inspection requirements and instead allow 

monthly or quarterly AVO inspections. 

WEA recommended that EPA provide regulatory flexibility to allow for operational 

considerations such as waiting to repair a leak for safety or operational concerns. 

6.4.3 Summary of Comments on Pneumatic Pumps

Carrera Gas Companies, LLC stated that all their piston type pneumatic pumps are used for 

compressor dehydration and are located in remote facilities that have unreliable or no electricity, 

and recommended EPA not regulate any pneumatically driven piston pumps. 

Carrera Gas Companies, LLC stated that diaphragm pumps used for chemical transfer and 

chemical injection are used intermittently in remote locations and moved frequency. Carrera Gas 

Companies, LLC stated that it is virtually impossible for a small business to keep up with the 

hours and locations these pumps are in service, and the paperwork burden would have a large 

negative impact on small businesses. Carrera Gas Companies, LLC recommended that EPA not 

regulate any pneumatically driven diaphragm pumps. 

PRISM stated that gas processing plants have a very small number of pneumatic pumps, and they 

are often used on an intermittent basis at remote locations, and there is very little benefit in trying 

to control these emissions. 

PRISM stated that pneumatic pumps are also used for chemical injection, and these pumps are 

very low volume. PRISM stated that EPA should consider an exemption for pneumatic pumps 

used periodically or are low volume pumps. 

PRISM stated that pneumatic pumps are often used in a remote location with no existing 

infrastructure so an exemption for remote location would be appropriate. 

PRISM stated that combustion controls should only be required if a control is required for 

another source. Emissions from pneumatic pumps alone cannot justify the installation of a flare. 
24

TXOGA stated that gas driven pneumatic diaphragm pumps are used on an intermittent basis in 

remote locations, and recommended EPA request comment on an exemption for pumps used 

only periodically. 

TXOGA recommended that EPA should not propose to regulate low volume chemical injection 

pumps but should instead solicit comment on control options and cost effectiveness that apply to 

low volume chemical injection pumps versus larger diaphragm pumps. TXOGA stated that EPA 

would receive data showing it would not be practical to route chemical injection pumps to a 

control device and perhaps costly to potentially require a solar option for a large diaphragm 

pumps. 

TXOGA stated that combustion controls should only be required if a control is required for 

another source. 

TXOGA stated that glycol recirculation pumps for glycol dehydrators should be exempted from 

any pneumatic pump requirements, as emissions route through the still vent which is regulated 

under Subpart HH. 

WEA stated that EPA’s costs do not account for the cost of time to repair. WEA stated that 

controls for gas pneumatics would not be cost-effective based on the volumes of emissions 

recovered. 

WEA stated instrument air is not a practical substitute for gas pneumatics because of remote 

locations and lack of power at many upstream locations. 

6.4.4 Summary of Comments on Pneumatic Controllers

Unitil stated that EPA should not add requirements for low bleed pneumatic controllers for the 

transmission and storage segments because emissions from this source are over estimated. 

6.4.5 Summary of Comments on Compressors 

PIOGA stated that EPA should maintain the exemptions for wellsite compressors. 

TXOGA stated that many well site compressors are rental units and have irregular service time. 

Managing rod packing replacement schedules will be complicated as maintenance is usually 

done by the rental vendor and not the operator. It will be difficult to track operating hours 

between rod packing replacement as compressors move site to site. TXOGA recommends EPA 

exempt well site compressors that are on site less than 12 months. 

TXOGA stated that EPA should not regulate reciprocating compressors at well sites as it would 

be cost prohibitive. 

TXOGA and Unitil stated that a ‘small compressor’ might be defined as a small engine threshold 

of <500 hp for engines in Subpart ZZZZ. 
25

TXOGA stated that not all engines have compressor packing, and thus those engines cannot 

comply with Subpart OOOO. TXOGA recommended that EPA request comment on appropriate 

exemptions for certain compressor designs. 

Unitil stated that EPA should consider ‘condition based maintenance’ since other compressor 

cylinder issues could be responsible for an excessive leak. Flexibility to use condition based 

maintenance is warranted because rod packing performance may be acceptable when the 

prescribed time interval elapses. This approach avoids unnecessary costs and down time to 

replace packing that is still functional. A condition based maintenance program allows operators 

to address underlying causes in a cost-effective manner. Unitil stated that EPA could also include 

incentives to use low emission rod packing. 

