***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** EO12866_Oil and Gas CTG 2060 ZA22 Emission Reduction and Cost of Control_20150810 

# Oil and Natural Gas Industry Estimated Reasonably Available Control Technology Emission Reduction s and Cost of Control **1 .**  **0 INTRODUCTION**  The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides that state implementation plans (SIPs) for ozone nonattainment (NA) areas must include reasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources of emissions , and stipulates that for moderate (and higher) ozone nonattainment (NA) areas, states must revise their SIPs to include RACT for volatile organic compound (VOC ) emission sources covered by control techniques guide lines (CTG). 1 

### Furthermore, the CAA requires that SIPs for states in ozone transport regions ( OTRs ) must comply with and implement RACT with respect to all sources of VOC in the state covered b y a CTG . 2 

### The proposed Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry , henceforth the CTG, proposes recommendations for RACT for select emission sources in the oil and natural gas industry . 3 

### The proposed CTG provides state , local and tribal air agencies (air agencies) with information to assist them in determining RACT for VOC from select oil and natural gas industry emission sources. During the development of the guideline s , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) evaluated the sources of VOC emissions from the oil and natural gas industry and the available control approaches to reduce these emissions, including the costs of the evaluated approaches. The EPA is recommending RACT for compressors, natural gas - driven pneumatic controllers, natural gas - driven pneumatic pumps, storage vessels, equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants and fugitive emission s at well sites and compressor stations in the oil and natural gas industry . Table 1 - 1 presents a summary of the recommended RACT level of control for each of these sources . Air agencies can use the recommendations in the CTG to inform their own determination as to what constitutes RACT for VOC emiss ions for the oil and natural gas industry sources included in the CTG . The information contained in the CTG is provided only as guidance. The CTG does not change, or substitute for, requirements specified in applicable sections of the CAA or the EPA’s regulations; nor is it a regulation itself. The CTG does not impose any requirements on facil ities in the oil and natural gas industry . It provides only recommendations for air agencies to consider when they

determine RACT. Air agencies are free to implement other technicallysound approaches that are consistent with the CAA and the EPA’s implementing regulations. To understand the potential impact of the CTG , the EPA conducted a scoping analys is based on a snapshot of the existing oil and natural gas industry . While the CTG itself does not require facilities in the oil and natural gas industry to adopt specific control technologies , assessing the emission reductions and costs of the case where recommended RACTs were 1 CAA Section 172(c)(1) and Section 182(b)(2)(A) . 2 CAA Section 184(b)(1)(B) . 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry . August 2015***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

2 

### adopted b y oil and natural gas emission sources in moderate and higher ozone NA areas and the OTR provides a reasonable basis for the impact of the RACT requirements ultimately determined b y air agencies. Therefore, this document presents an asse ssment of the emission reductions and net expenditures required by the industry in the case where all affected oil and natural gas emission sources that existed in 2012 adopt the recommended RACT. It is estimated that in this case VOC emissions would be reduced by approximately 82 thousand tpy at an annualized net cost to the industry of approximately $ 76 million dollars based on the CTG recommended RACT. Additionally, the recommended RACT is estimated to reduce methane emissions by

approximately 220 thousand tpy and haz ardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions by three thousand tpy . The assessment provides a reasonable estimate of the magnitude of expected emission reductions and net costs to the s ource category associated with the proposed CTG ; however there are limitations, including some that suggest the cost estimates may be conservative in some dimensions. For example, while the analys is attempts to include existing state regulations, the 2012 snapshot may

not fully account for state permit limits for individual sources that meet or exceed the recommended RACT level of control. Thus, the percentage of existing sources that are already achieving the recommended RACT level of control may be underestimated which would lead to fewer emission reductions and l ower expected cost s for owners and operators as a result of the CTG. Also, air agencies have the flexibility of determining RACT that may differ from what the EPA recommends. This flexibility allows them to potentially take advantage of their local conditions and implement a tailored RACT which may lower the costs for sources in the ir jurisdiction. This analysis is based on industry averages and does not account for heterogeneity

in sources that affect the costs or emission reductions. The resulting state and local regulations may also require a lower level of control or may affect a lower number of sources than were included in the analys is presented here. The focus on a 2012 snapshot of existing sources may

include some sources that are no longer in use. However, any small changes to the existing universe of sources it is not expected to notably change the magnitude of the estimates in this analysis. The document is organized as follows:

 Section 2 presents a short discussion about the moderate or higher ozone NA and OTR areas impacted b y RACT.  Sections 3 pre sents a summary of the information used to determine the number of sources, baseline emissions , emission reductions and costs.  Section 4 presents the methodology used to estimate baseline emissions, emission reductions and costs.  Section 5 presents a summary of the VOC RACT emission reductions and costs.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

3 

### T **able 1**  **- 1**  **. Summary o f the**  **Oil and Natural Gas Industry Emission**  **Sources and Proposed**  **Recommended RACT Emission Source**  **Applicability RACT**  **Re commendations**  1. Storage Vessels Individual storage vessel 95 percent reduction of VOC emissions from storage vessels with a potential to emit (PTE) greater than or equal to 6 tpy 2. Natural Gas - Driven Pneumatic Controllers Individual continuous bleed, natural gas - driven pneumatic controller located at a natural gas processing plant N atural gas bleed rate of zero scfh (unless there are functional needs, including but not limited to response time, safety and positive actuation, requiring a bleed rate greater than zero scfh). Individual continuous bleed natural gas - driven pneumatic c ontroller located from the wellhead to the natural gas processing plant or point of custody transfer to an oil pipeline N atural gas bleed rate less than or equal to 6 scfh (unless there are functional needs, including but not limited to response time, safety and positive actuation, requiring a bleed rate greater than 6 scfh). 3. Natural Gas - Driven Pneumatic Pumps Individual natural gas - driven chemical/methanol and diaphragm pum p located at a natural gas processing plant Z ero natural gas emissions Individual natural gas - driven chemical/methanol and diaphragm pum p at locations other than natural gas processing plants from the well site to the point of custody transfer to the natural gas transmission and storage segment. - If there is an existing control device at the location of the pneumatic pump, reduce VOC emissions from each gas - driven chemical/methanol and diaphragm pump at the location by 95 percent or greater.

- If there is no existing control device at the location of the pneumatic pump, submit a certification that there is no device. 4. Compressors (Centrifugal and Reciprocating) Individual reciprocating compressor located between the wellhead and point of custody transfer to the natural gas transmission and storage segment. Reduce VOC emissions by replacing reciprocating compressor rod packing after 26,000 hours of operation or 36 months since the mo st recent rod packing replacement. Alternatively, route rod packing emissions to a process through a closed vent system under negative pressure. Individual reciprocating compressor located at a well site, or an adjacent well site and servicing more than one well site RACT would not apply. Individual centrifugal compressor using wet seals that is located between the wellhead and point of custody transfer to the natural gas transmission and storage segment. Reduce VOC emissions from each centrifugal compressor wet seal fluid gassing system by 95 percent or greater.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

4 

### Emission Source **Applicability RACT**  **Re commendations** 

Individual centrifugal compressor using wet seals located at a well site, or an adjacent well site and servicing more than one well site RACT would not apply.

Individual centri fugal compressor using dry seal s RACT would not apply. 5. Equipment Leaks Equipment components in VOC service located at a natural gas processing plant Im plement the 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa LDAR program for natural gas processing plants constructed or modified on or before August 23, 2011. 6. Fugitive Emissions Individual well site with wells that produce, on average, greater than 15 barrel equivalents per day per well Im plement a semiannual optical gas imaging ( OGI ) mo nitoring and repair program. Individual compressor station located from the wellhead to the point of custody transfer to the natural gas transmission and storage segment or point of custody transfer or to an oil pipeline Im plement a semiannual OGI monitoring and repair program.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

5 

### 2 **MODERATE OR HIGHER**  **OZONE NA**  **AND OTR AREA S**  In order to estimate the potential moderate or higher ozone NA area and OTR area (referred to collectively as “RACT - impacted areas ”) emission reduction impacts for the proposed RACT recommendations , we obtained information on U.S. ozone NA areas from the EPA’s Greenbook as of January

30, 2015 (http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html). The list of the moderate or higher ozone NA areas included in this analysis is pres ented in Attachment 1 to this memorandum . The OTR areas include d in this analysis are the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and the C MSA that includes the District of Columbia) . **3 INFORMATION USED TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF SOURCES**  **IMPACTED BY RACT, RACT**  **- IMPACTED AREA**  **BASELINE EMISSIONS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS**  **AND COSTS BASED ON RACT**  Activity data, baseline emission s and emission reductions per source were estimated based on information obtained from the following sources :  2012 DI Desktop U.S. oil and natural gas wells information (2012 DI Desktop). 4 

### Includes location and production information for oil and gas wells in the U.S. Discussed further below.  Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ) . Wo rldwide Gas Processing (Capacities as of January 1, 2013, and average production) . June 3, 2013. (2012 Gas Processing Survey) . Includes information on the number, location and capacities of gas processing plants worldwide. Dis cussed further below.  Emissions information and counts for various emission sources were obtained from facility- level data submitted to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) and data used to calculate national emissions in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions and Sinks. The published data from 2013 was u sed in this anal ysis. For the purposes of this document these data sources are referred to as "GHGRP" and “GHG Inventory”. 5 , 6 

###  The proposed Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Source Industry ( CTG) . 7 

### Includes information on the baseline VOC emissions per unit, VOC emission reductions per unit, and VOC cost of control per unit used in this analys is.  The TSD for the 2015 proposed NSPS standards is referred to in this document as the “2015 NSPS TSD”. 8

4 DI Desktop. 201 2 . Drilling Info. Inc. 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990- 2012 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. EPA 430 - R- 15 - 004 Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html . 6 Note that the EPA’s GHGRP plans to release additional activity data in the f all of 2015 from its Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems source category. The s e data covers oil and gas operations reporting to the GHGRP in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. The s e new activity data will be reviewed prior to finalization of the CTG and incorporated into this analysis if appropriate . 7 See reference 3. 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Oil and Natural Gas S ector: Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Distribution - Background Technical Support Document for the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

6 

###  The gas composition memorandum that was deve loped during the NSPS process which characterizes an analysis of data to determine the gas composition and develop ratios for natural gas composition for the various segments of the oil and natural gas industry . This document is referred to in this document as the "2011 Gas Composition Memorandum". 9 

###  All of the calculations supporting the analys es in this document are included in the CTG docket (Docket ID. EPA - HQ - OAR- 2015 - 0216) in the form of spreadsheets. 2012 DI Desktop Data The EPA obtained well production data from the DI Desktop database dated February, 2014. 10 

### The DI Desktop data collected b y DrillingInfo , Inc. consists of oil and natural gas well information that provides parameters de scribing the location, operator, and production characteristics. The DIDesktop data extract from the DrillingInfo , Inc. database included the population of all wells with gas or hydrocarbon liquid production during 2010 to 2012 and with a recorded completion ye ar of 2010 to the date of the extract (February, 2014). 11 

