BEFORE

THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING AND INTERPRETIVE GUIDANCE ENSURING COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE OF METHANE SOURCES UNDER SUBPART W OF THE GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING RULE – PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

Respectfully Submitted by Clean Air Task Force, Env ironmental Defense Fund, Natural

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club

March 19, 2013

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), Clean Air Task Force , Environmental Defense Fund (“EDF”), Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sie rra Club petition EPA fulfill its obligations under the Clean Air Act to collect greenhouse gas e missions data from several large sources of methane in the petroleum and natural gas sector tha t are currently not included in Subpart W or other Subparts of the Mandatory Reporting Rule (“MR R”). 1 Specifically, we respectfully request that the agency:

• Clarify that oil wells that co-produce natural gas (“co-producing wells”) located in tight-oil formations are required to report emis sions from venting and flaring associated with well completions;

• Require reporting of well-completion emissions from any co-producing well currently excluded by the Rule’s focus on “gas well s”;

• Require reporting from facilities and pipelines in the gathering and boosting segment of the natural gas industry, and from trans mission pipeline blowdown

events.

Likewise, to promote better understanding of the fa cilities covered by the 25,000 metric

ton CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e) threshold, we ask that EPA require reporters to include API well

1 This does not represent an exhaustive list of all potential areas for strengthened coverage.2

identification numbers along with their submissions

. 2 Reports from the oil and gas industry for 2011 methane emissions under Subpart W are at least 51% lower than national estimates from EPA, due to a combination of missing source categor ies (those mentioned above and others) and

excluded emissions from smaller facilities that are not required to report due to the 25,000 ton

CO 2 e threshold. 3 Including API well identification numbers along w ith facilities’ submissions will help the public and policymakers understand wh ich sources are reporting and how the threshold may be adjusted to most effectively provi de emissions information. 4

Finally, regarding the Subpart W data generally, we respectfully reiterate our request to phase out the use of best available monitoring meth ods (“BAMM”), which will further help to ensure Subpart W data are rigorous, and comprehensi ve. 5 We also ask that the agency consider including Advanced Innovative Monitoring Methods (“ AIMM”) as a way to accelerate development and deployment of real-time continuous methane emission monitoring in the oil and natural gas sector.

I. S UBPART W M UST P RODUCE C OMPREHENSIVE , H IGH -Q UALITY D ATA

Emissions data are the foundation of rigorous, effe ctive, and informed air quality planning and management. EPA’s MRR declared that “[ a]ccurate and timely information on

GHG emissions is essential for informing some future climate change policy de cisions.” 6
Emissions data enables policy-makers to develop, de sign, and assess policies, and effective emissions reporting programs also “raise awareness of emissions among reporters and other

2 API well numbers are critical addition to well cou nts because they will allow cross-reference to prod uction data and other important information.

3 Subpart W reported methane emissions for 2011 were 83 million metric tons CO 2 e ( see: EPA, “Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: 2011 Data Publication” (Februa ry 2013), available at : http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/documents/pdf/2012/ documents/subpart_W_2011_data_publication_fact_shee t.pd f.pdf, at 3). EPA’s draft 2013 edition of their an nual US Greenhouse Gas Inventory reports methane em issions from natural gas systems and petroleum production as 139 .6 and 31.0 million metric tons CO 2 e, respectively ( see: U.S. EPA, Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissio ns and Sinks: 1990-2011(Feb. 2013), available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemiss ions/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Chapter-3-Energy.pdf ). The 2012 inventory reported even higher emissions f rom the sector; EPA is proposing to reduce that est imate somewhat. By citing the 2013 draft, we do not nece ssarily endorse its emissions figures; instead, we emphasize that both inventory estimates suggest that Subpart W is failing to address a significant amount of emission s.

4 We incorporate by reference comments on the Subpar t W proposal, in which Petitioners outlined difficu lties associated with the 25,000 mt CO 2 e threshold and requested a lower threshold. EPA D oc. No. EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0923-3545 (Comments of Clean Air Task Force, C olorado Environmental Coalition, Environmental Defe nse Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Clu b, and Wilderness Workshop on Subpart W).

