February 11, 2011

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ar iel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Mail Code: 1101A Washington, D.C. 20460

Re: Request for Administrative Reconsiderat io n Subpart W o f t he Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems Dear Administrator Jackson:
The Gas Processors Associat io n (“GPA”) hereby requests th at th e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or the “Agency”) reconsider Subpart W of the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems; Final Rule, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 74458 (Nov. 30, 2010) (“Subpart W”). Pursuant to § 307(d)(7)(B) of th e Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B), where it is impract icable to raise an object io n during the period of public co mment or if the g rounds for such an object io n arise af ter the public co mment period (but within the time specified for judicial review), and if such object io ns are of central relevance t o the outcome of the rule, EPA is authorized to reconsider a rule. GPA is a non

- profi

t trade organizat io n made up of approximately 120 corporate members, all of who m are engaged in the processing of natural gas into merchantable pipeline gas, or in the ma nufacture, transportation, or further processing of liquid products fro m natural gas. GPA’s membership accounts for approximately 92 percent of all natural gas liquids produced by the midstream energy sector in the United States. Our members also produce , gather, transmit, and market natural gas and natural gas liquids, and include a number of Canadian and internat io nal co mpanies that produce natural gas liquids on a global scale. As described more fully below, GPA is request ing reconsideration of the fo llo wing key aspects of Subpart W. GPA’s objections to these aspects of the final rule arose after the close of th e public co mment period and are of central relevance to the outcome of the final rule. Thus, reconsideration is authorized and appropriate. GPA’s object io ns are as fo llo ws: 1. Subpart W’s best available mo nit oring method (“BAMM ”) provi sions do not provide reporting ent it ies wi

th adequate time to ensure compliance wi th th e final rule.
2. Current compressor vent ing monitoring requirements are overly burdenso me and present significant safet y a nd operational process concerns to reporting ent it ies

.The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

February 11, 2011 Page 2

3. The terms “gathering lines” and “booster stations” are not defined in the final rule, nor is sufficient detail provided regarding the definit io n of “g as proces sing facilit y. ” Absent such definit io ns and clarificat io n s, th ere will be substantial confusio n as to which facilit ies are requi

red to report emissio ns data.
4. The definit io n of a facilit y in Subpart W differs from the definit io n of a facilit y provided in a ll other applicable regulat io ns under th e Clean Air Act (“CAA”)

. Thi s inconsistency will create unnecessary confusio n amo ng related programs and is not necessary or just ified. These object io ns are discussed in detail below.
1. Subpart W’s best available mon itoring method (“BAMM”) provisions do not provide reporting entities with adequate time to ensure compliance with the final ru le.
GPA member companies are currently assessing the availabilit y o f each individual data source required by the Subpart W to per fo rm required calculat io ns and com ply wi th th e rule. This process is arduous and time

- consuming and requi res significant personnel from many face ts of GPA’s member companies’ co mp lex organizations. The time period EPA has provided reporting ent it ies to analyze their exist ing systems, identify parameters for which BAMM is requi red, and prepare and submit BAMM or BAMM extensio n requests is impract ical and unrealist ic.
Exist ing BAMM provisio ns are difficult to comply with, as BAMM is provided only for speci fic sources and methodologies. Given the significant complexit ies of the rule and the plethora of data parameters that must be assessed and co llected for compliance, th e use of BAMM provisio ns fo r one data point of an equat io n but not for others does not provide significant relief for reporting ent it ies . Furthermore, because so me of th e data required under Subpart W ma y be BAMM est imates , but others must be actual data points, th e final rule will resul t in inconsistencies th at may impede reporting entit ie s ’ efforts to comply wi th th e rule. Addit io nally, t he information required to be submitted in BAMM extensio n requests puts a considerable burden on reporting entit ie s , especially where th ei r time and resources would be better spent preparing and collect ing data for compliance wi th Subpart W . For those data points ident ified for which BAMM is necessary, reporting entit ie s are highly unlikely to be able to di scuss, contract with, and co llect the documentation required to support the BAMM request wi thin the given timeframe. EPA does not provide any deadlines in t he final rule wi thin which they will respond to BAMM extension requests, which is of considerable concern to reporting entit ie s th at will rely on BAMM to comply wi

th Subpart W in t he fir st year of reporting. Reporti ng ent it ies will face significant uncertainty while wait ing to hear fro m E PA on whethe r the request has been approved and may be left in an untenable posit io n if EPA denies BAMM requests.The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