### The 2012 DIDesktop data was queried to identify oil and natural gas wells in production in 2012 in RACT - impacted areas using Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes for the respective areas . Gas wells were defined as those wells with an average gas to liquids ratio greater than or equal to 100,0 00 standard cubic feet per barrel over the lifetime of the well, and oil wells were defined as those wells with an average gas to liquids ratio less than 100,000 standard cubic feet per barrel over the lifetime of the well. I f a well had liquids production but no gas production, it was classified as an oil well , and if a well had gas production but no liquids production, it was classified as a gas well. As a result of this anal ys is, for all producing wells, 101, 464 oil and gas wells (63, 936 oil well s and 37,528 gas wells) were identified in moderate or higher ozone NA areas and 90,232 oil and gas wells (24,169 oil wells and 66,063 gas wells) were identified in OTR areas . An estimated 22,426 oil and gas wells (1,249 oil wells and 21,177 gas wel ls) were located in OTR areas that were also located in moderate or higher ozone NA areas. For producing wells that produce , on average, greater than 15 barrel equivalents per day, 25,212 oil and gas wells ( 13,336 oil wells and 11,876 gas wells) were identified in moderate or higher ozone NA areas and 4,642 oil and gas wells (277 oil wells and 4,365 gas wells) were identified in OTR areas. An estimated 932 oil and gas wells (232 oil wells and 700 gas wells) were located in OTR areas that were also located in moderate or higher ozone nonattainment areas. States that had wells with RACT impacted areas include California, Maryland , New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia. This information was used to: Proposed Amendments to the New Source Performance Standards. June 2015. 9 Memorandum to Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA from Heather Brown, EC/R. Composition of Natural Gas for use in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector Rulemaking . July 2011. Docket ID EPA- HQ - OAR- 2010 - 0505 - 0084. 10 DrillingInfo is a private organization specializing in oil and gas data and statistical analysis. The DrillingInfo database is focused on historical oil and gas production data and drilling permit data. 11 Memorandum to Mark de Figueiredo, U.S EPA from Casey MacQueen and Jessica Gray, P.E., ERG. 2013 GHGRP Subpart W and NSPS/NESHAP DrillingInfo Processing Methodology . August 27, 2014.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

7 

###  estimate the number and location of all producing wells and individual well site s with wells that produce, on average, greater than 15 barrel equivalents per day in OTR and moderate or higher ozone NA areas (as noted) ,  estimate the number and location of storage vessels in OTR and moderate or higher ozone NA areas (assuming one storage vessel per well 12 

### ),  estimate the number of production segment pneumatic controllers and pumps located in OTR and moderate or higher ozone NA areas (using the percentage of the number of wells located in each of the respective areas), and  estimate the number of gathering and boosting stations located in OTR and moderate or higher ozone NA areas (using the average of the percentage of wells and the percentage of total natural gas processing plants located in each respective areas). OGJ Worldwide Gas Processing Survey (Capacities as of January 1, 2013, and Average Production) The OGJ Gas Processing Survey reflecting capacities as of January 1, 2013 (which would reflect capacities for 2012) was used to obtain location information of natural gas processing plants in OTR and moderate or higher ozone NA areas. Of the estimate d 606 natural gas processing plants in the U.S., an estimated 10 natural gas processing plants were located in OTR areas and 40 were located in moderate or higher ozone NA areas. None of the 40 natural gas processing plants in moderate or hi gher ozone NA areas were located in OTR areas. States that had processing plants with RACT - impacted areas include California, Pennsylvania and Texas. This information was used to:  estimate the number and location of natural gas processing plants in OTR and moderate or higher ozone NA areas,  estimate the number of processing segment compressors and pneumatic controllers located in OTR and moderate or higher ozone NA areas (using the percentage of the number of gas processing plants located in OTR and moderate or higher ozone NA areas ), and  estimate the number of gathering and boosting stations located in OTR and moderate or higher ozone NA areas (using the average of the percentage of wells and the percentage of gas processing plants lo cated in OTR and moderate or higher ozone NA areas ).

12 The EPA is aware that there is often more than one storage vessel per well site. However, for emissions calculation purposes, we assumed that all storage vessels are likely manifolded together or could reasonable be manifolded together such that there is a single emission point for all storage vessels on the well site. Thus, we count one storage vessel per well site for emission calculation purposes because only one emission point would need to be controlled.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

8 

### 4 **METHOD OLOGY USED TO ESTIMATE**  **RACT -** **IMPACTED AREA BASELINE**  **EMIS S**  **I ONS, EMISSION**  **REDU C**  **TIONS AND COSTS**  The following paragraphs present the methodologies used to estimate RACT - impacted area baseline emissions, emission reductions and costs for storage vessels, pneumatic controllers, pneumatic pumps, compressors, equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants and fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations . **4 .1**  **Storage Vessels** 4.1.1 Approach RACT - impacte d baseline emis sions and emission reductions from storage vessels were calculated b y multiplying the number of estimated uncontrolled storage vessels by emission factors based on oil and condensate production and production information from the 2012 DI Desktop data

base . Emission red

uctions were estimated by multip lying the emissions cal culated for each storage vessel by 95 percent. The RACT - impacted area costs were estimated b y multiplying the number of RACT - impacted storage vessel s by costs per storage vessel. 4.1.2 RACT

-Impacted Population of Storage Vesse ls In order to estimate the number of storage vessels that would potentially be impacted by RACT, we conducted an anal ys is using the following procedures :  Estimated the number of wells in existence and located in RACT - impacted areas in 2012 (assuming one controlled storage vessel per well) based on 2 012 DI Desktop location information .  Subtracted the wells completed in 2012 from this number (as suming that these storage vessels would be subject to the NSPS ) .  Subtracted the number of storage vessels subject to and presumed to be controlled at baseline under state air regulations from the number of storage vessels that would potentially

be impacted by

RACT,  Use d the emission factor from a typical storage ves sel within each throughput bracket established under the NSPS 13 

### to estimate emissions based on 2012 DI Desktop production information .  Determine d the number of storage vessels that would likely have VOC emissions greater than or equal to the RACT recommended applicability threshold of 6 tons per ye ar (tpy) .  Estimate d the number of storage vessels that would likely have VOC emissions greater than or equal to 6 tpy that would also be subject to and controlled under state air regulations.

13 Heather Brow

n, EC/R Incorporated to Moore, B., EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/FIG. Revised Analysis to Determine the Number of Storage Vessels Projected to be Subject to New Source Performance Standards for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector . April 8, 2013.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

9 

###  Using information on state environmental regulations developed for the CTG, we subtracted the number of storage vessels subject to and controlled under state air regulations from the number of storage vessels with VOC emissions greater than or equal to 6 tpy

to determine the number of storage vessels that would potentially be impacted b y RACT. Attachment s 2 and 3 to this memorandum include the RACT - impacted storage vessel population and baseline emissions analysis . Table 4 - 1 presents the e stimated number of RACT impacted storage vessels .

**Table 4**  **- 1**  **. RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Population of Storage Vessels** 

**Emission Source**  **Number of RACT -** **Impacted Storage Vessels**

**Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas Outside of OTR** 

**Areas OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas**  Storage Vessels 2, 451 11 2, 462 

### 4. 1.3 RACT

-Impacted Storage Vessel Baseline Emissions, Emission Reductions a nd Costs Using average storage vessel VOC emissi on factors based on well production rate bracket s developed under the NSPS 14 

### and 2012 DI Desktop production information , we calculated the RACT - impacted number of storage vessels and baseline VOC, methane and HAP emissions . RACT - impacted storage vessel emission reductions were estimated by multiplying the calculated baseline emissions per storage vessel b y the 95 percent reduction efficiency attributable to combustion or capture and recovery . Using VOC to methane and VOC to HAP ratios developed for the oil and natural gas industry as pres ented in the 2011 Gas Composition memorandum, we estimated methane and HAP baseline emissions and emission reductions for storage vessels. Table 4 - 2 presents the estimated RACT - impacted storage vessel baseline emissions . RACT - impacted storage vessel emission reductions are provided in Table 4 - 3.

14 Ibid.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

10 

### Ta**ble 4**  **- 2**  **. RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Storage Vessel**  **Baselin e Emissions**  **Emissio n**  **Source RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Storage Vessel**  **Baseline E**  **mi ssions**  **(tpy)**

**Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas Outside of OTR Areas**  **OTR Areas Moderate or**  **Higher Ozone NA**  **Areas /OTR Areas VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP** Storage Vessels 24, 515 5, 704 769 101 21 3 24, 617 5, 095 773



### Table **4 -** **3. RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Storage Vessel Emission Reductions a**  **Emission Source**  **Type of**

**Control RACT**  **- Im** **pacted S torage Vessel**  **Em ission Reductions (tpy)** 

**Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas Outside of OTR** 

**Areas OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  Storage Vessel 95%

Control 23, 29 0 4, 82 0 731 96 20 3 23, 3 86 4, 84 0 734 a Assumes 9 4 percent of sources will use a combustion control device and 6 percent will use a VRU to com ply with the recommended RACT. 

### U sing the retrofit costs for a combustor or VRU developed for the CTG , we multiplied these costs b y the number of RACT - impacted storage vessels, assuming 9 4 percent of the storage vessels would use combustion and 6 percent would use a vapor recovery unit (VRU) . 15 

### The capital cost s and annual costs used for a combustion device was $100,986 and $22,228, respectively. The capital cost s and annual costs used for a VRU used was $171,538 and $28,230 , respectively . Gas savings is individual to production and emission rate class. Gas savings was estimated fo r storage vessels using a VRU only, assuming gas recovered would be valued at $4 per Mcf of recovered natural gas. No gas savings was attributed to storage vessels using combustion control. Attachment 2 presents the VRU and combustion cost analys is. Table 4 - 4 presents the estimated RACT - impacted storage vess el cost s.

15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse Gas R eporting Program

– Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems (Subpart W) Analysis: Onshore Production Storage Tanks (Reporting Year: 2013 Data).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

11 

### Table 4 **- 4**  **. RACT -** **Im pacted Storage Vessel Costs**  **a Emission**  **Point Moderate or**  **Higher Ozone NA Areas** 

**Outside of OTR Areas OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas**  **Capital ($) Annual w/o** 

**savings ($/yr)**  **Annual w/**

**savings ($/yr)**  **Capital ($) Annual w/o**  **savings ($/yr)**  **Annual w/**

**savings ($/yr)**  **Capital ($) Annual w/o**  **savings ($/yr)**  **Annual w/** 

**savings ($/yr)**  Storage Vessel $ 257,902,585 $ 55,365,741 $ 55,176,698 $ 1,157,410 $ 248,469 $ 247,688 $ 259,059,995 $ 55,614,210 $ 55,424,387 a Assumes 94 percent of sources will use a combustion control device and 6 percent will use a VRU to com ply with the recommended RACT .***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

12 

### 4. **2 Natural Gas**  **- Driven**  **Pneumatic Controllers** 4. 2 .1 Approach RACT - impacted natural gas - driven pneumatic controller baseline emis sions and emission reductions were calculated b y multiplying the number of uncontrolled natural gas driven pneumatic controllers reported in the 2012 GHG Inventory (assuming that they were natural gas - driven) by

emissions and emission reductions per controller . The RACT - impacted area costs were estimated by multiplying the calculated RACT VOC emission reductions by costs per controller . 4 .2 .2 RACT

-Impacted Popu lation ofNatural Gas -Driven Pneumatic Controllers Based on information in the 2012 GHG Inventory, there were an estimated 135 natural gas - driven pneumatic controllers in the processing segment nationally . The percentage of natural gas processing plants located in RACT - impacted areas based on the 2012 Gas Processing Survey was used to estimate the number of RACT - impacted natural gas - driven pneumatic controllers. Similarly, based on information in the 2012 GHG Inventory, there were an estimated 165,372 high bleed natural gas - driven pneumatic controllers installed in the production segment nationally . The percentage of wells located in RACT - impacted areas based on 2012 DIDesktop location information was used to estimate the number of high bleed natural gas driven pneumatic controllers located in RACT - impacted areas . Table 4 - 5 presents the estimated population of RACT - impacted natural gas - driven pneumatic controllers . **Table 4**  **- 5**  **. RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Population of**  **Natural Gas**  **- Driven**  **Pneumatic Controllers**