Unitil stated that replacing wet seals with dry seals is cost prohibitive, and recovering and 

reusing or flaring the vent stream would also add significant costs. Unitil stated that EPA should 

analyze the implications for an existing centrifugal compressor with wet seals that triggers 

Subpart OOOO applicability through a modification or reconstruction. 

Unitil stated that EPA should be aware that gas recovery could create safety concerns. 

WEA recommended that the exemption for wellsite compressors remain unchanged. 

6.4.6 Summary of Comments on Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Carrera Gas Companies, LLC stated that small businesses do not have the ability to 

economically maintain a large amount of records. 

IPAA stated that the recordkeeping should be limited to relevant information such as the site 

location, type of component, date of repair and method of repair. Tagging should be limited to 

only those leaking components not repaired during the survey. As indicated the reporting should 

be limited to annual reporting and should not duplicate state level reporting requirements and 

every effort should be made to deem state level reporting sufficient. Whenever possible, sources 

should simply be required to keep the necessary documents and be able to produce them upon 

request. In many instances, annual reporting is unnecessary and simply adds to the regulatory 

burden. To the extent annual reporting is deemed necessary, it should be limited in nature and 

simplified, e.g., number of new sites initially monitored within reporting period; total number of 

sites monitored; number of leaks repaired (excluding those repaired during survey); and number 

of leaks not repaired and the reason for the delay. 

PRISM stated that EPA should keep recordkeeping and reporting associated with the fugitives 

program as straightforward and brief as possible, particularly because small entities have limited 

personnel with multiple responsibilities. 
26

6.4.7 Summary of Comments on Compliance 

PIOGA stated that it was difficult for small entities to comply or even to determine if they were 

in compliance with OOOO. Shortages of equipment and consultants to come into compliance in 

a timely manner disproportionally affected small entities. 

6.4.8 Summary of Comments on Scope of the Rulemaking 

IPAA recommended that the EPA regulate VOCs from the exploration and production segment 

and claim methane reductions as co-benefit. The technologies that reduce VOCs are the same for 

methane. 

IPAA stated that EPA has not considered the cost associated with the inevitable regulation of 

existing oil and natural gas exploration and production sources under 111(d). IPAA stated that it 

is not a question of “if” but “when” and ignoring the cost to small entities is inappropriate. 

PIOGA stated that creating an entirely new set of methane NSPS for the exploration and 

production segment is unnecessary and will disproportionally affect small entities. 

PIOGA recommended that the cost/benefit analysis of any proposed new regulations take the 

actual local prices of natural gas into account in the analyses when determining the economic 

impact and environmental benefit of such rules on small entity operators. 

PIOGA recommended that EPA review and consider the requirements of each SIP to determine 

if additional and redundant air quality regulations at the federal level are truly required for small 

business operators. 

TXOGA stated that EPA must make a source category specific endangerment finding prior to 

regulating a given source category under Section 111 for each pollutant. 

TXOGA stated that the scope of the current source category does not include natural gas 

transmission and storage sources. The original source category in 1979 was ‘crude oil and 

natural gas production’, and EPA only analyzed contribution and endangerment of human health 

and the environment from production and gas processing facilities. EPA did not make a 

determination on natural gas transmission in the initial source category listing or subsequent 

standards, so it should be a separate source category. 

TXOGA stated that transmission has a fundamentally different profile of potential emissions and 

controls than oil and gas production and processing. 

Unitil stated that they are pleased to see that the EPA is not proposing standards on natural gas 

distribution systems. Unitil stated that there is a downward trend in methane emissions from the 

distribution sector based on voluntary process improvements and pipe replacement programs. 

WEA stated that upstream methane control strategies are not cost-effective, and skews the 

economic hardship toward small upstream operators. WEA cited a UT Austin study that says 
27

methane emitted from all upstream source categories at natural gas production sites represents 

just 0.42% of gross natural gas production volumes. 

6.4.9 Summary of Comments on Rulemaking Timeline 

Several SERs expressed concern that the rulemaking timeline allowed EPA to sufficiently 

consider SERs comments on the proposed rule. 

TXOGA stated that a 60 day comment period is insufficient for small entities to review and 

comment on complex environmental regulations, particularly if more than one rule is being 

simultaneously proposed. TXOGA stated that 90-120 days would be a far more reasonable 

comment period. 

7. PANEL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS4

7.1 Number and Types of Entities Affected 

For a complete description of the small entities to which the proposed rules may apply, see 

Sections 3 and 4 of this document. 

