C. Major C omments Concerning Pneumatic C ontrollers

1. Definition of A ffected Facility **Comment:** Some commenters request that the EPA consider excluding or exempting emergency and/or safety system devices (such as a pilot operated pressure relief valve). According to one commenter, safety system devices typically do not emit gas unless there is an emergency, have a near
- zero VOC - level static state and , if regulated, could be replaced by substandard, cheaper technology of spring operated valves which would create much more leakage of gas into the environment. With regard to emergency situations, another commenter argues that the proposed standards that apply to pneumatic
c ontroller affected facilities (40 CFR 60.5390(b)) could inhibit safe plant operation during an emergency because they require that each pneumatic controller located at a natural gas processing plant have zero natural gas emissions. According to the commenter, a gas
-powered controller is a reliable alternative for safe plant operation durin g emergencies, and the commenter suggests that the final rule include an exception to allow gas plants to use natural gas
- driven pneumatic contr ollers for emergency plant shut down and subsequent startup. With regard to high
-bleed pneumatic controllers, several commenters request that the EPA further explain when the use of high
-bleed pneumatic controllers is allowed and provide specificexamples of exemptions. The commenters suggest exemptions that

address situations such as those where the natural gas i ncludes impurities that could increase the likelihood of fouling a low
bleed pneumatic controller, such as paraffin or salts; where weather conditions could degrade pneumatic controller performance; during emergency conditions; where flow is not sufficient for low
-bleed pneumatic controllers; where electricity is not available; and where engineering judgment recommends their use to maintain safety, reliability or efficiency. Several commenters request that the EPA provide additional information about how to demonstrate that the use of high
-bleed pneumatic controllers is predicated , as stated in proposed 40 CFR 60.5390(a). The commenters suggest that this exemption is very vague, wil l allow for excessive emissions and is not enforceable. **Response:** In the fi nal rule, the EPA is changing the affected facility to a continuous bleed natural gas driven pneumatic controller with a natural gas bleed rate greater than 6 scfh and which commenced construction on or after August 23, 2011. The EPA notes that the rule contains functional exemptions for use of a controller with a natural gas bleed rate greater than 6 scfh. These exemptions include, but are not limited to, response time, safety and actuation of valves. These functionalexemptio ns to the requirement address the commenters’ concerns

of safety, emergency and otherwise non
- routine situations. **Comment:** Several commenters express concerns with the proposed rule’s treatment of various types of pneumatic devices and controllers. One commenter requests that the EPA clarify in 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO that intermittent bleed pneumatic devices are not affected sources. Another commenter asserts that continuous low
-bleed controllers that replace existing continuous low
-bleed controllers should not be “affected facilities.” According to this commenter, some designed high
bleed devices may be isolated from the gas pressure with a valve and operated manually on an intermittent basis. The commenter wants clarification in the rule that will a llow an operator to use a high
-bleed device if it is operated in a manner that keeps its emission levels less than 6 scfh. One commenter requests that the EPA clarify in the final rule that the distribution segment and self
- contained devices that release gas to a downstream pipeline instead of to the atmosphere are exempt. Another commenter argues that no
-bleed pneumatic devices have zero emissions and , thus , should not be included in the proposed rule. One commenter discusses the use of solar
-powered
co ntrollers, fuel
- cell powered controllers and mechanically
controlled devices in remote locations as an alternative tonatural gas where grid electricity is not available. This