**Segm ent**  **Number of RACT -** **Impacted Sources**

**Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas Outside of OTR**  **Areas OTR**  **Areas Moderate or**  **Higher Ozone**  **NA Areas** **/ OTR**  **Areas** Oil and Natural Gas Production 10,219 11,666 21,885 Processing Plants 9 2 11***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

13 

### 4. 2 .3 RACT

-Impacted Natural Gas -Driven Pneumatic Controller Baseline Emissions, Emission Reductions and Costs RACT - impacted natural gas - driven pneumatic controller b aseline emissions were estimated by

multiplying the population of natural gas - driven pneumatic controllers and the VOC , methane and HAP baseline emiss ions per natural gas - driven pneumatic controller . Using the cost and emission reductions developed for the CTG, we estimated emission reductions and costs by multiplying the number of natural gas - driven pneumatic controllers by the emission reductions and costs per natural gas - driven controller. For processing segment natural gas - driven pneumatic controllers , we used the emission reductions and costs associated with the use of an existing instrument air system . For production segment natural gas - driven pneumatic controllers, we used the emission reductions and costs associated with the replacement of an existing high bleed controller with a low bleed controller. Using methane to HAP ratios developed for the oil and natural gas industry as presented in the 2011 Gas Composition memorandum, we estimated RACT - impacted natural gas - driven pneumatic controller HAP baseline emissions and emission reductions . Tables 4 - 6 and 4 - 7 present the RACT - impacted natural gas - driven pneumatic controller baseline emissions and emission reductions . Tables 4 - 8 and 4 - 9 present the RACT - impacted natural gas - driven pneumatic controller costs.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

14 

### Table **4 -**  **6 .**  **RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Natural Gas -** **Driven Pneumatic Contr** **oller Baseline Emissions Segm** **ent Baseline Emissions Per**  **Natural**

**Gas -** **Driven Pneumatic Controller** 

**(tpy) RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Pneum** **atic Controller Baseline**  **E mi**  **ssions (tpy)**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA**  **Areas Outside of OTR Areas**  **OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas /OTR Areas**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  Oil and Natural Gas Production 1. 5 5. 3 0.055 15,057 54,162 567 17,189 61,831 647 32,246 115,993 1,214 Processing Plants 0.28 1. 0 0. 01 2 .5 8. 9 0. 9 0.62 2 . 2 0 .02 3 .1 11 0 . 1 2



### Table **4 -**  **7 .**  **RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Natural Gas -** **Driven Pneumatic Cont**  **roller Emission Reductions**  **Segm ent**  **Type of**

**Control Emission Reductions Per** 

**Pneumatic Controller (tpy)**  **RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Pneum atic Controller**  **Emission Reductions (tpy) Moderate or**  **Higher Ozone**  **NA Areas Outside of OTR**

**Areas OTR**  **Areas Moderate or**  **Higher Ozone**  **NA Areas/OTR Areas VOC**  **Me thane**  **HAP VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP** Oil and Natural Gas Production Replace w/

Lo w Bleed 1. 4 5.10 0.05 14,444 52,118 546 16,489 59,498 623 30,933 111,616 1,169 Processing Plants Existing

Instrument Air System 0.28 1. 0 0.01 2 .5 8. 9 0. 09 0.62 2 . 2 0 .02 3 .1 11 0 .12***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

15 

### Table **4 -**  **8 . Total Annual Costs and VOC Cost of Control**  **Per Natural Gas**  **- Driven**  **Pneumatic Contr oller**  **Segm ent**  **Natural Gas**  **Savings Per**  **Source (M**  **cf) Total Value** 

**of Natural Gas Savings**  **Per Source ($/yr)**  **Total Capital**

**Cost s**  **Per Source ($)**  **Total Annual Cost s**  **Per Sou r**  **ce ($/yr) VOC Cost of Control**  **($/ton of**  **VOC reduced )**  **w/o savings w/ savings**  **w/o savings w/**  **savings** Oil and Gas Production 296 $1,184 $2,698 $296 ($886) $210 ($62 7) Processing Plants 58 $232 $2,000 $285 $53 $1,018 $1 9 0



### Table **4 -**  **9 .**  **RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Natural Gas -** **Driven Pneumatic Contr** **oller Costs**  **Segm ent**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone**

**NA Areas Outside of OTR**

**Areas OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas**  **Capital ($) Annual w/o** 

**savings ($yr) Annual w/** 

**savings ($/yr)**  **Capital ($) Annual w/o**  **savings ($/yr)**  **Annual w/**

**savings ($/yr) Capital ($)**  **Annual w/o savings**  **($/yr) Annual w/** 

**savings ($/yr)** Oil and Gas Production $27,571,450 $3,027,197 ($9,054,192) $31,475,544 $3,455,846 ($10,336,259) $59,046,994 $6,483,043 ($19,390,451) Processing Plants $17,822 $2,540 $474 $4,455 $635 $118 $22,277 $3,175 $592***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

16 

### 4. **3 Natural Gas**  **- Driven**  **Pneumatic Pumps** 4. 3 .1 Approach RACT - impacted natural gas - driven pneumatic pump baseline emis sions and emission reductions were calculated by multiplying the number of uncontrolled natural gas - driven pneumatic pumps reported in the 2012 GHG Inventory (assuming they were all natural gas driven pumps) by emissions and emission reductions per pump . The RACT - impacted natural gas - driven pneumatic pump costs were estimated by multiplying the calculated RACT VOC emiss ion reductions by costs per pump. 4. 3 .2 RACT

-Impacted Popu lation ofNatural Gas -Driven Pneumatic Pumps Based on information in the 2012 GHG Inventory for oil production, there were an estimated 14,408 diaphragm pump s and 14, 293 piston pumps . The number of pneumatic pumps reported in the 2012 GHG Inventory for gas production was an estimated 37,477 pneumatic pump s (for both diaphragm and piston pumps ) . Similar to the assumption used in the 2015 NSPS TSD , we assumed that 50 percent of the gas production inventory pumps to be diaphragm pumps and 50 percent of the pumps to be piston pumps. Based on these assumption s , and assuming that all of the reported pumps were natural gas - driven, we estimated that there were 33, 147 diaphragm and 33, 03 2 piston natural gas - driven pneumatic pump s in the production segment nationally . The percentage of RACT - impacted well s based on 2012 DI Desktop location information was used to estimate the number of RACT - impacted high bleed natural gas - driven pneumatic pump s . The 2012 GHG Inventory did not estimate emissions from pneumatic pumps for the natural gas processing segment. Table 4 - 1 0 presents the estimated RACT - impacted population o f natural gas - driven pneumatic pump s .***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

17 

### Table **4 -**  **1 0**  **. RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Population of**  **Natural Gas**  **- Driven**  **Pneumatic Pumps**

**Pneumatic Pump Type**  **Number of RACT -** **Impacted Sources**

**Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas Outside of OTR Areas**  **OTR Areas Moderate or**  **Higher Ozone**  **NA Areas** **/OTR Areas** Diaphragm 2,048 2, 338 4,387 Piston 2,041 2, 330 4,371 

### 4. 3 .3 RACT

-Impacted Natural Gas -Driven Pneumatic Pump Baseline Emissions, Emission Reductio ns and Costs RACT - impacted natural gas - driven pneumatic pump b aseline emissions were estimated by multiplying the population of natural gas - driven pneumatic pumps and the VOC , methane and HAP baseline emissions per diaphragm and piston natural gas - driven pneumatic pump . Using the emission reductions and costs develop ed for the CTG, we estimated the emission reductions and costs b y multiplying the number of natural gas - driven pneumatic pumps by the emission reductions and costs associated with routing emissions to an existing combustion device. Using methane to HAP ratios developed for the oil and natural gas industry as presented in the 2011 Gas Composition memorandum, we estimated RACT - impacted natural gas - driven pneumatic pump HAP baseline emissi ons and emission reductions . Tables 4 - 1 1 and 4 - 1 2 present the RACT - impacted natural gas - driven pneumatic pump baseline emissions and emission reductions . Tables 4 - 1 3 and 4 - 1 4 present the RACT - impacted natural gas - driven pneumatic pump costs .***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

18 

### Table **4 -**  **1 1**  **. RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Natural Gas**  **- Driven**  **Pne um**  **atic Pump Baseline Emissions Emission**  **Source Baseline Emissions Per Natural Gas**  ****

**Driven Pneumatic Pump (tpy)**  **RACT -**  **Im pacted**  **Natural Gas -** **Driven Pneumatic Pump Baseline**  **E mi**  **ssions (tpy)**  **Moderate or Higher**  **NA Areas Outside of OTR**  **Areas OTR**  **Areas Moderate or**  **Higher Ozone NA**  **Areas/OTR Areas VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP** Diaphragm 0.96 3. 5 0.04 1,966 7,087 74 2,245 8,091 85 4,211 1 5,178 1 59 Piston 0.11 0.38 0.004 225 776 8 .1 256 885 9 .3 481 1,661 17



### Table **4 -**  **1 2**  **. RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Natural Gas -** **Driven Pneumatic Pump Emission Reductions**  **Emission Source**  **Type of**

**Control Emission Reductions Per**  **Natural**

**Gas -** **Drven Pneum atic Pump** 

**(tpy) RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Natural Gas**  **- Driven Pneumatic Pump**  **Emission Reductions (tpy) Moderate or**  **Higher NA**  **Areas Outside of OTR Areas**  **OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas**  **VOC Me** **thane HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  Diaphragm Existing

Com bustion Device 0.9 1 3.3 0.034 1,872 6,733 70 2,137 7,686 80 4,008 14,419 151 Piston Existing

Com bustion Device 0.1 0 0.36 0.0038 2 05 737 7.7 234 841 8.8 4 3 9 1,578 17***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

19 

### Table **4 -**  **1 3**  **. Total Annual Costs and VOC Cost of Control Per**  **Natural Gas -** **Driven Pneumatic Pump**

**Emission Source Natural**  **Gas Savings**  **Per Source**  **(M cf)**  **Total Value**

**of Natural Gas Savings**  **Per Source ($/yr)**  **Total Capital Cost s** 

**Per Source ($) Total Annual Cost**  **s Per Sou**  **r ce**  **($/yr) VOC Cost of Control**  **($/ton of VOC reduced** **) w/o savings**  **w/ savings w/o savings**  **w/ savings** Diaphragm 0 $0 $2,000 $285 $285 $312 $312 Piston 0 $0 $2,000 $285 $285 $2,840 $2,840 

### Table **4 -**  **1 4**  **. RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Natural Gas**  **- Driven Pn**  **eumatic Pump Costs**  **Emission Point**  **Moderate or Higher**  **NA Areas Outside of OTR Areas**  **OTR Areas Moderate or**  **Higher Ozone NA Areas/OTR**  **Areas Capital**  **($) Annual w/o** 

**savings ($/yr) Annual w/** 

**savings ($/yr)**  **Capital**

**($) Annual w/o** 

**savings ($/yr) Annual w/** 

**savings ($/yr)**  **Capital**

**($) Annual w/o** 

**savings ($/yr) Annual w/** 

**savings ($/yr)** Diaphragm $4,096,598 $583,765 $583,765 $4,676,673 $666,426 $666,426 $8,773,271 $1,250,191 $1,250,191 Piston $4,082,385 $581,740 $581,740 $4,660,447 $664,114 $664,114 $8,742,833 $1,245,854 $1,245,854*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