5 See EPA Doc. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0417-0013 (Comments o f EDF on Subpart W proposed BAMM extension).

6 74 Fed. Reg. 16,448, 16,455 (Apr. 10, 2009) (empha sis added).3

stakeholders, and thus contribute to efforts to ide ntify reduction opportunities and carry them

out.” 7

These functions are especially important for source s in the petroleum and natural gas sector, which EPA’s latest greenhouse gas inventory recognizes as the largest source of U.S. methane emissions, placing this industry among the top greenhouse gas emitters overall. In the final Subpart W rule, the agency noted that the dat a “will inform EPA’s implementation of CAA section 103(g) regarding improvements in sector bas ed non-regulatory strategies and technologies for preventing or reducing air polluta nts, and inform policy on possible regulatory

actions to address GHG emissions.” 8

EPA echoed the importance of Subpart W data in its recently finalized (though still incomplete) New Source Performance Standards for th e Oil and Natural Gas Sector:

The data submitted under [Subpart W] will provide important information on the location and magnitude of GHG emissions from petrol eum and natural gas systems and will allow petroleum and natural gas fa cilities to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities and a id in identifying cost effective opportunities to reduce emissions in the future . . . . [Through collection of Subpart W data] EPA will be in a better position to characterize (1) the extent of

methane emissions from these sources that will rema in after imposition of controls required by [the NSPS]; and (2) whether ad ditional measures are available and appropriate for addressing such emiss ions. 9

The collection and reporting of additional emission s data from sources not currently required to report will help ensure these important clean air b enefits occur.

The Subpart W data will likewise help in understand ing top-down emissions inventory analyses, which have identified widely varying meth ane leak rates for the petroleum and natural gas sector. These range from slightly under 2 perc ent [of production] 10 to as much as 9 percent in a recent NOAA study of the Uintah Basin in Utah. 11 Subpart W data will help characterize the

7 Id. at 16,456.

8 75 Fed. Reg. 74,458, 74,460 (Nov. 30, 2010).

9 77 Fed. Reg. 49,490, 49,513-14 (Aug. 16, 2012). W e do not agree with EPA that it lacks the informati on it needs to determine that it is appropriate to regulate met hane from the sector, or that controls are availabl e to do so. EPA must move forward. Further improving Subpart W wil l support those required efforts, and should not de lay them.

10 Jeffrey Logan, et al. , Natural Gas and the Transformation of the U.S. En ergy Sector ES-2 (2012).

11 A. Karion et al, "Estimate of methane emissions fr om oil and gas operations in the Uintah Basin using airborne measurements and Lidar wind data," Presentation A21 J-01, Fall 2012 American Geophysical Union meeting (San Francisco, 4 December 2012); see also : A. Karion et al, “Top-down estimation of CH 4 emissions from oil and natural gas operations in the Denver and Uintah oil and gas Basins,” Presented at Stakeholder Workshop on Natural4

drivers behind these wide-ranging emissions estimat es and, in turn, will allow states to calibrate additional policy priorities that optimize methane reductions.

Finally, ensuring Subpart W produces rigorous and c omprehensive data will help to

fulfill a recent recommendation from EPA’s Office o f Inspector General, which suggested that EPA “develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for improving air emissions data for the oil and gas production sector.” 12 The report notes that EPA considers Subpart W as its main GHG emissions data collection strategy from the oil and natural gas industries, but that the Subpart W program is not a “coordinated cross-offic e strategy for improving the collection of all types of air emissions data for oil and gas product ion sources commensurate with recent and projected growth in this industry sector.” 13 For Subpart W data to function as part of a comprehensive strategy for improving oil and gas ai r emissions data, as the Inspector General recommends, the Rule must include reporting require ments for all significant sources of methane from the petroleum and natural gas sector.

