### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Proposed Rule

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources

RIN 2060

- A S30

General Comments :

1. Reviewer recommends providing additional explanation why EPA is not proposing the

“less stringent” option (Option 1) as it provides $100 million greater net benefit than EPA’s proposed option.

EPA RESPONSE: Please see the discussion in preamble section VIII.F. Well completions conducted using

REC in combination with combustion achieves not only methane and VOC emission reductions but results in recovery of natural resources. Furthermore, t he use of traditional combustion control devices alone, present local emissions impacts. Although combustion alone may be less costly than recovery, we bel ieve that it is important to conserve precious natural resources in addition to controlling emissions.

2. Reviewer recommends providing a table near the front that provides the proposed requirements including EPA’s preferred approach(s) (including compliance options)

, what exemption thresholds are, and approaches EPA is taking comment on.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA will provide this type of information as part of its public outreach materials on the proposal (e.g. fact sheets).

3. Reviewer recommends updati ng estimates based on the AEO 2015 data. To extent that it is not practicable to use the most recent publicly available data, EPA should provide an explanation of why that data was not used and provide a qualitative discussion as to any potential signific ant changes that could occur from the newest data.

EPA RESPONSE: We will explore upd at ing the impacts analysis to the AEO 2015 for the final analysis. Putting a qualitative suggestion about potential changes in forecasted activities is a good suggestion and we will do this for the final draft of the RIA for this proposal. We are currently not in a position to write this, but a placeholder has been added on page 3

- 8 where this will be presented.

4. In discussing the comparison of GHG emissions saved from this regulation to the GHG emissions of various countries, reviewer recommends clarifying whether the emissions of the other 140+ countries are compared individually or in combination. Reviewer also recommends clarifying whether EPA is comparing oil and gas sector emissions between

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2 countries or whether EPA is comparing U.S. oil and gas emissions to the total CO 2

- equivalent emissions f rom all sources other countries

. See page 83.

EPA RESPONSE:

C larified that this is referring to the national

- level, individual emissions for all anthropogenic sources from the 140 countries.

“Ranking U.S. emissions of GHGs from oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing and transmission against total GHG emissions for entire countries, show that

these emissions would be more than the national

- level emissions totals for all anthropogenic sources for Greece, the Czech Republic, Chile, Belgium, and about 140

other countries ”

5. Reviewer recommends clarifying whether the standards apply to gather and boosting stations, specifically in relation to fugitive emissions.

EPA RESPONSE: Language wa s added to the Section VIII. G

. in order to clarify that the collection of fugitive emissions components at gathering and boosting stations are a part of compressor

stations and are subject to the fugitive emissions standards.

“ The detection of fugitive e missions from oil and natural gas well sites (e.g. well sites) and compressor stations, which are comprised of compressors at natural gas transmission, storage, gathering and boosting stations, can be determined using several technologies. ”

6. Reviewer recommends providing a reference to the Methan e Challenge Program, preferably within the section discussing an exemption from the fugitive emissions monitoring requirements for sources with corporate

- wide emissions monitoring programs. Also, consider requ iring the owner or operator also repair the emissions as part of the voluntary program.

EPA RESPONSE:

As noted in section IV.C. of the preamble, we intend to encourage corporate

- wide efforts to achieve emission reductions through transparent and verifia ble voluntary action that would obviate the burden associated with NSPS applicability. Specifically, we are taking comment ( section VIII.G. ) on potential ways to encourage broadly applied fugitive emissions monitoring and repair programs including whether well sites or compressor stations should not be affected facilities if the owner or operator has a corporate

- wide fugitive emissions monitoring and repair plan in place. We are thus seeking input on a range of ways to encourage fugitive emissions monitorin g and leak repair. Because it is still in the proposal/development stages, we feel a specific reference to the Methane Challenge Program is premature.

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3 7. Reviewer recommends providing a discussion on how the federal NSPS regulations may

affect current state regulations (e.g., Colorado, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania ) and what actions states can take that go beyond federal regulations.

EPA RESPONSE:

T he EPA wants to avoid situations in which federal rules have adverse effects on implementation of state rules. To that end, EPA reviewed existing state and local regulations and consulted with state, local and tribal governments during development of

the oil and natural gas NSPS to help inform the regulatory process. The NSPS regulations do not preempt states from having more stringent requirements.

8. Reviewer recommends providing additional previous regulations when EPA has interpreted §111(b)(1)(A) to provide the authority to establish a standard of performance for any pollutant emitted by that source category as long as EPA has a rational basis for setting a standard for the pollutant. See page 46.