20 

### 4. **4 Compressors**  4. 4.1 Approach RACT - impacted reciprocating compressor and wet seal centrifugal compressor baseline emis sions and emission reductions were calculated by multiplying the number of uncontrolled compressors based on information reported in the 2012 GHG Inventory by emissions and emission reductions by

compressor . The RACT - impacted reciprocating compressor and wet seal centrifugal compressor costs were estimated by multiplying the calculated RACT VOC emission reductions by cost s per compressor . 4. 4.2 RACT

-Impacted Popu lation of Reciprocating Compressors and Wet Seal Centrifugal Compressors Based on information in the 2012 GHG Inventory, there were an estimated 36,066 reciprocating compressors located at gathering and boosting stations . The average of the percentage of the total number of RAC T - impacted natural gas processing plants based on the 2012 Gas Processing Survey and the percentage of the total number of RACT - impacted oil and natural gas wells based on 2012 DI Desktop location information was used to estimate the number of RACT - impacte d reciprocating compressors located at gathering and boosting stations . Based on information in the 2012 GHG Inventory, there were an estimated 5,624 reciprocating compresso rs in the processing segment . The percentage of the total number of RACT - impacted natural gas processing plants based on the 2012 Gas Processing Survey was used to estimate the number of RACT - impacted reciprocating compressors in the processing segment . Based on information in the 2012 GHG Inventory, there were an estimated 658 wet se al compressors in the proces sing segment . The percentage of the total number of RACT - impacted natural gas processing plants based on the 2012 Gas Processing Survey was used to estimate the number of RACT - impacted reciprocating compressors in the processing segment . Table 4 - 1 5 presents the estimated population o f RACT - impacted reciprocating compressors and wet seal compressors .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

21 

### Table **4 -**  **1 5**  **. RACT -** **Im pacted Population of Reciprocating Compressors and Wet Seal**  **Compressors**

**Emission Source**  **Number of RACT**  **- Impacted**  **Sources**

**Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas Outside of OTR Areas**  **OTR Areas Moderate or**  **Higher Ozone**  **NA Areas/OTR Areas** Reciprocating Com pressors - Gathering/Boosting Stations 2,305 1,570 3,874 Reciprocating Com pressors - Processing Plants 371 93 464 Centrifugal Com pressors - Wet Seals Processing Plants 43 11 54 

### 4. 4.3 RACT

-Impacted Reciprocating Compressor and Wet Seal Centrifugal Compressor Baseline Emissions, E

mission Reductions and Cost s RACT - impacted compressor b aseline emissions were estimated b y multiplying the population of compressors and the VOC , methane and HAP emissions per compressor. Using the emission reductions and costs developed for the CTG, we estimated emission reductions and costs by

multiplying the number of compressors by the emission reductions and costs per compressor. For reciprocating compressors, we used the emission reduction s and costs associated with replacing reciprocating compressor rod packing after 26,000 hours of operation or 36 months since the most recent rod packing replacement. For wet seal compressors , we used the emission reduction s and costs associated with routing emissions to an existing combustion device . Using methane to HAP ratios developed for the oil and natural gas industry as presented in the 2011 Gas Composition memorandum, we estimated natural gas - driven pneumatic pump HAP baseline emissions and emission reductions . Tables 4 - 1 6 and 4 - 1 7 present the RACT - impacted reciprocating compressor and wet seal compressor baseline emiss ions and emission reductions . Tables 4 - 1 8 and 4 - 19 present the RACT - impacted reciprocating compressor and wet seal compressor costs***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

22 

### Table **4 -**  **1 6**  **. RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Reciprocating Compressor and Wet Seal Compressor Baseline**  **Emissions Emission**  **Source Baseline Emissions Per**  **Compressor (tpy)**  **RA CT**  **- Im** **pacted Compressor Baseline E**  **mi ssions**  **(tpy) Moderate or**  **Higher NA Areas**  **Outside of OTR Areas OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  Reciprocating Com pressor – Gathering and Boosting Station 3. 4 12 0. 1 3 7,892 28,390 297 5,375 19,377 203 13,267 47,726 500 Reciprocating Com pressor – Processing 6. 1 22 0. 23 2,270 8,176 86 568 2,042 21 2,838 10,209 107 Wet Seal Compressor

– Processing 19 211 2. 2 830 9,144 96 207 2,286 24 1,037 11,430 120



### Table **4 -**  **1 7**  **. RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Reciprocating Compressor and Wet Seal Compressor**  **Em ission Reductions** 

**Emission Source Type of** 

**Control Emission Reductions Per** 

**Compressor (tpy)**  **RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Compressor Emission Reductions (tpy)**  **Moderate or Higher**  **NA Areas Outside of OTR**  **Areas OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas**  **VOC Me** **thane HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  Reciprocating Com pressor – Gathering and Boosting Station Replace

Packing After Three Years 1. 9 6. 8 0.07 4,385 15,774 165 2,986 10,744 113 7,371 26,518 278 Reciprocating Com pressor – Processing Replace

Packing After Three Years 4. 9 18 0.18 1,814 6,525 68 453 1,631 17 2,267 8,156 85 Wet Seal Com pressor – Processing 95 Percent

Control; Existing Com bustion Device 18 200 2. 1 788 8,706 91 197 2,177 23 985 10,883 114***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

23 

### Table **4 -**  **1 8**  **. Total Annual Costs and VOC Cost of Control Per**  **Compressor**

**Emission Source Natural**  **Gas Savings**  **Per Source**  **(M cf)**  **Total Value**

**of Natural Gas Savings**  **Per Source ($/yr)**  **Total Capital Cost s** 

**Per Source ($) Total Annual Cost**  **s Per Sou**  **r ce**  **($/yr) VOC Cost of Control**  **($/ton of VOC reduced** **) w/o savings**  **w/ savings w/o savings**  **w/ savings** Reciprocating Compressor

– Gathering and Boosting Station 397 $1,587 $5,650 $2,153 $566 $1,132 $298 Reciprocating Compressor

– Processing 1,019 $4,074 $4,280 $1,631 ($2,443) $334 ($500) Wet Seal Compressor

– Processing 0 $0 $23,252 $3,311 $3,311 $ 182 $ 182



### Table **4 -**  **19 .**  **RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Reciprocating Compressor and Centrifugal Compressor Costs**  **Emission Source**  **Moderate or Higher**  **NA Areas Outside of OTR Areas**  **OTR Areas Moderate or**  **Higher Ozone NA**  **Areas/OTR Areas Capital ($)**  **Annual w/o**

**savings ($/yr)**  **Annual w/**

**savings ($/yr)**  **Capital**

**($) Annual w/o** 

**savings ($/yr)**  **Annual w/**

**savings ($/yr) Capital ($)**  **Annual w/o savings**  **($/yr )**  **Annual w/**

**savings ($/yr)**  Reciprocating Com pressor – Gathering and Boosting Station $ 13,020,363 $ 4,961,431 $ 1,305,079 $ 8,868,297 $ 3,379,279 $ 888,902 $ 21,888,661 $ 8,340,711 $ 2,193,981 Reciprocating Com pressor – Processing $ 1,588,826 $ 605,462 ( $ 906,997) $ 397,207 $ 151,365 ( $ 226,749) $ 1,986,033 $ 756,827 ( $ 1,133,746) Wet Seal Com pressor – Processing $ 1,009,889 $ 143,804 $ 143,804 $ 252,472 $ 35,951 $ 35,951 $ 1,262,361 $ 179,756 $ 179,756***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

24 

### 4. **5. Equipment**  **Leak s**  **at Natural Gas Processing Plants** 4. 5 .1 Approach RACT - impacted equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants baseline emis sions and emission reductions were calculated by multiplying the number of natural gas processing plant s and the baseline emissions and emission reductions per plant . The RACT - impacted equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants costs were estimate d by multiplying the emission reductions by cost s per natural gas processing plant. 4. 5 .2 RACT

-Impacted Popu lation ofNatural Gas Processing Plants The number of RACT - impacted natural gas processing plants was obtained from information in the 2012 Gas Processing Survey . There were 40 natural gas processing plants located in moderate or higher ozone NA areas and 10 natural gas processing plants in OTR areas in 2012. Table 4 - 2 0 presents the estimated RACT - impacted population of natural gas processing plants . **Table 4**  **- 2**  **0 .**  **RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Population of Natural Gas Processing Plants**

**Emission Source**  **Number of RACT**  **- Impacted**  **Sources**

**Moderate or Higher**  **NA Areas Outside of OTR**  **Areas OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas**  Natural Gas Processing Plants 40 10 50 

### 4. 5 .3 RACT

-Impacted Equipment Leaks at Natural Gas Processing Plant s Baseline Emissions, Emission Reduc tions and Costs RACT - impacted equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants baseline VOC, methane and HAP emissions were estimated by multiplying the population of natural gas processing plants and the methane and VOC emissions per plant. The baseline assumes that existing natural gas processing plants currently implement an LDAR program equivalent to 40 CFR part 60 subpart VV. Using the emission reductions and costs developed for the CTG, we estimated emission reductions and costs by multiplying the number of natural gas processing plants by the emission reductions and costs assoc iated with the implementation of an LDAR program equivalent to 40 CFR part 60 subpart VV a (subpart VVa) . Using methane to HAP ratios developed for the oil and natural gas industry as presented in the 2011 Gas Composition memorandum, we estimated HAP baseline emissions p er natural gas processing plant . Tables 4 - 2 1 and 4 - 2 2 present the RACT - impacted equipment leaks at natural gas processing plant s baseline emissions and emis sion reductions . Tables 4 - 2 3 and 4 - 2 4 present the RACT - impacted equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants costs .***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

25 

### Table **4 -** **2 1**  **. RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Natural Gas Processing Plant Equipment Leak** **s Baseline Emissions**  **Emission Source**  **B aseline Emissions Per Natural Gas**  **Processing Plant (tpy)**  **RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Natura l Gas Processing Plant**  **Baseline E**  **mi ssions**  **(tpy) Moderate or**  **Higher NA Areas**  **Outside of OTR Areas OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  Natural Gas Processing Plants - Equipment Leaks 35 126 1. 3 1,397 5,027 53 349 1,257 13 1,747 6,284 66



### Table **4 -** **2 2**  **. RACT -** **Im pacte**  **d Natural Gas**  **Processing Plant Equipment Leak** **s Emission Reductions** 

**Emission Source Type of** 

**Control Em** **ission Reductions Per**

**Natural Gas Processing Plant**

**(tpy) RACT**  **- Im** **pacted N**  **atural Gas Processing Plant Emission Reductions (tpy)** 

**Moderate or Higher**  **NA Areas Outside of OTR**  **Areas OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas**  **VOC Me** **thane HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  Natural Gas Processing Plants

- Equipment Leaks S ubpart VVa 4. 6 16 0.17 182 656 7 46 164 2 228 820 9***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

26 

### Table **4 -** **2 3**  **. Total Annual Costs and VOC Cost of Control Per**  **Natural Gas Processing Plant**

**Emission Source Natural**  **Gas Savings**  **Per Source**  **(M cf)**  **Total Value**

**of Natural Gas Savings**  **Per Source ($/yr)**  **Total Capital Cost s** 

**Per Source ($) Total Annual Cost**  **s Per Sou**  **r ce**  **($/yr) VOC Cost of Control**  **($/ton of VOC reduced** **) w/o savings**  **w/ savings w/o savings**  **w/ savings** Natural Gas Processing Plants - Equipment Leaks 950 $3,800 $8,499 $12,959 $9,159 $2,844 $2,010