7.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance Requirements 

The potential reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements are still under 

development. However, the Panel anticipates that the requirements will be the minimum required 

by the statute to ensure compliance with the new source performance standards. Compliance 

testing should be in accordance with EPA or other approved methods. Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements should be streamlined if practicable. 

7.3 Related Federal Rules 

See Section 2.4 of this document for a discussion of related federal rules. 

7.4 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives 

The Panel agrees that the EPA should explore regulatory alternatives and provide flexibility 

where appropriate. This flexibility can lessen impacts to small entities as well as entities not 

classified as small. 

                                                            

4 The Panel members and this Panel Report are informed by the materials prepared for the SERs, the SER oral and

written comments, and materials provided by EPA in the Executive Order review of the draft proposed NSPS rule.  
28

7.4.1			 Oil	Well	Exemptions	

SERs encouraged the EPA to exempt stripper wells, low pressure oil wells, and any well that 

requires artificial lift. SERs recommended that the EPA establish an overall applicability 

threshold based on production, emissions, well depth, well type (horizontal), well pressure, 

formation, or revenue to limit potential impact of future regulations on small entities. 

The SERs offered several threshold alternatives to be applied to the oil well completion 

requirements which would significantly reduce compliance costs and burden to small entities that 

the SERs asserted would not affect gas recovery benefits. Some of these comments are 

described below. Advocacy believes the EPA had a greater opportunity to advance the 

discussion by evaluating these alternatives through analysis of the available data. Advocacy 

further believes that there is enough information to conduct analysis of alternatives now. 

Advocacy notes that there are several types of thresholds that could be explored by the EPA, 

such as average production of nearby wells (by oil field, reservoir, or basin), well length or 

depth, and gas and water pressure characteristics. Advocacy encourages the EPA to do so in the 

future, in advance of proposal, to facilitate more informed and productive comments from the 

public which will lead to a better rulemaking. 

The EPA has production and well characteristic data on thousands of oil wells through 

DrillingInfo, which aggregates all well data in the U.S. reported by operators to state agencies. In 

this database, the EPA could develop thresholds to target geographical areas or well 

characteristics with greater gas recovery potential than areas or characteristics where costs 

imposed would achieve little to no benefit. Advocacy believes the EPA should examine the data 

in DrillingInfo and the studies identified in the White paper for potential alternatives that 

minimize small entity costs, while achieving significant methane emission benefits. For 

example, Advocacy performed its own preliminary analysis of the DrillingInfo data, which led 

us to recommend a production threshold (see below). Advocacy believes the EPA also should 

consider the peer review and public comments on the white paper and reassess the size and 

diversity of the oil well completions in a more comprehensive fashion. Advocacy believes the 

EPA should have provided additional analysis since the publication of the white paper. 

The EPA believes that it has reasonably analyzed the available data for this draft proposed rule, 

and sufficiently documented this analysis through the rule, the technical support document 

(TSD), and the SBREFA process. However, the EPA notes information gaps and has requested 

additional data and information through the public comment process. 

Gas to Oil Ratio 

Advocacy is concerned that the EPA estimate of ten tons of methane reduction per event for oil 

well completions may be significantly overestimated, based on its analysis of the 2012 Drilling 

Info database and SER comments. The 2012 analysis includes hydraulically fractured oil well 

completions with GORs between 300 and 100,000, whereas the 2011 analysis was limited to 

GORs up to 12,500. 

The Panel recommends that the EPA continue analyzing current data, and assess the alternatives 

mentioned by SERs. In an effort to contribute to the panel process, Advocacy analyzed the EPA 
29

data provided. Advocacy found that geographical patterns and well characteristics exist in the 

data to suggest common sense thresholds. While a 300 gas to oil ratio (GOR) threshold provides 

some relief for small entities, it is problematic because GOR is not known at time of fracturing 

when a completion takes place. Advocacy further recommends that the EPA develop a scheme 

based on the well characteristics of nearby wells in the basin or reservoir to provide an estimate 

for the GOR parameter. However, the location of the well, and the drill direction are known 

parameters that could be used. In concert with these other considerations, Advocacy recommends 

the EPA consider a GOR cutoff closer to 900, as one SER suggested. 

The EPA believes that a gas-to-oil ratio (GOR) of 300 scf of gas per barrel of oil produced is an 

appropriate threshold for facilities to be subject to the well completion provisions of the NSPS. 