Section 114 of the CAA, which is the source of EPA’ s authority to promulgate the MRR for Title I sources, provides the agency with plena ry authority to collect methane emissions information from sources in the petroleum and natur al gas sector. Moreover, Section 111 of the Act creates a duty to review and, if appropriate, r evise standards of performance for certain source categories, including the oil and natural ga s sector. Subpart W can play an important role in informing EPA’s obligatory revision of these sta ndards, as EPA has acknowledged. Yet the Rule currently omits several potentially significan t sources of methane in this sector, yielding an incomplete picture of emissions from petroleum and natural gas operations. 14 Accordingly, we respectfully urge EPA to expand the scope of Subpar t W to include data gathering requirements for the significant emissions sources we describe b elow.

II. G REENHOUSE G AS E MISSIONS FROM O IL AND G AS C O

- PRODUCING W ELLS

The Subpart W well completion reporting requirement s apply only to “gas wells” and not to “oil wells.” This distinction creates potential confusion for co-producing oil and gas wells that

Gas in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissio ns and Sinks, Washington DC, 13 Sept. 2012, available at : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemiss ions/2012Workshop/NOAA_Karion.pdf (describing methodology used in the Uintah Basin study); see also : Jeff Tollefson, Methane Leaks Erode Green Credentials of Natural Gas , N ATURE (Jan. 2, 2013), available at http://www.nature.com/news/methane-leaks-erode-gree ncredentials-of-natural-gas-1.12123?nc=1359235303992

.

12 US EPA Office of Inspector General, EPA N EEDS TO I MPROVE A IR E MISSIONS D ATA FOR THE O IL AND N ATURAL G AS P RODUCTION S ECTOR

– R EPORT 13-P-0161 (20 February 2013); available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2013/20130220-13-P-0 161.pdf.

13 Id. at 12.

14 Notwithstanding these omissions, the agency posses ses sufficient information to determine that methan e performance standards for the oil and natural gas s ector are appropriate and has a duty to make such a determination.5

fall within the Rule’s definition of “gas well,” wh ile excluding emissions from co-producing wells the Rule classifies as “oil wells.” Regardle ss of their classification, completion emissions from these co-producing wells can be significant. Accordingly, we respectfully request that EPA clarify that wells in tight-oil formations like the Bakken and Eagle Ford are subject to the completion reporting requirements as currently writ ten. In addition, we urge the agency to expand the well completion reporting requirements t o all wells, ensuring co-producing wells in any formation type are required to report completio n emissions.

A. Subpart W Must Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions fro m Co-producing Wells

EPA’s Subpart W regulations require onshore product ion facilities to report greenhouse gas emissions from certain processes. Because of g aps or ambiguities within the rule, reporters are not fully reporting emissions from all oil and gas wells. Specifically, Subpart W requires reporting of completion emissions from “gas wells” but does not specifically require such reporting from oil wells. It provides:

“(c) For an onshore petroleum and natural gas production facility, report

CO 2, CH 4 , and N 2 O emissions from only the following source types on a single well-pad or associated with a single well-pad: . .

.

(6) Gas well venting during well completions with hydraulic fracturing

(8) Gas well venting during well workovers with hydraulic fracturing” 15

There is no similar reporting requirement to report oil well venting greenhouse gas emissions during well completions or workovers with hydraulic fracturing.

Although Subpart W defines some oil-producing wells within its broad definition of “gas well,” certain oil wells are likely not covered, creating potential confusion for reporters. Subpart W includes definitions for both “gas wells” and “oil wells.” “Gas wells” are defined to include “[w]ells that produce from high permeability gas, s hale gas, coal seam, or other tight reservoir

rock . . . .” 16 Importantly, this definition does not specify tha t gas wells must produce a particular type of hydrocarbon, instead requiring o nly that such wells “produce” from certain reservoir formations. Conversely, an “oil well” is a well that produces “hydrocarbon liquids and do[es] not meet the definition of a gas well.” 17

15 40 C.F.R. § 98.232(C)(6), (8) (emphasis added); see also 75 Fed. Reg. 74,458, 74,463 (Nov. 30, 2010).