### Table **4 -** **2 4**  **. RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Natural Gas Processing Plant Equipment Leak** **s Costs**  **Emission Point Moderate or**  **Higher NA Areas Outside**  **of OTR Areas OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas**  **Capital ($)**  **Annual w/o savings ($/yr)**  **Annual w/**

**savings ($/yr)**  **Capital**

**($) Annual**  **w/o savings ($/yr)**  **Annual w/**

**savings ($/yr)**  **Capital**

**($) Annual w/o**  **savings ( $** **/yr) Annual w/** 

**savings ($/yr)**  Natural Gas Processing Plants - Equipment Leaks $ 339,960 $ 518,366 $ 366,379 $ 84,990 $ 129,591 $ 91,595 $ 424,950 $ 647,957 $ 457,974***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

27 

### 4. **6 Fugitive Emissions**  **at Well Sites and Compressor Stations** 4. 6.1 Approach RACT - impacted fugitive emissions at well sites that produce, on average, greater than 15 barrel equivalents per day per well , 

### and gathering and boosting stations baseline emis sions and emission reductions were calculated b y multiplying the number of well sites and gathering and boosting stations by the baseline emissions and emission reductions per site/station . The RACT - impacted well site and gathering and boosting station costs were estimated by multiplying the calculated RACT VOC emission reductions by costs per well site/gathering and boosting station . 4. 6.2 RACT

-Impacted Popu lation of W ells Sites and Gathering and Boosting Stations The DI Desktop database was used to obtain information on the number of oil and natural gas wells in 2012 in the U.S that produce, on average, greater than 15 barrel equivalents per day . The number of natural gas wells in RACT impacted areas was estimated to be 15,541 . The number of oil wells in RACT - impacted areas was estimated to be 13,381 . Using informati on developed for the 2015 NSPS TSD and CTG, we estimate d the number of well sites that would be subject to RACT by

dividing the number of wells by two (assuming a national average of two wells per well site) . Based on infor

mation in the 2015 NSPS TSD, we estimated that there would be 8,015 gathering and boosting stations nationally . The average of the percentage of the total RACT impacted number of natural gas processing plants based on the 20 1 2 Gas Processing Survey and the percentage of the total RACT - impacted number of oil and natural gas wells based on 2012 DI Desktop location information was used to estimate the number of RACT - impacted gathering and boosting station s . Table 4 - 2 5 presents the estimated population of RACT - impacted well sites and gathering and boosting stations.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

28 

### Table **4 -** **2 5**  **. RACT -** **Im pacted Population of**  **Oil and Natural**  **Gas Well Sites and Gathering and Boosting Stations** 

**Emission Source**  **Number of RACT**  **- Impacted**  **Sources**

**Moderate or Higher**  **NA Areas Outside of OTR**  **Areas OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas**  Natural Gas Well Sites 5,588 2,183 7,771 Oil Well Sites 6,55 2 139 6,69 1 Gathering and Boosting Stations 512 349 861 

### 4. 6.3 RACT

-Impacted Oil and Natural Gas W ell Site and Gathering and Boosting Station Fugitive Emissions, Fugitive E mission Reductions and Costs RACT - impacted oil and natural gas well site and gathering and boosting station baseline fugitive emissions were estimated by multiplying the population of oil and gas well sites and gathering and boosting stations and VOC baseline emissions per site/station. Using the emission reductions and costs developed for the 2015 NSPS TSD and CTG, we estimated emission reductions and costs by multiplying the number of oil and gas well sites and gathering and boosting stations b y the emission reductions and costs per well site/station. Using VOC to methane and VOC to HAP ratios developed for the oil and natural gas industry as presented in the 2011 Gas Composition M emorandum , we estimated methane and HAP baseline emissions and emission reductions . Tables 4 - 2 6 and 4 - 2 7 present the RACT - impacted oil and natural gas well site and gathering and boosting station baseline fugitive emissions and fugitive emission reductions . Tables 4 - 2 8 and 4 - 29 present the RACT - impacted oil and gas well site and gathering and boosting station costs .***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

29 

### Table **4 -** **2 6**  **. RACT -** **Im pacted Oil and**  **Natural Gas Well Site and Gathering and Boosting Station**  **Baseline Fugitive Emissions**  **Emission Source**  **Baseline Emissions**

**Per Natural Gas Processing Plant**  **(tpy) RA**  **CT -** **Im pacted**  **Oil and G** **as Well Site and Gathering and Boosting Station Baseline**  **Fugitive E**  **mi ssions**  **(tpy)**

**Moderate or Higher**  **NA Areas Outside of OTR Areas**  **OTR Areas Moderate or**  **Higher Ozone NA**  **Areas/OTR Areas VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP** Natural Gas Well Sites 1. 3 4. 5 0.05 7,051 25,365 266 2,754 9,907 104 9,805 35,272 369 Oil Well Sites 0.30 1. 1 0.01 1,981 7,125 75 42 151 2 2,203 7,276 76 Gathering and Boosting Stations 9. 8 35 0.37 5,003 17,999 188 3,408 12,259 128 8,411 30,258 317 

### Table **4 -** **2 7**  **. RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Oil and Natural**  **Gas Well Site and Gathering and Boosting Station Fugitive**  **Emission Reductions**  **Emission Source**  **Type of**

**Control Emission Reductions** 

**Per Natural Gas Processing Plant**  **(tpy) RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Oil and**  **Gas Well Site and Gathering and Boosting Station**  **Fugitive Emission**  **Reductions (tpy) Moderate or**  **Higher NA**  **Areas Outside of OTR Areas OTR Areas**  **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HAP**  **VOC CH**  **4 HA**  **P VOC**  **CH 4**  **HAP** Natural Gas Well Sites Semiannual

OGI 0.76 2. 7 0.03 4,231 15,219 159 1,652 5,944 62 5,883 21,163 222 Oil Well Sites Semiannual

OGI 0.18 0.65 0.01 1,188 4,275 45 25 90 1 1,214 4,366 46 Gathering and Boosting Stations Semiannual

OGI 5. 9 21 0.22 3,002 10,799 113 2,045 7,356 77 5,047 18,155 190***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

30 

### Table **4 -** **2 8**  **. Total Annual Costs and VOC Cost of Control Per Well Site/Station** 

**Emission Source**  **Natural Gas Savings Per**  **Source (M**  **cf) Total Value** 

**of Natural Gas Savings**  **Per Source ($/yr)**  **Total Capital Cost s** 

**Per Source ($) Total Annual Cost**  **s Per Sou**  **r ce**  **($/yr) VOC Cost of Control**  **($/ton of VOC reduced** **) w/o savings**  **w/ savings w/o**  **savings w/ savings**  Natural Gas Well Sites 158 $631 $801 $2,230 $1,599 $2,945 $2,111 Oil Well Sites 38 $151 $801 $2,230 $2,079 $12,294 $11,460 Gathering and Boosting Stations 1,222 $4,888 $10,993 $15,881 $10,993 $2,710 $1,876 

### Table **4 -** **29 . RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Oil and Natural**  **Gas Well Site and Gathering and Boosting Station Fugitive Emission**  **Costs Emis**  **sion Point**  **Moderate or Higher**  **NA Areas Outside of OTR Areas**  **OTR Areas Moderate or**  **Higher Ozone NA Areas/OTR**  **Areas Capital ($)**  **Annual w/o**

**savings ($/yr) Annual w/** 

**savings ($/yr) Capital ($)**  **Annual w/o savings**  **($/yr) Annual w/** 

**savings ($/yr)**  **Capital ($) Annual w/o**  **savings ($/yr) Annual w/** 

**savings ($/yr)** Natur al Gas Well Sites $ 4,475,582 $ 12,460,517 $ 8,932,579 $ 1,748,024 $ 4,866,693 $ 3,488,789 $ 6,223,605 $ 17,327,210 $ 12,421,368 Oil Well Sites $ 5,247,675 $ 14,610,112 $ 13,619,076 $ 110,928 $ 308,837 $ 287,888 $ 5,358,604 $ 14,918,949 $ 13,906,964 Gathe ring and Boost ing Statio ns $ 5,630,384 $ 8,133,758 $ 5,630,384 $ 3,834,910 $ 5,539,982 $ 3,834,910 $ 9,465,294 $ 13,673,740 $ 9,465,294***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

31***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

32 

### 5 **SUMMARY OF THE VOC RACT EM ISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS**  Table 5 - 1 presents a summary of the VOC RACT emission reductions and costs for storage vessels, natural gas - driven pneumatic controllers, natural gas - driven pneumatic pumps, reciprocating compressors, wet seal centrifugal compressors, natural gas processing plant equipment leaks, and fugitive emissions at well sites and gathering and boosting stations .***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

33 

### Table **5 -**  **1. Summary of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry**  **VOC RACT Emission Reductions and Cost s** 

**VOC Me**  **tha ne**  **HA P**  **w/o sa vings**  **w/ s avings**  **VOC Me**  **th ane**  **HA P**  **Capit al ($**  **1000) Annual w/o**  **savings ($**  **1000/y r)**  **Annual w/**

**savings ($**  **1000/y r)**  Fugi ti ve Emi ssio ns - Ga s We ll Si tes (Wi th W el ls tha t Produce Gr ea ter t ha n 15 Ba rre l Equi va le nts Pe r Da y) Se mi an nua l OG I 0. 76 2. 70 0. 03 $2, 900 $2, 100 5, 900 21, 000 220 6, 200 17, 000 12, 000 Fugi ti ve Emi ssio ns - Oi l We ll Si tes (Wi th W el ls tha t Produce Gr ea ter t ha n 15 Ba rre l Equi va le nts Pe r Da y) Se mi an nua l OG I 0. 18 0. 65 0. 01 $12, 000 $11, 000 1, 200 4, 400 46 5, 400 15, 000 14, 000 Fugi ti ve Emi ssio ns - Ga ther in g an d Boos ti ng Sta ti ons Se mi an nua l OG I 5. 90 21. 00 0. 22 $2, 700 $1, 900 5, 000 18, 000 190 9, 500 14, 000 9, 500 Equi pm en t Lea ks - Pr ocessin g Pl an ts NS PS Subpa rt VVa 4. 60 16. 00 0. 17 $2, 800 $2, 000 230 820 9 420 650 460 Rec ip rocat in g Compr es so rs - Ga th er in g a nd Boos ti ng Sta ti ons Repl ace Pack in g After3 Yea rs 1. 90 6. 80 0. 07 $1, 100 $300 7, 400 27, 000 280 22, 000 8, 300 2, 200 Rec ip rocat in g Compr es so rs - Processin g Repl ace Pack in g After3 Yea rs 4. 90 18. 00 0. 18 $330 ($ 500) 2, 300 8, 200 85 2, 000 760 (1,100) Centr if ig al Com pre sso rs w/ W et Se als - Pr ocessin g 95% Cont rol , Ex ist in g Com bus ti on Devi ce 18. 00 200. 00 2. 10 $180 $180 990 11, 000 110 1, 300 180 180 Na tu ral Ga s- Dr iv en Pne um at ic Control le rs - Oi l an d Ga s Product io n Repl acew/ Low Bl eed 1. 40 5. 10 0. 05 $210 ($ 630) 31, 000 110, 000 1, 200 59, 000 6, 500 (19, 000) Na tu ral Ga s- Dr iv en Pne um at ic Control le rs - Pr ocessin g Ex ist in g I ns tr um en t Ai r Sys tem 0. 28 1. 00 0. 01 $1, 000 $190 3 11 0 22 3. 2 0. 59 Na tu ral Ga s- Dr iv en Pne um at ic Pum ps - Productio n - Di aphram 95% Cont rol , Ex ist in g Com bus ti on Devi ce 0. 91 3. 30 0. 03 $310 $310 4, 000 14, 000 150 8, 800 1, 300 1, 300 Na tu ral Ga s- Dr iv en Pne um at ic Pum ps - Productio n - Pi ston 95% Cont rol , Ex ist in g Com bus ti on Devi ce 0. 10 0. 36 0. 004 $2, 800 $2, 800 430 1, 600 17 8, 700 1, 200 1, 200