The reason for the proposed threshold GOR of 300 is that separators typically do not operate at a 

GOR less than 300, which is based on industry experience rather than a vetted technical 

specification for separator performance5. Though, in theory, any amount of free gas could be 

separated from the liquid, the reality is that this is not practical given the design and operating 

parameters of separation units operating in the field. The EPA is soliciting comment on whether 

a GOR of 300 is the appropriate applicability threshold. Additionally, the EPA understands that 

GOR is not known at the time of well completion, and is soliciting comment on whether the 

GOR of nearby wells would be a reliable indicator in determining the GOR of a new or modified 

well. 

Low Production Wells

When mapping average daily associated gas of 90 Mcf or above (isolating stripper wells) using 

county level data, Advocacy found that most (85%) of these greater gas recovery oil well 

completions occur in about a third of the counties analyzed. Advocacy contends that there are 

potentially large areas that could be exempted from this requirement without forgoing significant 

methane emission reduction, or at least phased in to allow time to design proper data collection. 

For example, PIOGA comments report an average gas volume of only 74 MCFD in 

Pennsylvania stripper oil wells in contrast to Pennsylvania stripper gas wells averaging 532 

MCFD. 

The EPA understands that low production wells have inherently low emissions from well 

completions and many are owned and operated by small businesses. However, the EPA 

recognizes that identification of these wells prior to completion events is difficult, especially 

considering that drilling of a low production well may be unintentional and may be infrequent, 

but production may nevertheless proceed due to economic reasons. The EPA is soliciting 

comment and information on emissions associated with low production wells, characteristics of 

these wells and supporting information that would help owners/operators and enforcement 

personnel identify these wells prior to completion. 

Because of these preliminary findings about low production and a lack of evidence that there will 

be sufficient gas recovery, the Panel recommends that the EPA further analyze and consider 

                                                            

5 On February 24, 2015, API submitted a comment to the EPA stating that oil wells with GOR values less than 300

do not have sufficient gas to operate a separator.
30

exempting low production wells (with an average daily production of less than 15 barrel 

equivalents) from a REC or combustion requirement during oil well completions. 

Vertical Wells

According to a SER comment, vertical wells lack sufficient wellhead pressure or quantity of gas 

to be separated during completion. Advocacy recommends that since the white papers laid the 

foundation to the materials prepared for the Panel, the EPA should revisit the information 

learned through this process, especially as it relates to the specific characteristics of vertical 

wells. Therefore, as a regulatory alternative, Advocacy recommends the EPA consider 

exempting vertical wells from oil well completion requirements. . 

The EPA clarifies that both the 2014 white paper analysis of oil well completions and 

DrillingInfo data analysis include vertical wells that are hydraulically fractured. However, the 

EPA understands that there are certain physical well characteristics that may inhibit the operation 

of a separator, and notes that the rule does not require RECs where their use is not feasible. 

However, the EPA has not seen sufficient data to support the characterization that a separator 

will not be able to function for all or the majority of vertical wells that are hydraulically 

fractured. However, the EPA recommends soliciting comment on the types of oil wells that will 

not be capable of performing a REC or combusting completion emissions due to technical 

considerations such as low pressure or low gas content, or other physical characteristics such as 

location, well depth, length of hydraulic fracturing, or drilling direction (e.g., horizontal, vertical, 

directional). 

Low Pressure Oil Wells 

Advocacy recommends that “low pressure wells” should be categorically exempt and could be 

based on a threshold sales line/gathering line of approximately 250 psi or a simple water gradient 

formula of 0.465 psi/foot. The emissions associated with these types of wells are so low that 

even if a separator can be operated for some short period of time, the value of gas does not 

exceed the cost associated with bringing equipment to the site. As the SERs indicated, these oil 

completion requirements can be very costly on small firms, particularly with respect to small 

production wells. The expected gas recovery benefits from oil well completions are expected to 

be a small fraction of the benefits obtained by the gas wells under the current version of the 

NSPS rule. 