16 40 C.F.R. § 98.238.

17 Id.6

Certain co-producing wells, like those in the Bakke n and Eagle Ford formations, are located in tight-oil formations. These wells “prod uce” from “other tight reservoir rock” and therefore fall within the Rule’s requirements to re port gas well venting during well completions and workovers with hydraulic fracturing. Notwithst anding this requirement, there are very few facility reports from wells in these basins, leadin g us to infer that the owners or operators of these wells may not believe they are subject to Sub part W reporting. Accordingly, we respectfully request that EPA undertake rulemaking or issue guidance, as appropriate, to clarify that co-producing wells in tight-oil formations are required to report well completion emissions under Subpart W and to provide any necessary emissi on equations.

To the extent other co-producing wells fall outside of the current Subpart W definition of “gas well,” we respectfully petition EPA to underta ke a rulemaking to ensure that the Rule covers all of these significant emissions. Subpart W covers other emissions from oil wells, and this expansion will help ensure complete coverage. In particular, Subpart W’s requirement to report emissions from associated venting and flarin g already applies to all wells, recognizing that oil wells can vent significant amounts of natural g as during ongoing production activities. 18
Similarly, the completion reporting requirements sh ould cover all wells, ensuring the Rule addresses these important emissions.

B. Methane Emissions from Co-producing Wells can be Si gnificant

Ensuring Subpart W addresses emissions from co-prod ucing wells is critical because drilling in co-producing basins is rapidly expandin g and, both individually and collectively, these wells account for significant amounts of methane em issions.

Rapidly shifting market fundamentals have sparked s wift development of co-producing wells. The relatively high price of oil and natura l gas liquids has made these co-producing wells attractive investments and has shifted development away from areas that principally produce dry gas. Indeed, Shell has planned a $1 billion invest ment to target liquids-rich plays like the Eagle Ford, 19 which Marathon Oil Chief Operating Officer David R oberts described as “the top basin we have in the world today.” 20

Overall rig deployment and oil and gas production n umbers reflect this shift: from February 2011 to February 2012, rigs increased 61% in the oil and liquids-rich Eagle Ford and 23% in the Bakken, while during the same period dry -gas plays experienced significant declines,

18 See 40 C.F.R. §§ 98.232(c)(13) & 98.233(m).

19 Shell to Focus on Liquids-Rich Assets, Leverage Gas , NGI’ S S HALE D AILY , (Feb. 6, 2012).

20 Texas Top Finds From Brazil to Bakken as Best Prosp ect: Energy , B LOOMBERG (Mar. 23, 201), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-23/texas-tops -finds-from-brazil-to-bakken-as-best-prospect-energ y.html.7

including a 43% reduction in rigs in the Haynesvill e shale. 21 Moreover, this shift will likely persist far into the future -- over the next 20 yea rs, some industry executives predict that Bakken production will increase from the approximately 5,0 00 existing wells to a projected 48,000. 22
Similarly, in 2010 there were 293 active wells in t he Eagle Ford and industry projects that by 2020, 4,890 new wells will be drilled. 23

Methane emissions from these wells can be signific ant. EPA recently issued a proposed and final Federal Implementation Plan for oil and g as wells on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (“FBIR FIP”), requiring pollution contr ol measures at co-producing wells. 24 As EPA recognized in the FBIR FIP, oil from certain un conventional oil, such as the Bakken and the Eagle Ford, contain relatively high amounts of ligh ter, more volatile hydrocarbons. 25 In these lighter-hydrocarbon oil fields, the agency noted th at the process associated with producing light crude oil “has greater potential to produce natural gas in addition to oil,” and explicitly characterized the oil production methods on the FBI R as “similar to natural gas well production” involving “the separation of the produced liquid in to hydrocarbon liquids (oil), natural gas and

water.” 26

EPA’s analysis of 154 synthetic minor permits 27 from the FBIR found that uncontrolled production emissions (including both well completio n emissions and ongoing production