Stor ag e Ves se ls 95%Control , Com bus ti on/V RU b a a a a a 23, 000 4, 800 730 260, 000 56, 000 55, 000 **To tal**  **82, 000**  **220, 000**  **3, 000**  **380, 000**  **120, 000**  **76, 000** 

b - Assu mes t ha t 94 pe rce nt of owner s an d ope rators woul d com pl y by us in g a com bus ti on devi ce a nd 6 pe rce nt woul d com pl y by us in g a V RU. No te: Mi nor di ffe re nces ma y resu lt fr omroundi ng to 2 s ig ni fi can t fi gur es . a - Ther e a rea wi deva rietyof s to rag e vesse l siz es , a s wel l as rates of throughput for e ach s to rag e vesse l. Emi ssio ns a nd cos ts a redi re ct lyr el ated to t het hroughput of l iq ui ds for a gi ve n s to rag e ves se l. I n l ie u of us in g emi ssio n re duct io ns a nd cos ts pe r st ora ge ves se l, we us ed product io n ra te bra ckets deve lo ped by theU .S. Ener gy I nform at io n Adm in ist rat io n (EI A) for o ur e mi ssio n e st im ates a nd cos ts (s ee Atta chm en ts 2 a nd 3). **Em ission Source**  **Typ e of Control**  **Em ission Re**  **duc ti**  **on Per U nit**  **(t py)**  **VOC Cost of Cont**  **ro l**  **($ /to**  **n) Em**  **ission Re duct**  **ions (t py)**  **RACT VOC Cost of Control ($)** ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***



## ATTACHMENT 1 **Moderate or Higher**  **Ozone NA**  **Areas*****E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A1 - 2 

## Moderate or **Higher Ozone**  **NA Areas**  **State County N**  **am e**  **NA Area N**  **am e**  CA Amador County Amador and Calaveras Cos. (Central Mountain Cos.) CA Calaveras County Amador and Calaveras Cos. (Central Mountain Cos.) CA El Dorado County Sacramento Metro CA Fresno County San Joaquin Valley CA Im

perial County Im perial County Area CA Kern County Kern County (Eastern Kern) CA Kings County San Joaquin Valley CA Los Angeles County Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties (Western Mojave Desert) CA Madera County San Joaquin Valley CA Mariposa County Mariposa and Tuolumne Cos. (Southern Mountain Counties) CA Merced County San Joaquin Valley CA Nevada County Nevada County (Western part) CA Orange County Los Angeles - South Coast Air Basin CA Placer County Sacramento Metro CA Riverside County Los Angeles - South Coast Air Basin CA Sacramento County Sacramento Metro CA San Bernardino County Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties (Western Mojave Desert) CA San Joaquin County San Joaquin Valley CA Solano County Sacramento Metro CA Stanislaus County San Joaquin Valley CA Sutter County Sacramento Metro CA Tulare County San Joaquin Valley CA Tuolumne County Mariposa and Tuolumne Cos. (Southern Mountain Counties) CA Ventura County Ventura County CA Yolo County Sacramento Metro CT Fairfield County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area CT Hartford County Greater Connecticut Area CT Litchfield County Greater Connecticut Area CT Middlesex County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area CT New

Haven County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area CT New

London County Greater Connecticut Area CT Tolland County Greater Connecticut Area CT Windham County Greater Connecticut Area DE Kent County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area DE New

Castle County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area DE Sussex County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A1 - 3 **State County N**  **am e**  **NA Area N**  **am e**  DC District of Columbia Washington Area MD Anne Arundel County Baltimore MD Baltimore County Baltimore MD Calvert County Washington Area MD Carroll County Baltimore MD Cecil County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area MD Charles County Washington Area MD Frederick County Washington Area MD Harford County Baltimore MD Howard County Baltimore MD Montgomery County Washington Area MD Prince George's County Washington Area MD Baltimore city Baltimore MA Barnstable County Boston- Lawrence -Worcester (E. Mass) Area MA Berkshire County Springfield (W. Mass) Area MA Bristol County Boston- Lawrence -Worcester (E. Mass) Area MA Dukes County Boston- Lawrence -Worcester (E. Mass) Area MA Essex County Boston- Lawrence -Worcester (E. Mass) Area MA Franklin County Springfield (W. Mass) Area MA Ham

pden County Springfield (W. Mass) Area MA Ham

pshire County Springfield (W. Mass) Area MA Middlesex County Boston- Lawrence -Worcester (E. Mass) Area MA Nantucket County Boston- Lawrence -Worcester (E. Mass) Area MA Norfolk County Boston- Lawrence -Worcester (E. Mass) Area MA Plymouth County Boston- Lawrence -Worcester (E. Mass) Area MA Suffolk County Boston- Lawrence -Worcester (E. Mass) Area MA Worcester County Boston- Lawrence -Worcester (E. Mass) Area NJ Atlantic County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area NJ Bergen County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NJ Burlington County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area NJ Camden County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area NJ Cape May County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area NJ Cumberland County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area NJ Essex County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NJ Gloucester County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area NJ Hudson County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NJ Hunterdon County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NJ Mercer County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area NJ Middlesex County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NJ Monmouth County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A1 - 4 **State County N**  **am e**  **NA Area N**  **am e**  NJ Morris County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NJ Ocean County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area NJ Passaic County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NJ Salem County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area NJ Somerset County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NJ Sussex County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NJ Union County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NJ Warren County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NY Bronx County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NY Chautauqua County Jamestown NY Dutchess County Poughkeepsie Area NY Erie County Buffalo -Niagara Falls NY Jefferson County Jefferson County Area NY Kings County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NY Nassau County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NY New

York County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NY Niagara County Buffalo -Niagara Falls NY Orange County Poughkeepsie Area NY Putnam County Poughkeepsie Area NY Queens County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NY Richmond County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NY Rockland County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NY Suffolk County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area NY Westchester County New York-N. New Jersey- Lo ng Island Area PA Allegheny County Pittsburgh- Beaver Valley PA Armstrong County Pittsburgh- Beaver Valley PA Beaver County Pittsburgh- Beaver Valley PA Bucks County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area PA Butler County Pittsburgh- Beaver Valley PA Chester County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area PA Delaware County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area PA Fayette County Pittsburgh- Beaver Valley PA Montgomery County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area PA Philadelphia County Philadelphia-Wilmington - Atlantic City Area PA Washington County Pittsburgh- Beaver Valley PA Westmoreland County Pittsburgh- Beaver Valley RI Bristol County Providence (all of RI) Area RI Kent County Providence (all of RI) Area RI New

port County Providence (all of RI) Area RI Providence County Providence (all of RI) Area***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A1 - 5 **State County N**  **am e**  **NA Area N**  **am e**  RI Washington County Providence (all of RI) Area TX Brazoria County Houston - Galveston - Brazoria Area TX Chambers County Houston - Galveston - Brazoria Area TX Collin County Dallas -Fort Worth TX Dallas County Dallas -Fort Worth TX Denton County Dallas -Fort Worth TX Ellis County Dallas -Fort Worth TX Fort Bend County Houston - Galveston - Brazoria Area TX Harris County Houston - Galveston - Brazoria Area TX Johnson County Dallas -Fort Worth TX Kaufman County Dallas -Fort Worth TX Liberty County Houston - Galveston - Brazoria Area TX Montgomery County Houston - Galveston - Brazoria Area TX Parker County Dallas -Fort Worth TX Rockwall County Dallas -Fort Worth TX Tarrant County Dallas -Fort Worth TX Waller County Houston - Galveston - Brazoria Area TX Wise County Dallas -Fort Worth VA Arlington County Washington Area VA Fairfax County Washington Area VA Loudoun County Washington Area VA Prince William County Washington Area VA Alexandria city Washington Area VA Fairfax city Washington Area VA Falls Church city Washington Area VA Manassas city Washington Area VA Manassas Park city Washington Area WI Sheboygan County Sheboygan Area***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***



## ATTACHMENT 2 **ONG CTG –**  **RACT -** **Impacted Population of**  **Storage Vess els and RACT**  **** **Impacted Storage Vessel Baseline Emissions, Emission Reductions and Costs** ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***



### Table A2 **- 1.**  **Number of RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Oil Storage Vessels** 

**Well Productivity Bracket (bbls/day range)**  **Representative (bbls** **/day) Number of RACT**  ****

**Impacted Storage Vessels –** 

**2012 Number of Storage Vessels** 

**Not Impacted by RACT** >0 - 1 0.385 0 34,577 1 - 2 1.34 0 8,727 2 -4 2.66 0 10,589 4 - 6 4.45 0 6,174 6 - 8 6.22 0 4,228 8 - 10 8.08 0 3,361 10 - 12 9.83 0 2,592 12 - 15 12.1 0 2,880 15 - 20 15.4 0 3,177 20 - 25 19.9 0 2,017 25 - 30 24.3 0 1,306 30 -40 30.5 1, 086 423 40 - 50 39.2 505 197 50 - 100 61.6 755 279 100 - 200 120 104 64 200 -400 238 13 21 400 - 800 456 0 2 800 - 1600 914 0 0 1600 - 3200 1,692 0 1 3200 - 6400 3,353 0 0 6400 - 12800 6,825 0 0 **TOTAL 2,**  **462 80,616** ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

–A2 - 3 

### Total A2 **- 2**  **. Number of RACT -** **Im pacted**  **Conde n**  **sate Storage Vessels Well Productivity Bracket**  **(bbls/day range) Representative**  **(bbls/day) CTG**  **Covered**

**Vessels 2012 Total Number of Vessels** 

**Not Covered by RACT** >0 - 1 635 0 80,133 1 - 2 349 0 257 2 -4 648 0 127 4 - 6 766 0 48 6 - 8 640 0 10 8 - 10 525 0 12 10 - 12 408 0 9 12 - 15 564 0 7 15 - 20 758 0 5 20 - 25 674 0 2 25 - 30 531 0 0 30 -40 927 0 1 40 - 50 747 0 0 50 - 100 2,691 0 0 100 - 200 3,800 0 0 200 -400 2,705 0 0 400 - 800 1,165 0 0 800 - 1600 348 0 0 1600 - 3200 69 0 0 3200 - 6400 37 0 0 6400 - 12800 5 0 0 >12800 0 0 0 **TOTAL 0**  **80,611*****E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

–A2 -4 

### Table A**2 -** **3 .**  **RACT -** **Impacted Oil Storage Vessel Baseline Emissions Well Productivity Bracket (bbls** **/day**