commenter also recommends that the EPA set a zero emissions standard based upon no -bleed devices wherever electricity (either from a grid or from field power sources) is available within a reasonable distance from the facility and suggests that the EPA could establish an exemption to no
-bleed devices where low
-bleed devices are necess ary because no
-bleed devices cannot be feasibly installed. Another commenter states the definition of “pneumatic controller” is unclear and should be revised. **Response:** In response to comment, the EPA has clarified in the final rule that a pneumatic cont roller affected facility is a continuous bleed natural gas
- driven pneumatic controller operating at a bleed rate greater than 6 scfh, which would exclude intermittent bleed devices, pneumatic devices not related to control, and instrument air. The emission limits in the final rule would effectively eliminate the use of most pneumatic controller s that emit more than 6 scfh for new (including replacement) and modified continuous bleed pneumatic controllers . Also , to ease the burden on future replacement or modification, the final rule requires only that the affected facility ( i.e. , continuous natural gas driven pneumatic controllers with a bleed rate above 6 scfh) be tagged as such, so that they can be tracked sepa rately from devices below theemission limit . The EPA also clarifies that a no -bleed

controller is not an affected facility in the final rule . The EPA also confirms that the rule requirements for pneumatic controllers list the industry segments covered by the regulation (see 40 CFR 60.5430), which addresses a commenter’s request for clarification about distribution segment devices. Regarding the comments related to solar
-powered controllers, fuel
- cell powered controllers, mechanically
controlled devices an d no -bleed devices wherever electricity is available , we considered these types of devices in the BSER analysis, as discussed in the TSD. Any such controller system would require a backup system (consisting of at least an electrical generator) to operate t he controllers when the primary system was inoperable. When considering the cost of the backup system, these options were not cost effective. **Comment:** Several commenters request an exemption for all affected facilities handling gas with less than 10
-per cent VOC content by weight. Some commenters offer suggestions for such exemption, such as requiring recordkeeping of the gas VOC content in order for a facility to maintain the exemption. One commenter believes that the EPA should delete the pneumatic con troller requirements because most of the gas emitted is methane, and there is little VOC emission reduction benefit. Another commenter suggests limiting applicability topneumatic controllers at natural gas processing plants or

upstream of processing that exceed s a defined VOC threshold. Several commenters opine that pneumatic device definitions and applicability should be based on VOC emissions, not natural gas as a surrogate. Commenters assert that the 6 scfh high
bleed/low

-bleed threshold value is unsupported, that natural gas VOC content varies widely and that , in most cases, unconventionally produced CBM and shale gas have little , if any , measurable VOC. Several commenters also wanted to exclude pneumatic controllers driven by a specified percentage of VOC. According to the commenters, regulating the use of compressed air or “instrument air” or other gas having little or no VOC would impose a significant burden on the industry without any added benefit. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the comment that the pneumatic controller standards must be based on VOC emissions instead of natural gas bleed rate as a surrogate for VOC emissions rate . Measuring the VOC content of a pneumatic controller’s bleed gas adds cost burden to companies and , to the EPA’s knowledge, vendors/manufacturers do not report the VOC emissions from a pneumatic controller primarily because the VOC emissions would depend on the gas composi tion at the site the pneumatic controller is located.In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA set forth its

BSER analysis for pneumatic controllers. In the TSD, the EPA has provided cost
- effectiveness calculations for the proposed pneumatic device emission limits. The commenters do not dispute the EPA’s analysis. Rather, the commenters ask that the EPA establish a VOC threshold. However, the commenters have not provided information on how an appropriate threshold can be established. One commenter su ggests a threshold of 10 percent VOC content by weight, but has not provided supporting information justifying this threshold. However, for the reasons stated in the response to comment immediately below, the EPA has decided not to cover in this final rule the pneumatic controllers in the transmission and storage segment. With respect to those controllers we are not taking final action at this time. **Comment:** One commenter suggested that the EPA provide a phase
- in period to allow manufacturers and companies time to designate which controllers qualify as low
-bleed. This commenter further note s that bleed rates are not specified for pneumatic controllers or are inconsistently represented without distinguishing between the continuous bleed stream and the actuat ion stream rates within the gas consumption specifications.**Response:** In the proposed rule, for pneumatic controllers 1