21 Unconventional Rig Count for the Week Ending Febru ary 10, 2012, NGI’ S S HALE D AILY (on file with author).

22 Clifford Krauss, In North Dakota, Flames of Wasted Natural Gas Light the Prairie , N.Y. T IMES (Sept. 26, 2011), available at

September 26, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/0 9/27/business/energy-environment/in-northdakota-wasted-natural-gas-flickers-against-the-sky. html?_r=1&ref=energy-environment.

23 Economic Impact of the Eagle Ford Shale , A MERICA ’ S N ATURAL G AS A LLIANCE (Feb. 2011), http://www.anga.us/media/195472/utsa%20eagle%20ford .pdf at 8, 21.

24 See EPA, Approval and Promulgation of Federal Implement ation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Well Production Facilities; Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Manda n, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations), 77 Fed. Reg. 48,8 78, 48,885 (August 15, 2012) [hereinafter “FBIR FIP”] (definin g applicable facility as “ oil and natural gas production facilit[ies] producing from the Bakken Pool and located on the FBIR”) (emphasis added).

25 Id. at 48,883.

26 Id.

27 In the Technical Support Document for the FBIR FIP , EPA describes the full scope of its analysis:

We evaluated data from 154 synthetic minor permit a pplications containing 533 production wells among five of the main operators on the FBIR. From the ap plications, we were able to obtain the uncontrolled and controlled VOC emissions for each of the 154 facili ties. Additionally, the data was analyzed to determ ine average emission rates for an individual well basis . Due to the variability in the production rates an d product composition among the operators, we believe the mean value per well is an appropriate method f or obtaining annual emissions. Average VOC emissions p er well were evaluated against operating scenarios to determine cost impacts associated with the FIP.

EPA, T ECHNICAL S UPPORT D OCUMENT : F EDERAL I MPLEMENTATION P LAN FOR O IL AND N ATURAL G AS W ELL P RODUCTION F ACILITIES ; F ORT B ERTHOLD I NDIAN R ESERVATION (M ANDAN

, H IDATSA

, AND A RIKARA N ATIONS ),
N ORTH D AKOTA

17 [hereinafter “FBIR FIP TSD”].8

emissions) from FBIR wells are approximately 1,610 tons of VOCs per year per well. 28
Though the agency did not report methane emissions from these wells, applying EPA’s conversion factors in the Subpart W Technical Suppo rt Document (TSD) to these wells yields a value of 1,922 tpy of methane. 29 EDF obtained a separate analysis from Stratus Con sulting supporting the FBIR FIP’s conclusions with respect to co-production VOC and methane

emissions. 30 Further, if associated gas is flared during well completion, the carbon dioxide emissions from the flares will also be significant and must be addressed by Subpart W. These analyses confirm that greenhouse gas emissions from co-producing wells can be significant and must be included in Subpart W.

III. G REENHOUSE G AS E MISSIONS F ROM F ACILITIES AND P IPELINES IN THE G ATHERING

AND B OOSTING S EGMENTS OF THE N ATURAL G AS I NDUSTRY AND G APS IN R EPORTING
R EQUIREMENTS FOR T RANSMISSION P IPELINES

The natural gas sector extends well beyond the well head – after production, natural gas is transported through gathering lines, processed to r emove impurities, compressed, and transmitted at high pressures to storage facilities and/or dist ributors nationwide.

EPA explicitly excluded gathering lines and boostin g stations from coverage under both the natural gas processing segment and the natural gas transmission compression segment, stating that it “require[d] further analysis to ens ure an effective coverage of emissions from this source in order to appropriately inform future poli cy decisions.” 31 In addition to the pipelines and compressors explicitly excluded, emissions from many types of ancillary equipment in the gathering and boosting segments of the natural gas industry, such as pneumatic devices and pumps, dehydrators, and storage tanks are also excl uded from Subpart W. Important methane sources in the transmission segment of the natural gas industry, such as transmission venting (“blowdowns”) and leaks, are also not covered.