**range) Representative**  **(bbls/day) Average Baseline Emissions per Unit**  **(tpy/unit) Nationwide Baseline Emissions 2012**  **VOC Me** **thane HAP**  **VOC Me** **thane HAP**  >0 - 1 0.385 0.083 0.017 0.003 0 0 0. 000 1 - 2 1.34 0.287 0.059 0.009 0 0 0. 000 2 -4 2.66 0.570 0.118 0.018 0 0 0. 000 4 - 6 4.45 0.953 0.197 0.030 0 0 0. 000 6 - 8 6.22 1.33 0.28 0.04 0 0 0. 000 8 - 10 8.08 1.73 0.36 0.05 0 0 0. 000 10 - 12 9.83 2.11 0.44 0.07 0 0 0. 000 12 - 15 12.1 2.59 0.54 0.08 0 0 0. 000 15 - 20 15.4 3.31 0.68 0.10 0 0 0. 000 20 - 25 19.9 4.27 0.88 0.13 0 0 0. 000 25 - 30 24.3 5.22 1.08 0.16 0 0 0. 000 30 -40 30.5 6.54 1.35 0.21 6 , 749 1 , 397 212 40 - 50 39.2 8.41 1.74 0.26 4 , 033 835 127 50 - 100 61.6 13.2 2.7 0.4 9 , 470 1 , 960 297 100 - 200 120 25.6 5.3 0.8 2 , 524 522 79 200 -400 238 51.0 10.6 1.6 611 126 19 400 - 800 456 97.7 20.2 3.1 0 0 0. 000 800 - 1600 914 196.0 40.6 6.2 0 0 0. 000 1600 - 3200 1,692 362.9 75.1 11.4 0 0 0. 000 3200 - 6400 3,353 719.1 148.8 22.6 0 0 0. 000 6400 - 12800 6,825 1463.7 302.9 45.9 0 0 0. 000 **TOTAL 23**  **, 386**  **4 ,**  **840 734** ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

–A2 - 5 

### Table A2 **- 4. RACT**  **- Impacted Condensate**  **Storage Vessel Baseline Emissions Well Productivity Bracket**  **(bbls/day range) Representative**  **(bbls /day)**  **Average Baseline Emissions per Unit (tpy/unit) Nationwide Baseline Emissions 2012** 

**VOC Me** **thane HAP**  **VOC Me** **thane HAP**  >0 - 1 635 0.038 0.008 0.001 0 0 0 1 - 2 349 0.168 0.037 0.005 0 0 0 2 -4 648 0.318 0.070 0.009 0 0 0 4 - 6 766 0.573 0.126 0.017 0 0 0 6 - 8 640 0.82 0.18 0.02 0 0 0 8 - 10 525 1.04 0.23 0.03 0 0 0 10 - 12 408 1.37 0.30 0.04 0 0 0 12 - 15 564 1.53 0.34 0.04 0 0 0 15 - 20 758 2.10 0.46 0.06 0 0 0 20 - 25 674 3.32 0.73 0.10 0 0 0 25 - 30 531 3.85 0.85 0.11 0 0 0 30 -40 927 5.33 1.17 0.16 0 0 0 40 - 50 747 7.59 1.67 0.22 0 0 0 50 - 100 2,691 11.7 2.6 0.3 0 0 0 100 - 200 3,800 25.4 5.6 0.7 0 0 0 200 -400 2,705 49.8 11.0 1.5 0 0 0 400 - 800 1,165 92.3 20.3 2.7 0 0 0 800 - 1600 348 142.2 31.3 4.2 0 0 0 1600 - 3200 69 310.7 68.5 9.1 0 0 0 3200 - 6400 37 489.9 107.9 14.4 0 0 0 6400 - 12800 5 1864.4 410.8 54.7 0 0 0 >12800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

–A2 - 6 

### Table A2 **- 5. RACT**  **- Impacted Oil Storage Vessel Emission Reductions**  **Well Productivity Bracket**  **(bbls/day range) Representative**  **(bbls/day) Average Em** **ission Reduction**  **s**

**Per Unit (tpy) Assuming 95%**

**Reduction Nationwide**  **Em issions Reductions**  **2012 Natural Gas**  **Saved Mc** **f/yr/unit Total** 

**Natural Gas Saved**  **Mc f/yr**  **VOC Me** **thane HAP**  **VOC Me** **thane HAP**  >0 - 1 0.385 0.078 0.016 0.002 0 0 0.000 2.7 0 1 - 2 1.34 0.272 0.056 0.009 0 0 0.000 9.2 0 2 -4 2.66 0.542 0.112 0.017 0 0 0.000 18.3 0 4 - 6 4.45 0.906 0.187 0.028 0 0 0.000 30.6 0 6 - 8 6.22 1.27 0.26 0.04 0 0 0.000 42.9 0 8 - 10 8.08 1.65 0.34 0.05 0 0 0.000 55.7 0 10 - 12 9.83 2.00 0.41 0.06 0 0 0.000 67.8 0 12 - 15 12.1 2.46 0.51 0.08 0 0 0.000 83.2 0 15 - 20 15.4 3.14 0.65 0.10 0 0 0.000 106.3 0 20 - 25 19.9 4.05 0.84 0.13 0 0 0.000 137.1 0 25 - 30 24.3 4.96 1.03 0.16 0 0 0.000 167.7 0 30 -40 30.5 6.21 1.29 0.20 6755 1398 212 210.1 22847 40 - 50 39.2 7.99 1.65 0.25 4033 835 127 270.3 13638 50 - 100 61.6 12.5 2.6 0.4 9470 1960 297 424.2 32028 100 - 200 120 24.4 5.0 0.8 2524 522 79 823.9 8536 200 -400 238 48.5 10.0 1.5 611 126 19 1638.9 2065 400 - 800 456 92.8 19.2 2.9 0 0 0.000 3139.0 0 800 - 1600 914 186.2 38.5 5.8 0 0 0.000 6297.8 0 1600 - 3200 1,692 344.8 71.4 10.8 0 0 0.000 11660.3 0 3200 - 6400 3,353 683.2 141.4 21.4 0 0 0.000 23105.8 0 6400 - 12800 6,825 1390.5 287.8 43.6 0 0 0.000 47028.1 0 **TOTAL 23**  **, 392**  **4 ,**  **842 734**  **79 ,**  **114*****E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

–A2 - 7 

### Table A2 **- 6. RACT**  **- Impacted Condensate**  **Storage Vessel Emission Reductions Well Productivity**  **Bracket (bbls/day range)**  **Representative**

**(bbls/day) Average Em** **ission Reduction**  **s**

**Per Unit (tpy) assuming 95%**

**reduction Nationwide**  **Em issions Reductions**  **2012 Natural Gas**  **Saved Mc** **f/yr/unit Total** 

**Natural Gas Saved**  **Mc f/yr**  **VOC Me** **thane HAP**  **VOC Me** **thane HAP**  >0 - 1 635 0.036 0.008 0.001 0 0 0 1.151 0 1 - 2 349 0.159 0.035 0.005 0 0 0 5.051 0 2 -4 648 0.302 0.067 0.009 0 0 0 9.558 0 4 - 6 766 0.545 0.120 0.016 0 0 0 17.252 0 6 - 8 640 0.78 0.17 0.02 0 0 0 24.818 0 8 - 10 525 0.99 0.22 0.03 0 0 0 31.423 0 10 - 12 408 1.30 0.29 0.04 0 0 0 41.27 0 12 - 15 564 1.46 0.32 0.04 0 0 0 46.16 0 15 - 20 758 1.99 0.44 0.06 0 0 0 63.11 0 20 - 25 674 3.15 0.70 0.09 0 0 0 99.91 0 25 - 30 531 3.65 0.81 0.11 0 0 0 115.68 0 30 -40 927 5.07 1.12 0.15 0 0 0 160.4 0 40 - 50 747 7.21 1.59 0.21 0 0 0 228.4 0 50 - 100 2,691 11.1 2.5 0.3 0 0 0 352.6 0 100 - 200 3,800 24.1 5.3 0.7 0 0 0 763 0 200 -400 2,705 47.3 10.4 1.4 0 0 0 1498 0 400 - 800 1,165 87.7 19.3 2.6 0 0 0 2777 0 800 - 1600 348 135.1 29.8 4.0 0 0 0 4277 0 1600 - 3200 69 295.1 65.0 8.7 0 0 0 9346 0 3200 - 6400 37 465.4 102.5 13.6 0 0 0 14737 0 6400 - 12800 5 1771.2 390.3 51.9 0 0 0 56086 0 >12800 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.000 0***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

–A2 - 8 

### Table A2 **- 7. RACT**  **- Impacted Oil Storage**  **Vessel VRU and Combustor Costs**

**Well Productivity**  **Bracket (bbls/day**  **range) Route Emissions to a VRU**  **Route Emissions to a Combustor**

**Total Capital Cost Per Unit**  **($) Total Annual Cost Per** 

**Unit ($/yr) VOC Cost of Control**  **($/ton) Total Capital** 

**Cost Per Unit ($)**  **Total Annual Cost**

**Per Unit ($/yr) VOC Cost of Control**  **($/ton) w/o**  **savings w/ savings**  **w/o savings**  **w/ savings w/o**  **savings w/** 

**savings w/o** 

**savings w/ savings**  >0 - 1 $171,538 $28,230 $28,219 $359,638 $359,503 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $283,175 $283,175 1 - 2 $171,538 $28,230 $28,193 $103,714 $103,579 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $81,663 $81,663 2 -4 $171,538 $28,230 $28,157 $52,104 $51,969 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $41,026 $41,026 4 - 6 $171,538 $28,230 $28,107 $31,170 $31,035 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $24,543 $24,543 6 - 8 $171,538 $28,230 $28,058 $22,261 $22,126 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $17,528 $17,528 8 - 10 $171,538 $28,230 $28,007 $17,144 $17,009 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $13,499 $13,499 10 - 12 $171,538 $28,230 $27,959 $14,092 $13,957 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $11,096 $11,096 12 - 15 $171,538 $28,230 $27,897 $11,478 $11,342 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $9,037 $9,037 15 - 20 $171,538 $28,230 $27,805 $8,986 $8,851 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $7,075 $7,075 20 - 25 $171,538 $28,230 $27,682 $6,963 $6,828 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $5,483 $5,483 25 - 30 $171,538 $28,230 $27,559 $5,692 $5,557 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $4,482 $4,482 30 -40 $171,538 $28,230 $27,390 $4,544 $4,409 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $3,578 $3,578 40 - 50 $171,538 $28,230 $27,149 $3,532 $3,397 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $2,781 $2,781 50 - 100 $171,538 $28,230 $26,533 $2,251 $2,115 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $1,772 $1,772 100 - 200 $171,538 $28,230 $24,934 $1,159 $1,024 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $912 $912 200 -400 $171,538 $28,230 $21,675 $583 $447 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $459 $459 400 - 800 $171,538 $28,230 $15,674 $304 $169 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $239 $239 800 - 1600 $171,538 $28,230 $3,039 $152 $16 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $119 $119 1600 - 3200 $171,538 $28,230 - $18,411 $82 - $53 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $64 $64 3200 - 6400 $171,538 $28,230 - $64,193 $41 - $94 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $33 $33 6400 - 12800 $171,538 $28,230 - $159,882 $20 - $115 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $16 $16***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

–A2 - 9 

### Table A2 **- 8. RACT**  **- Impacted Condensate Storage Vessel VRU**  **and Combustor Costs Well**  **Productivity Bracket**  **(bbls/day range)**  **Routing Emissions to a VRU Routing to a Com** **bustor**

**Total Capital Cost Per Unit**  **($) Total Annual Cost Per** 

**Unit ($/yr) VOC Cost Effectiveness**  **($/ton) Total Capital** 

**Cost Per Unit ($)**  **Total Annual Cost**

**Per Unit ($/yr) VOC Cost Effectiveness**  **($/ton) w/o**  **savings w/ savings**  **w/o savings**  **w/ savings w/o**  **savings w/** 