The EPA is aware that oil wells cannot perform a REC if there is not sufficient well pressure or 

gas content during the well completion to operate the surface equipment required for a REC. In 

the 2012 NSPS the EPA did not require low pressure gas wells to perform REC, but operators 

were required to control those well completions using combustion. However, the EPA 

recommends soliciting comment on the types of oil wells that will not be capable of performing a 

REC or combusting completion emissions due to technical considerations such as low pressure 

or low gas content, or other physical characteristics such as location, well depth, length of 

hydraulic fracturing, or drilling direction (e.g., horizontal, vertical, directional). The EPA defines 

low pressure wells as a well with reservoir pressure and true vertical well depth such that 0.445 

times the reservoir pressure (in psia) minus 0.038 times the vertical well depth (in feet) minus 

67.578 psia is less than the flow line pressure at the sales meter. The EPA recommends soliciting 

comment on whether this definition is appropriate for low pressure oil wells. 
31

Substitution of Combustion over Green Completion / REC Requirements

Advocacy recommends that the EPA substitute flaring for the green completion requirement 

(REC), in addition to the consideration of thresholds. This alternative is much more costeffective, and particularly important for small firms to have a lower cost alternative that achieves 

a 95% reduction. The PIOGA comments also stated that the use of RECs would adversely impact 

the productivity and longevity of the stripper oil wells. Alternatively, the EPA could require 

larger firms to perform the RECs, while allowing smaller firms (using a firm revenue cutoff or 

other small business size indicator) to combust the remaining gas. 

The EPA recommends that RECs be implemented on oil wells, except where their use is not 

feasible (e.g., technically infeasible for a separator to function, availability of gathering lines). 

Compared to combustion alone, the EPA believes that the combination of REC and combustion 

will maximize the recovery of natural resources and minimize venting to the atmosphere. 

However, the EPA notes that although the flaring in lieu of RECs may be less costly, flaring 

contributes secondary environmental impacts, nuisance impacts to nearby communities and 

complicates compliance for owners/operators. 

Phase – In for Oil Well Completion Requirements 

The Panel recommends that the EPA consider phasing in the well completion requirement over a 

period of years. The Panel agrees that the EPA solicit comment on whether the well completion 

provisions of the proposed rule can be implemented on the effective date of the rule in the event 

of potential shortage of REC equipment and, if not, how a phase in could be structured. The 

Panel agrees that a phased in approach could be structured to provide for control of the 

potentially highest emitting wells first, with other wells being included at a later date. The Panel 

recommends that the EPA solicit comment on whether GOR of the well and production level of 

the well should be bases for the phasing of requirements for RECs, and if so, what an appropriate 

threshold for phase-in should be. 

7.4.2	 Fugitives	‐	Leak	Detection	Methods	

SERs encouraged the EPA to allow a variety of leak detection technologies, including Method 

21, AVO, and soap testing. The EPA asserts that use of OGI can reduce the amount of time 

necessary to conduct fugitive emissions monitoring since multiple fugitive emissions 

components can be surveyed simultaneously, reducing the cost of identifying fugitive emissions 

compared to alternative leak detection technologies that require a manual screening of each 

fugitive emissions component. Advocacy recommends the EPA propose Method 21 or OGI as 

allowable alternatives. The EPA contends that while Method 21 is lacking because it does not 

allow the detection of malfunctioning equipment that may not be the focus of the survey, and it is 

not as cost-effective as OGI, the Panel recommends the EPA solicits comment on whether to 

allow EPA Method 21 as an alternative to OGI for monitoring, including the appropriate EPA 

Method 21 level repair threshold. The EPA notes that the proposed rule would allow the use 
32

either OGI or Method 21 for resurvey because the resurvey would focus solely on ensuring 

repairs resolved the leak at the individual component. 

7.4.3	 Fugitives	–	Survey	Frequency	

SERs recommended leak surveys be conducted no more than once per year. Advocacy has 

questions about the costs of repair and the emission reductions that be achieved through 

increased survey frequency which Advocacy believes the EPA was unable to address 

satisfactorily. Advocacy urges the EPA to improve the record basis for its emission reduction 

estimates and the cost of repairs for Method 21 and OGI, in order to permit more informed 

comment on the alternatives. Advocacy believes the EPA was unable to adequately explain the 

basis for the different repair costs vs. frequency for Method 21 and OGI6, or the basis for the 

40/60/80% emission reductions based on increasing survey frequency from annual to quarterly.7 

The EPA determined that semiannual monitoring will result in identification and repair of 

significant fugitive emissions from components, and that using OGI, an operator can survey 

multiple fugitive emissions components simultaneously reducing the cost of identifying fugitive 

emissions. Additionally, if fugitive emissions are detected at less than one percent of the fugitive 

emission components at a well site during two consecutive semiannual monitoring surveys, the 

proposed rule allows for the monitoring survey frequency for that well site to be reduced to 

annually. Advocacy had no information upon which to base a recommendation related to the 

proportion of leaking components, but supports analysis of such an approach. Advocacy also 

recommends that the EPA provide more analysis and factual foundation for the record to allow 

commenters to provide more informed advice. 