The exclusion of gathering and boosting facilities means that Subpart W does not require the natural gas sector to report a significant volu me of emissions. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has estimated that there are approximately 230,000 miles of gas

28 Id. at 18. EPA calculated controlled produced natural gas heat er/treater emissions based on 90% destruction efficiency for 90 days and 98% destruction efficien cy for the remaining 9 months of the year.

29 EPA, O IL AND N ATURAL G AS S ECTOR : S TANDARDS OF P ERFORMANCE FOR C RUDE O IL AND N ATURAL G AS P RODUCTION

, T RANSMISSION

, AND D ISTRIBUTION : B ACKGROUND T ECHNICAL S UPPORT D OCUMENT FOR P ROPOSED S TANDARDS T ECHNICAL S UPPORT D OCUMENT at Table 4-2 (July 2011) [hereinafter “Subpart W T SD”]. The TSD assumes 0.1459 lb VOC /lb methane for natural gas w ells and 0.8374 lb VOC/lb methane for oil wells. T he conversion in the text assume the oil factor applie s.

30 See EPA Doc. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-4490. We hereby incorporate this analysis by reference.

31 75 Fed. Reg. 74,458, 74,462 (Nov. 30, 2010) (“This source category does not include reporting of emis sions from gathering lines and boosting stations”).9

gathering lines in the United States, 32 and EPA’s draft 2013 Inventory of US GHG Sources a nd Sink (“US GHG Inventory”) reports that there are ov er 430,000 miles of such lines in service. 33
That inventory reports that leaks from gathering pi pelines constitute slightly more than 2.5% percent of the total GHG emissions from the natural gas industry. 34 Boosting compressors in gathering and boosting systems and their associated equipment are also significant sources of

methane emissions. 35 Failing to include leaks from gathering lines and emissions associated with boosting stations can therefore result in substanti ally underreporting the emissions from the oil and gas sector.

Additionally, in its current form, Subpart W doe s not include emissions from transmission pipeline venting (i.e., blowdowns) and leaks outside the boundaries of transmission compressor stations. Subpart W covers only venting and fugitives from compressor stations even though EPA’s draft 2013 Inventory reports that pipeline venting alone accounts for approximately 2% of the entire petroleum and natura l gas GHG inventory and over 6% of emissions from the transmission and storage segment . Indeed, the Subpart W TSD indicates that pipeline venting is among the largest sources of me thane emissions from the transmission segment, rivaling in scale several other categories of emissions (such as combustion emissions from compressors and fugitive emissions from centri fugal compressors) for which reporting is currently required. 36 Further, pipeline operators are or should be able to track intentional blowdown events, and can readily estimate emissions for each such event based on the dimensions of the evacuated pipe. Accordingly, Pet itioners believe it is both desirable and eminently feasible to require reporting of these em issions. 37

Furthermore, Petitioners note that large leaks and ruptures are reported to PHMSA. A recent PHMSA-commissioned study indicates that the volume of natural gas released through

32 Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipeli nes, 76 Fed. Reg. 53086, 53,101 (ANPRM, Aug. 25, 20 11).

33 EPA, Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissi ons and Sinks: 1990-2011 at A-176-81 (Feb. 2013), available at

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usin ventoryreport.html.

34 EPA, Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissi ons and Sinks: 1990-2011 at A-188 (Feb. 2013), available

at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usin ventoryreport.html.

35 See, e.g. , D AVID A LLEN ET

. AL

., N ATURAL G AS I NDUSTRY M ETHANE E MISSION F ACTOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDY 37 (Dec. 2011), available at http://www.utexas.edu/research/ceer/GHG/files/FRep orts/XA_83376101_ Final_Report.pdf.

36 Subpart W TSD, supra note 17, at 75 (pipeline venting equivalent to appr oximately 3.8 million metric tons CO 2 -e per year).