February 11, 2011 Page 3

As a result, GPA requests that BAMM should be prov ided, without request, for entit ies impacted by Subpart W for the entire first reporting year (2011) and for all data points required fo r calculat io n methods prescribed by the rule.
2. Current compressor venting monitoring requirements are overly burdensome a nd present significant safety and operational process concerns to reporting entities. The direct monitoring and measurement requirements under Subpart W for compressors are unnecessary and unwarranted for an emissio ns inventory and reporting rule. Widely accepted estimat io n met hods are available to calculate emissions fro m co mpressor s th at can deliver accurate results without requiring direct measurements. Furthermore, such direct measurement requirements are duplicat ive of ongoing EPA research and there fo re not necessary under the reporting rule. In the rule’s Technical Support Document, EPA states that the data fro m th e di

rect measurement portions o f t he rule is necessary to support future climate

- related regulatory efforts, though no information is pr ovided as to what such efforts are or what they will invo lve. Given the substantial burden Subpart W’s direct measurement requirements place on reporting ent it ies, EPA is not justified in seeking to impose such costs on industry absent a detailed showing as to the Agency’s needs and plans for such informat io n. Addit io nally, t he final rule requires reporting ent it ies to calculate emissions fro m centrifugal co mpressors for both wet seal and dry seal vent ing and fro m blo wdown valve vents. These requirements , which were absent fro m t he proposed rule, will more than double the number of measurements originally ant ic ipated for centrifugal co mpressors and result in a substant ia l addit io nal and unanticipated burden to me asure, collect, and quantif y such data. The final rule also requires reporting ent it ies to calculate emissio ns fro m r eci procating com pressor blowdown valve vents. The proposed rule had only required emissio ns calculat io ns fo r rod pack vent ing and unit isolation valve vent ing systems. This new and, again, unant ic ipated set of requirements will more than double the number of measurements for reci procating compressors. Finally, Subpart W requires a nnual measurements on each vent for each compressor, and th e final rule indicates under § 98.233(o) (1) and § 98.233(p) that if sources are vented through a commo n manifo ld, each vent source must be measured separately. In practical terms, it is not possible for reporting ent it ies to comply with this requirement under current operating condi tions. Com

p liance would require pi

pe s to be cut in o rder to provide adequate access po int s to install meter ports. This would result in ent ir e facilit ies need ing to be shut down, blown down, and purged in order to ensure appropriate safet y co ndit io ns to proceed with such pipe mo difications

— again represent ing an excessive, overly burdenso me , and avo idable co mp liance burden for reporting ent it ies. GPA therefore requests that EPA a llo w for the use of accepted estimat io n met hods available to calculate emissio ns from c om pressor vents in lieu o f conducting direct measurements.The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

February 11, 2011 Page 4

3. The terms “gathering lines” and “booster stations” are not defined in the final rule, nor is sufficient detail provided regarding the definition of “gas processing facility
. ” Subpart W states unde r § 98.230(a)(3) that gathering lines and booster stations are excluded fro m r eporting obligat io ns. However, th e definit io n of a gas processing facilit y a lso includes several processes typical of standard booster stations ( i.e. , water removal). This defini tion therefore seems to imply that booster stations exhibit ing any of these characterist ic s wi th an average annual throughput ≥ 25 MMscfd are subject to Subpart W’s reporting requi rements. Definit io ns o f gathering lines and booster stations appeared in the proposed rule, but were removed fro m t he final rule. Wit hout such definit io ns, GPA and its member co mpanies are concerned that their reporting liabilit y could inappropriately extend to booster stations falling under the definit io n provided under § 98.23 0(a)(3).
In addit io n, Subpart W’s definit io n of source category under § 98.230 lists several t ypes of operations, including onshore natural gas processing and onshore petroleum and natural gas production, but fails to specify how a reporting entit y c an de termine under which type of operation certain t ypes of act ivit ies or facilit ies th at can occur in more than one t ype of operation should fall. For example, a facilit y t hat removes water could fall under either onshore natural gas processing or onshore pet roleum and natural gas production. Accordingly, t he source category definit io n is a source of considerable confusion and uncertaint y fo r reporting entit ie s. GPA requests that EPA reinstate the definit io n s of gathering lines and booster stations fro m t he proposed rule and clarify and align each source category to definit io ns already provided in t he CAA ( e.g. , Natural Gas Processing Facilit y under NSPS KKK).
4. The current definition of a facility in Subpart W differs from the definition of a facility provide d in all other applicable regulations under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The final rule requires production operations to be aggregated on basin

- wide basis for purposes of determining the applicabilit y o f Subpart W and in meet ing subsequent reporting obligations. This approach is fundamentally inconsistent with the manner in which the terms “stationary source” or “facilit y” are defined for all other purposes under the CAA. As a result, th e inconsistent approach adopted in the final Subpart W rule will lead to unnecessary confusion and will produce data that are not useful for other CAA purposes. A particular problem is that th e Subpart W approach will o ft en be inco mpat ible with actual ownership and control of the affected operations. GPA request s th at EPA co nform th e Subpart W definit io n of “Facilit y” with oth er similar definit io ns in other CAA regulatory programs. To avo id creat ing addit io nal reporting burden, EPA should allow companies to “roll up” the GHG emissio ns from mult iple affiliated stationary s ources when reporting under Subpart W.
* * * * * * *The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

February 11, 2011 Page 5

Thank you for your considerat io n of these concerns. If you have any quest io ns, do not hesi tate to contact me at 918

- 493

- 3872.

Sincerely,

Jeff Applekamp Di rector, Government Affairs Gas Processors Associat io n

cc: D. Kruger P. Gunning R. Fernandez