The Panel agrees that the EPA should solicit comment on an alternate proposal option based on 

an initial annual survey frequency. The Panel recommends the EPA solicit comment on the 

appropriateness of semiannual monitoring frequency and the proposed provisions for increasing 

and decreasing the monitoring frequency. 

7.4.4	–	Fugitive	Emissions	at	Well	Sites	

The Panel recommends not requiring fugitive emission surveys at well production sites, unless 

there are potentially significant sources of emissions, such as storage tanks. The Panel further 

                                                            

6

At this time, the EPA shows annual repair costs that increase linearly with survey frequency for OGI, but are static

for Method 21. For Method 21, the EPA applied the same repair costs whether the frequency was annual,

semiannual or quarterly.  For OGI, EPA used double the repair costs for semiannual, and four times the repair costs

for quarterly. Advocacy believes this could lead to a bias in an evaluation of one method vs. the other. 7 Advocacy was also disappointed that EPA was unable to share with the SERs more information that would have

help the SERs formulate their recommendations (including some of the issues addressed above). The EPA believes

the background documents created for the SERs were thorough and accurate, and transparently presented the

data and data sources used in the analysis for the proposed rule. The documents are additionally available for

public review in the docket for the proposed rule.  
33

agrees that well sites with low production wells (i.e., a well with an average daily production of 

15 barrel equivalents or less) should not require fugitive emission surveys. 

7.4.5	Fugitive	Emissions	at	Production	and	Processing	Sites,	and	Compressor	Stations	at	

Transmission	and	Storage	Sites	

Under Subpart W, gas production and processing sites and compressor stations at transmission 

and storage sites are required to annually monitor for fugitive emissions and to quantify such 

emissions. The only missing regulatory component to be considered is to add a requirement to 

repair detected leaks as appropriate. This is already covered by the May 2015 INGAA Directed 

Inspection and Maintenance voluntary Program for Transmission and Storage Compressor 

Stations. The EPA is already considering this program8 in its recent request for comment on the 

voluntary methane reduction program for the oil and gas sector. Advocacy recommends that the 

EPA retain the annual requirement, as Advocacy believes this requirement is entirely duplicative 

of a fugitives survey requirement, and consider the specific repair requirements for repair 

identification and repair delay in the DI&M voluntary program as the components of a 

mandatory program. Furthermore, the EPA’s most recent evaluation of the survey costeffectiveness shows that annual surveys are more cost-effective than semi-annual surveys. 

Therefore, the Panel recommends the EPA propose options based on semi-annual and annual 

monitoring. Advocacy recommends that the EPA should also consider allowing each facility to 

tailor the specific program to site-specific considerations, rather than apply the same 

requirements uniformly to each plant. The EPA recognizes that Subpart W serves as an 

emissions inventory, while this rule’s intent is to minimize pollution. The EPA believes that the 

additional survey with semiannual OGI monitoring provides additional leak detection, and costeffective emission reductions. The EPA recognizes that fugitive emissions may be 

underestimated based on emerging studies and will continue to evaluate these studies. The Panel 

recommends the EPA propose an alternate option based on an initial annual frequency for well 

sites. The Panel recommends that the EPA continue to consider the INGAA DI&M 

recommendations for leak repairs in the rulemaking. 

7.4.6		 Well	Site	Compressors	

SERs encouraged the EPA to exempt well site compressors as they are typically rental units and 

have irregular service time, and regulation could be cost prohibitive. The Panel agrees that 

emissions from well site compressors were extremely low and that cost of control of these 

compressors would not be reasonable. The Panel recommends that the EPA maintain the 

exemption for well site compressors. 

                                                            

8 US EPA. Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program:  Proposed Framework, slide 17 states, “EPA has received,

and is considering, a proposal to structure BMP coverage of natural gas transmission and storage compressor

stations as a Directed Inspection and Maintenance Program.”
34

7.4.7	 Pneumatic	Pumps	

SERs encouraged the EPA to exempt pneumatic pumps if controls were not already in place. The 

Panel agrees that combustion controls should only be required if a control is required for another 

source. The Panel recommends the EPA exempt pneumatic pumps without a control device 

already located on site. 