37 As the Subpart W TSD indicates, defining a “facili ty” in the context of transmission pipeline segment s may pose technical challenges. Id. at 18. However, EPA overcame similar challenges f or the distribution segment by requiring corporate-level reporting and referencing relevant definitions applied by the Pipeline and H azardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). See id. at 105. A similar approach may be available for tr ansmission pipelines, which PHMSA also regulates. Indeed, EPA noted that company-level reporting based on PHMSA requirements would be a feasible approach for gathe ring pipelines, which present definitional challeng es similar to transmission pipelines. See id. at 18, 108.10

large leaks and ruptures along transmission pipelin es is approximately 1.9 billion standard cubic feet per year – nearly 11.5 times the level indicat ed in the Subpart W TSD. 38 Indeed, accidental leaks of large magnitude can be a major source of m ethane leaking into the atmosphere, even if relatively short in duration. Emissions can be ver y high for leaks in remote locations that are not noticed or repaired immediately.

To ensure that Subpart W robustly reports all major sources of emissions from the oil and gas sector, Petitioners respectfully request that E PA amend the language of 40 C.F.R. § 98.230 to explicitly include gathering lines, boosting statio ns, and pipeline venting and blowdowns. In addition, Petitioners recommend that EPA coordinate with PHMSA to ensure that the annual GHG inventory includes, at a minimum, those pipelin e leaks and ruptures that are reported to Federal regulators, and to seek synergies, as appro priate, in data collection requirements.

IV. B EST A VAILABLE M ONITORING M ETHODS

Facilities initially qualifying for alternative re porting under the best available monitoring methods (“BAMM”) provision of Subpart W have had am ple time to transition to the methods otherwise required under Subpart W. Petitioners thu s respectfully urge EPA to eliminate BAMM as it currently exists after calendar year 2013. Fu rthermore, because real-time continuous emissions monitoring technologies are rapidly evolv ing, we ask EPA to provide opportunities in Subpart W for use of “advanced innovative monitorin g methods.”

When EPA finalized Subpart W in November of 2010, t he agency included certain nonstandardized procedures that oil and gas operators could use while coming into full compliance

with the rule. 39 The agency limited these methods, known as BAMM, to situations in which regulated facilities were unable to install the pro per monitoring equipment and allowed facilities to use BAMM until June 30, 2011. Facilities reques ting BAMM past that date were required to submit a written petition to EPA requesting an exte nsion, 40 and no facility could request an extension beyond December 31, 2011 except “under ex treme and unique circumstances, which include safety, or a requirement being technically infeasible or counter to other local, State or Federal regulations.” 41 The only facilities authorized to utilize BAMM we re gas well workovers

38 See David Shaw, Martin Phillips, Ron Baker, Eduardo Mun oz, Hamood Rehman, Carol Gibson, Christine Mayernik, Final Report: Leak Detection Study -- DTPH56-11-D-0 00001 at 3-27, P IPELINE AND H AZARDOUS M ATERIALS S AFETY A DMINISTRATION (Dec. 10, 2012) (multiplying average release volum e by total number of onshore leak and rupture incidents, and adjusting f or 12-month time period), available at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/FilGet.mtg?fil =430; compare Subpart W TSD, supra note 17, at 75 (estimating 166 million standard cubic feet per yea r in pipeline fugitive emissions).

39 75 Fed. Reg. 74,458, 74,471 (Nov. 30, 2010).