in the production segment, the EPA proposed a performance standard of a natural gas bleed rate of 6 scfh to reflect the use of a low
-bleed controller, which we had determined to be the BSER for reducing VOC emissions from pneumatic controllers in the production segment. 2 Owners and operators would demonstrate compliance based on information in the manufactu rers’ specifications for the pneumatic controllers, which we had believed would provide either the bleed rate or relevant information for such determination. Upon further investigation in light of the comments, we conclude that such information is not alwa ys included in current manufacturers’ specifications. We anticipate that manufacturers who currently do not provide the relevant information for determining bleed rate would adjust to this need and begin testing their products and provide the necessary inf ormation on the products’ specifications. Based on public comments and other available information, the EPA believes that an adjustment period is needed, during which owners and operators could face increased cost and, in some instances, difficulty in obta ining necessary supplies due to the

1 For the reasons stated in section V.C , we have changed the affected facility to a continuous bleed natural gas driven pneumatic controller with a natural gas bleed rate greater than 6 scfh . This change does not affect the proposed BSER analysis and VOC limit, which apply to high bleed pneumatic controllers in the final rule. 2 For re asons explained in section IX . C . 2 , unrelated to the comment at issue, the final rule does not include standards for pneumatic controllers in the transmission and storage segment.limited number of currently available controllers with adequate

documentation for determining bleed rate. However, In light of the above, we conclude that a low bleed controller is not the BSER for pneumatic controller a ffected facilities in the production segment during this first year. As explained in the proposed rule, we are not aware of any add
- on controls that are or can be used to reduce VOC emissions from gas driven pneumatic devices. 76 FR 52760. One commenter b roadly suggests that we consider flares, combustion devices and vapor recovery but provides no supporting information . In light of the above, we conclude that there is no BSER for pneumatic controller affected sources in the production segment during the “ adjustment period” mentioned above. **I** n determining the length of the adjustment period, the EPA evaluated relevant comments and available information , including information from promulgation and implementation of s ubpart W of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting rule. Subpart W requires operators to conduct a complete inventory and report to EPA the number of low and high bleed pneumatic devices , as those terms are defined in subpart W, over a three year period ( i.e. , 1/3 of their devices every year over a three year period) starting January 2011. We believe that efforts are well under way for manufacturers to provide necessary information to help facilities subject to subpart W determine the pneumaticcontrollers’ bleed rates and comply with the reporting rule

re quirements, 1/3 of which must be completed by September 2012 and another third by September 2013 and the entire inventory by September 2014. In light of the above, we do not believe that owners and operators would face the difficulty described above beyond the first year after this NSPS becomes effective. After this first year of “adjustment period,” we believe owners and operators should have no problem securing controllers with relevant documentation for determining bleed rate. Therefore, beginning the se cond year, the BSER remains the low bleed controllers, as proposed. For the reasons stated above, the final rule contains no standards for pneumatic controller affected facilities in the production segment during the first year after this rule becomes ef fective but thereafter requires that all new and modified affected facilities to meet a VOC limit of 6 scfh natural gas bleed rate to reflect the use of a low
-bleed controller. The need for adequate manufacturers’ specifications is not an issue for pneumat ic controllers at natural gas processing plants. For pneumatic controller affected facilities at natural gas processing plants, we had proposed a zero VOC emission limit, the compliance of which can be demonstrated by the use of a non
gas - driven controller system. As noted by commenters, most natural gas processing plants already use non
- gas - driventechnology such as instrument air systems for safety and

operational reasons. While one cannot distinguish gas
- driven pneumatic controllers of different bleed
- ra tes without information from manufacturers, a non
- gas - driven controller can be easily identified by visual inspection. Therefore, no change is made since proposal to the standards for pneumatic controller affected facilities at gas processing plants. In response to comments that units already in stock at the time of proposal cannot be used, the EPA clarifies that pneumatic controllers that were already in stock or ordered prior to August 23, 2011 are considered existing sources and, therefore, their in stallation is not subject to the pneumatic controllers NSPS in this final rule.