**savings w/o** 

**savings w/ savings**  >0 - 1 $171,538 $28,230 $28,225 $776,897 $776,770 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $611,720 $611,720 1 - 2 $171,538 $28,230 $28,210 $176,996 $176,870 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $139,365 $139,365 2 -4 $171,538 $28,230 $28,192 $93,529 $93,402 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $73,643 $73,643 4 - 6 $171,538 $28,230 $28,161 $51,817 $51,690 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $40,800 $40,800 6 - 8 $171,538 $28,230 $28,131 $36,020 $35,893 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $28,362 $28,362 8 - 10 $171,538 $28,230 $28,104 $28,449 $28,322 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $22,400 $22,400 10 - 12 $171,538 $28,230 $28,065 $21,663 $21,537 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $17,057 $17,057 12 - 15 $171,538 $28,230 $28,045 $19,367 $19,240 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $15,249 $15,249 15 - 20 $171,538 $28,230 $27,978 $14,166 $14,039 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $11,154 $11,154 20 - 25 $171,538 $28,230 $27,830 $8,948 $8,821 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $7,045 $7,045 25 - 30 $171,538 $28,230 $27,767 $7,727 $7,601 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $6,085 $6,085 30 -40 $171,538 $28,230 $27,588 $5,573 $5,446 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $4,388 $4,388 40 - 50 $171,538 $28,230 $27,316 $3,914 $3,787 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $3,082 $3,082 50 - 100 $171,538 $28,230 $26,820 $2,535 $2,409 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $1,996 $1,996 100 - 200 $171,538 $28,230 $25,177 $1,171 $1,045 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $922 $922 200 -400 $171,538 $28,230 $22,239 $597 $470 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $470 $470 400 - 800 $171,538 $28,230 $17,120 $322 $195 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $253 $253 800 - 1600 $171,538 $28,230 $11,122 $209 $82 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $165 $165 1600 - 3200 $171,538 $28,230 - $9,152 $96 - $31 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $75 $75 3200 - 6400 $171,538 $28,230 - $30,717 $61 - $66 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $48 $48 6400 - 12800 $171,538 $28,230 - $196,116 $16 - $111 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $13 $13 >12800 $171,538 $28,230 $28,230 $0 $0 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $0 $0***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

–A2 - 10 

### Table A2 **- 9. RACT**  **- Impacted Oil Storage Vessel Nationwide Costs**  **Well Productivity Bracket (bbls/day range)**  **Representative (bbls/day)**  **Total Nationwide Costs Capital ($)**  **Annual w/o savings ($/yr)**  **Annual w/ savings ($/yr)** >0 - 1 0.385 $0 $0 $0 1 - 2 1.34 $0 $0 $0 2 -4 2.66 $0 $0 $0 4 - 6 4.45 $0 $0 $0 6 - 8 6.22 $0 $0 $0 8 - 10 8.08 $0 $0 $0 10 - 12 9.83 $0 $0 $0 12 - 15 12.1 $0 $0 $0 15 - 20 15.4 $0 $0 $0 20 - 25 19.9 $0 $0 $0 25 - 30 24.3 $0 $0 $0 30 -40 30.5 $117,473,197 $24,821,102 $24,729,715 40 - 50 39.2 $54,517,590 $11,519,110 $11,464,556 50 - 100 61.6 $81,571,106 $17,235,291 $17,107,178 100 - 200 120 $11,193,068 $2,365,002 $2,330,858 200 -400 238 $1,361,319 $287,635 $279,375 400 - 800 456 $0 $0 $0 800 - 1600 914 $0 $0 $0 1600 - 3200 1,692 $0 $0 $0 3200 - 6400 3,353 $0 $0 $0 6400 - 12800 6,825 $0 $0 $0 **TOTAL $266,116,280**  **$56,228,139 $55,911,683** ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

–A2 - 11 

### Table A2 **- 10. RACT**  **- Im** **pacted Condensate Storage Vessel Nationwide Costs Well Productivity Bracket**  **(bbls/day range) Representative**  **(bbls/day) Total**  **Nationwide Costs Capital ($)**  **Annual w/o savings ($/yr) Annual w/ savings ($/yr)**  >0 - 1 635 $0 $0 $0 1 - 2 349 $0 $0 $0 2 -4 648 $0 $0 $0 4 - 6 766 $0 $0 $0 6 - 8 640 $0 $0 $0 8 - 10 525 $0 $0 $0 10 - 12 408 $0 $0 $0 12 - 15 564 $0 $0 $0 15 - 20 758 $0 $0 $0 20 - 25 674 $0 $0 $0 25 - 30 531 $0 $0 $0 30 -40 927 $0 $0 $0 40 - 50 747 $0 $0 $0 50 - 100 2,691 $0 $0 $0 100 - 200 3,800 $0 $0 $0 200 -400 2,705 $0 $0 $0 400 - 800 1,165 $0 $0 $0 800 - 1600 348 $0 $0 $0 1600 - 3200 69 $0 $0 $0 3200 - 6400 37 $0 $0 $0 6400 - 12800 5 $0 $0 $0 >12800 0 $0 $0 $0 **TOTAL $0**  **$0 $0** ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***



## ATTACHMENT 3 **Oil and Natural Gas CTG**  **– Storage Vessels Covered By State Regulation** ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A3 - 2 

### This attachment presents an analys is of state regulations that estimates the number of existing storage vessels that are subject to a RACT - equivalent or greater level of control. The number of storage vessels determined to be subject to a RACT - equivalent or greater level of control was subtracted from the number of storage vessels that were located in RACT - impacted areas that we assumed emit greater than or equal to six tpy. There may be more storage vesse ls regulated or permitted at a greater or equivalent level of control to the recommended RACT that have not been accounted for in this analysis (e.g., based on case -by- case permit limits).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A3 - 3 

### EPA_W **ELL_TY PE**  **EPA_PROD_BRAC**

**KET CA**  **CA Sta te**  **Cove re**  **d CA CT** **G**

**Cove re**  **d CA Not** 

**Cove re**  **d MD**  **MD C** **TG**

**Cove re**  **d NY**  **NAA NY** 

**CT G**  **Cove re**  **d OT** **R N Y** 

**CT G**  **Cove re**  **d Combi**  **ne**

**dNY CT** **G Cove**  **re d**  01. 0-1 7, 364 0 0 7, 364 0 3, 216 0 0 0 02. 1-2 5, 798 0 0 5, 798 0 65 0 0 0 03. 2-4 8, 039 0 0 8, 039 0 33 0 0 0 04. 4-6 5, 550 0 0 5, 550 0 1 0 0 0 05. 6-8 3, 906 0 0 3, 906 0 0 0 0 0 06. 8-10 3, 013 0 0 3, 013 0 1 0 0 0 07. 10- 12 2, 407 0 0 2, 407 0 1 0 0 0 08. 1 2- 15 2, 668 0 0 2, 668 0 0 0 0 0 09. 1 5- 20 2, 968 0 0 2, 968 0 0 0 0 0 10. 20- 25 1, 882 0 0 1, 882 0 0 0 0 0 11. 2 5- 30 1, 183 0 0 1, 183 0 0 0 0 0 12. 30- 40 1, 409 423 986 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13. 40- 50 658 197 461 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14. 50- 100 930 279 651 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15. 100- 200 148 44 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16. 200- 400 18 5 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. 400- 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18. 800- 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19. 1 600- 3200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 **1. O**  **il To** **ta l**  **47, 941**  **949 2,**  **214 44,**  **778 0**  **0 3,**  **317 0**  **0 0**  No

**1. O**  **il al**  **l** none none **some some**  NO **NEW Y**  **OR K**  **CALIFOR NIA**  **MAR YL**  **AND Wells** **i n NAA**  **Wells in**  **O TR**  **Wells in**  **both N AA and**  **OT R**  **Sta te**  **Re gul**  **ati ons**  **al l**  none none Ye s none***E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A3 -4 

### 01. 0-1 844 0 0 844 1 0 7, 074 0 0 0 02. 1-2 20 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 03. 2-4 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 04. 4-6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 05. 6-8 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 06. 8-10 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 07. 10- 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08. 1 2- 15 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 09. 1 5- 20 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10. 20- 25 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. 2 5- 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. 30- 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13. 40- 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14. 50- 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15. 100- 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16. 200- 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. 400- 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18. 800- 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19. 1 600- 3200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 **2. G**  **as Total 890**  **0 0**  **890 1**  **0 7,**  **074** 0 **2, 363**  **4, 711**  **2. G**  **as*****E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A3 - 5 

### EP **A_ WE**  **LL_TY PE**  **EPA_PROD_BRAC**

**KET PA**  **NAA PA CT** **G Cove**  **re d**  **OT R PA** 

**CT G**  **Cove re**  **d Combi**  **ne**

**d PA CT** **G Cove**  **re d**  **TX TX S** **tate**

**Cove re**  **d TX C** **TG**

**Cove re**  **d TX N**  **ot**

**Cove re**  **d VA**  **VA CTG** 

**Cove re**  **d** 01. 0-1 18, 593 0 0 0 5, 380 0 0 5, 380 24 02. 1-2 915 0 0 0 1, 948 0 0 1, 948 1 03. 2-4 160 0 0 0 2, 357 0 0 2, 357 0 04. 4-6 23 0 0 0 600 0 0 600 0 05. 6-8 9 0 0 0 313 0 0 313 0 06. 8-10 48 0 0 0 299 0 0 299 0 07. 10- 12 11 0 0 0 173 0 0 173 0 08. 1 2- 15 27 0 0 0 185 0 0 185 0 09. 1 5- 20 34 0 0 0 175 0 0 175 0 10. 20- 25 15 0 0 0 120 0 0 120 0 11. 2 5- 30 16 0 0 0 107 0 0 107 0 12. 3 0- 40 3 0 0 3 97 0 97 0 0 0 13. 40- 50 5 0 0 5 39 0 39 0 0 0 14. 5 0- 100 3 0 0 3 101 0 101 0 0 0 15. 100- 200 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 16. 200- 400 0 0 0 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 17. 400- 800 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 18. 800- 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19. 1 600- 3200 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 **1. Oi**  **l To**  **tal 19,**  **862 0**  **0 11**  **11, 933**  **39 237**  **11, 657**  **25 0**  **1. Oi**  **l al**  **l** none none Ye s **TEXAS VIR** **GI NIA**  none **some some**  No **PE NNS** **YL VANIA**  none **al l**  none No **Wells i**  **n NAA**  **Wells in**  **O TR**  **Wells i**  **nboth NAA a nd**  **OTR Sta** **te Re**  **gul ati**  **ons*****E.O. 12866 Review

– Revised Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A3 - 6 

### 01. 0-1 52, 109 0 0 **0** 14, 241 0 0 14, 241 5, 864 02. 1-2 32 0 0 0 205 0 0 205 0 03. 2-4 26 0 0 0 90 0 0 90 0 04. 4-6 10 0 0 0 32 0 0 32 0 05. 6-8 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 06. 8-10 6 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 07. 10- 12 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 08. 1 2- 15 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 09. 1 5- 20 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 10. 20- 25 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 11. 2 5- 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. 3 0- 40 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 13. 40- 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14. 5 0- 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15. 100- 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16. 200- 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. 400- 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18. 800- 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19. 1 600- 3200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 **2. G**  **as Total**  **52, 198**  0 **35, 957**  **16, 241**  **14, 584**  **0 0**  **14, 584**  **5, 864**  **2. G**  **as**