40 Id.

41 Id.11

using hydraulic fracture, gas well completions usin g hydraulic fracture, and well testing and flaring. 42

In response to a petition for reconsideration, on June 27, 2011, EPA published a proposed revision to Subpart W, proposing three key changes to the original BAMM rules. First, it would allow a presumptive extension of BAMM repo rting techniques through December 31,

2011. 43 Second, it would extend the sources eligible to u se BAMM to include the entire oil and gas sector (by adding Leak Detection and Measuremen t and “all other sources not previously listed”). 44 Finally, the agency would replace the original Ru le’s ban on extending the use of BAMM beyond 2011 except under “extreme and unique c ircumstances” with a provision allowing an extension under “unique or unusual circ umstances such as data collection methods that do not meet safety, technical, or legal issues rendering them unable to meet the requirements of Subpart W.” 45 EPA finalized the proposed rule, including all th ree changes, on September 27,

2011. 46

Expanding the BAMM provisions in this way transfor med the program from a limited, transitional bridge to full compliance into a perma nent fixture of the MRR. Facility level BAMM reports now available demonstrate that approxi mately 70 percent of facilities are currently using BAMM, further indicating that BAMM has far outgrown its remedial intent. EPA has recently proposed revisions to the BAMM pro visions for Subpart W 47 that would create earlier deadlines for submitting BAMM requests but otherwise leaving the program unchanged. While this Rule will allow EPA to more closely eval uate and scrutinize the BAMM requests it is receiving, it does not provide a pathway for transi tioning away from the program. Accordingly, these potentially permanent BAMM provisions threate n to undermine the quality of data the MRR produces, making it difficult to determine whet her differences among sources are due to different reporting methodologies or actual differe nces in emissions. This is especially challenging for Subpart W sources, where emissions are highly variable across sources due to technology and operator practices.

Facilities have been able to use BAMM for the first two years of reporting (2011 and 2012), and they have had ample time to transition t o the methods required under Subpart W. As such, EPA should eliminate the use of BAMM as it cu rrently exists after calendar year 2013. As part of the notice-and-comment process on that acti on, stakeholders will have the opportunity to

42 Id.

43 76 Fed. Reg. 37,300, 37,303 (June 27, 2011).

44 Id. at 37,304.

45 Id.

46 76 Fed. Reg. 59,533, 59,536-38 (Sept. 27, 2011).

47 78 Fed. Reg. 11,619 (Feb. 19, 2013).12

identify any remaining areas where different measur ement methodologies might be required. In the narrow circumstances in which operators may req uire flexible measurement methodologies on account of worker safety, we ask the agency to e xplicitly incorporate these flexibilities through rulemaking instead of through ongoing BAMM requests. Moreover, to ensure full transparency for the public and policymakers, we re quest that the agency provide information on every facility that has requested BAMM in 2011 and/ or 2012, the data elements for which they have made the request, and the agency’s response to the BAMM request. We also ask the Agency to provide this type of information on the u se of BAMM in 2013 and any subsequent

years.

Finally, real-time continuous emissions monitoring technologies are rapidly evolving in the oil and natural gas sector as well as in many o ther industrial applications. To encourage facilities to deploy these innovative technologies, we recommend that EPA provide opportunities for use of “advanced innovative monitoring methods (AIMM).” As such, we recommend that EPA add a new provision to the MRR providing a mech anism under which the Agency will consider requests which rely on real-time continuou s monitoring techniques that the Agency determines are more accurate than those ordinarily required by EPA procedure. By doing so, AIMM can serve as a laboratory for innovation, allo wing the agency to gain experience with modern measurement methodologies while laying the g roundwork for continuous improvement in monitoring methods over time. Petitioners expec t that this approach will be useful both in the oil and natural gas sector, and in other sectors of the MRR.

Respectfully submitted,

Craig Segall Sierra Club 50 F St NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC, 20009 Craig.Segall@sierraclub.org

Meleah Geertsma Natural Resources Defense Council 2 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2250 Chicago, IL 60606 mgeerstma@nrdc.org /s/ Peter Zalzal

________________ Peter Zalzal Tomás Carbonell Environmental Defense Fund 2060 Broadway, Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80302 pzalzal@edf.org tcarbonell@edf.org

David McCabe Darin Schroeder Clean Air Task Force 18 Tremont Street, Suite 530, Boston, MA 02108 (617) 624-0234 dmccabe@catf.us dschroeder@catf.us