7.4.8		Reciprocating	Compressors	

The Panel supports the EPA proposal to require replacement of rod packing every 26,000 hours 

or 3 years in lieu of monitoring hours. The Panel also supports the further consideration of the 

alternative developed in the Natural Gas Star Program for condition-based maintenance. 

Advocacy recommends the EPA should carefully study the INGAA recommendations for 

condition-based maintenance for rod packing as an alternative to maintaining or replacing rod 

packing on a prescribed schedule.9

 

The EPA recommends that the draft proposed rule retain the rod packing replacement options 

and the option to route the rod packing emissions to a process through a closed vent system 

under negative pressure. 

7.4.9	Centrifugal	Compressors	

Advocacy recommends that the EPA reconsider the requirement of requiring capture and 

combustion of gas emissions from wet seal compressors whose emissions don’t differ that much 

from dry seal compressors, according to INGAA. Advocacy is concerned that requiring 

combustion at compressor stations would prove to be unpopular with the surrounding 

neighborhood. This requirement would convert an otherwise unobtrusive structure in the 

neighborhood into a constant source of combustion and a source of air pollution. 

The EPA recommends retaining the requirement for a 95% emissions reduction from wet seal 

compressors, which can be achieved by capturing and routing the emissions utilizing a cover and 

closed vent system to a control device, or routing the captured emissions to a process. The EPA 

notes that dry seal compressors are not affected facilities in the draft proposed rule because of 

their inherently low emissions. The EPA also notes that many of these combustors are enclosed 

and will be innocuous to the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the gas liberated from the 

barrier fluid during degassing is very clean natural gas, and the combustor is required under the 

NSPS to burn cleanly with no visible emissions. 

7.4.10	Pneumatic	Controllers	

The Panel agrees with the EPA’s recommendation that low-bleed pneumatic controllers be 

required in place of high-bleed controllers (i.e., natural gas bleed rate not to exceed 6 scfh). The 

Panel recommends the rule continue to treat low-bleed pneumatic controllers as not affected 

                                                            

9 See INGAA comment on 40 CFR 60 Part OOOO. EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐2010‐0505‐4104  
35

facilities except at natural gas processing plants, where zero bleed pneumatic controllers are 

considered BSER. 

7.4.11	Recordkeeping	and	Reporting	for	High	Bleed	Controllers	

The EPA recommends that owners and operators continue to be permitted to use high bleed 

controllers needed for specific functional purposes, but require recordkeeping to document the 

justification. The Panel agrees that recordkeeping and reporting requirements should be 

minimized wherever possible. However, the Panel notes that a recordkeeping and reporting 

requirement that asks companies to justify and document their need for continuous high bleed 

devices has caused many companies to reevaluate their need for and change out unnecessary 

high bleed pneumatic controllers. 

7.4.12	Liquids	Unloading		

Based on the information and data available to the EPA during development of the 2012 NSPS, 

the Panel agrees that control of liquids unloading emissions is not appropriate at this time. 

However, the EPA believes that the emissions from liquids unloading operations are significant, 

and so the Panel recommends that the EPA continue to study this issue and solicit information 

and data supporting demonstrated control technologies or management practices for reducing 

these emissions. 

 
36

APPENDIX A: List of Materials EPA shared with Small Entity 

Representatives 

For Outreach held May 19, 2015 

 Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting Agenda 

 Slideshow: “An Overview of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Process” 

 Slideshow: “Pre-Panel Outreach Briefing: Emissions Standards for New and Modified 

Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector” 

 List of Potential Small Entity Representatives - Emission Standards for New and 

Modified Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector 

 EPA Oil and Natural Gas White Papers Abridged Summary 

For Outreach held June 18, 2015 

 Panel Outreach Meeting Agenda 

 Slideshow: “A Refresher on the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Process” 

 Slideshow: “Panel Outreach Briefing: Emissions Standards for New and Modified 

Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector” 

 EPA Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas 

Sector Supplemental Information 

Supplemental Information provided on June 24, 2015 

 EPA Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas 

Sector Supplemental Information – Slide 20 Data and Assumptions 

 
37

APPENDIX B: Written Comments Submitted by Small Entity 

Representatives 

Appendix B is a compilation of documents containing all written comments received from SERs.