EPA RESPONSE:

EPA will add a reference to the preamble in sect ion VI

.

9. Reviewer recommends providing additional discussion for the multipollutant

cost

- effective approach why the costs have been split equally between VOC and methane. Specifically, why the approach chosen was used, whether other approaches are possib le, and how this approach could be expanded to all other pollutants emitted within

the Oil and Gas sector.

EPA RESPONSE: We believe the discussion in the preamble (VIII.A) of the multipollutant cost

effectiveness approach is thorough. Add itionally, we are requesting comment on the approaches to estimate cost

- effectiveness for emissions reductions using multipollutant

controls assessed in this action.

10. Reviewer recommends ensuring that when the term “worst case scenario” is used that it is actually a worst case and not a conservative scenario.

EPA RESPONSE: We agree and r eplaced the term “worst case scenario” with “conservative scenario.”

11. Reviewer recommends providing “findings” for both cost

- effective approaches (single pollutant and m ultipollutant) for all potential regulatory areas. For example, there is no finding on the single pollutant approach on page 169.

EPA RESPONSE:

Detailed discussion and analysis of all control options are included in the TSD. For example, analytical results for pneumatic pumps are presented in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of

the TSD.

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

4 12. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification for the choice of 300 scf/barrel

for the threshold as the GOR as non

- volatile “black oils” are generally de fined as having GOR values in the range of 200 to 900 scf/barrel.

EPA RESPONSE: We’ve added a footnote to clarify this: “ On February 24, 2015, API submitted a comment to EPA stating that oil wells with GOR values less than 300 do not have sufficient gas to

operate a separator. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2014

- 0831

- 0137. ”

13. Reviewer recommends clarifying that for those actions that appear to be one

- time (e.g.,

we ll completions) why it is appropriate to consider the cost

- effectiveness on an annual

cost basis.

EPA RESPONSE: The completion requirements (combustion and reduced emission completions) are essentially one

- time events and are generally performed by indepe ndent contractors. The emissions controls are applied over the course of a well completion . The duration of the well completion will typically vary by well . After this relatively short period of time, there is no continuing control requirement, unless the well is again completed at a later date, sometimes years later, if at all. After the completion is concluded, the REC equipment is typically moved by contractors to be reused during other well completions. Given that we base our REC costs on the average cost for contracting the REC as a service, we expect contractors’ operation and maintenance costs, depreciations, and potential salvage value of the equipment to be reflected in the total contracting costs. Because of these factors, we decided to treat th e hydraulically

fractured oil well completion requirements solely as annualized costs.

14. Reviewer recommends prov id ing additional information on the emissions that would be created and/or released from any of the proposed control options, including any emission data and whether they have been monetized in the consideration of the cost

- effectiveness. If they have not been monetized, EPA should provide a discussion as to why those emissions have not been monetized and provide a qualitative discussion of th e impacts.

EPA RESPONSE: We believe the information provided in the preamble and in the TSD concerning secondary impacts sufficiently characterizes them. With respect to the monetization

, EPA has not presented disbenefit estimates in tabular form due to the uncertainties. Please see the RIA pages 4

- 37 to 38, which provides EPA’s rationale for not monetizing the CO 2 disbenefits, presents one potential approach (including details of the alternative calculation) for estimating those disbenefits, and lists th e estimated adjusted amount in the text. EPA is also taking comment on this approach. EPA will consider the comments received and based on that input, determine whether it is appropriate to include the estimates in tabular form and the rulemaking’s primar y benefit

- cost comparison

.

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

5 15. Reviewer recommends providing the methane reduction in tons whenever the emission reduction is provided in CO 2 e (e.g., page 296).

EPA RESPONSE: We supplemented Table 3 with information on methane emissions in tons, not just CO 2 Eq.

16. Reviewer recommends accounting for the CO 2 disbenefits from this regulation.

EPA RESPONSE: Please see response to comment #14 above.

17. Reviewer recommends splitting out the gross cost of compliance from the net cost of compliance in the preamble followed by an explanation of the assumptions that were used to calculate the offset from the sale of the captured gas and offset for the final net cost. For example, a discussion should be included to describe the extent to which regulatory structures, i nfrastructure constraints and/or other unique circumstances may prevent regulated entities from readily monetizing the value of gas that is not emitted as a result of compliance with this proposed rule. The calculation of the offset should be as

well defi ned as the initial cost itself (see page 22).

EPA RESPONSE: We revised preamble section XI.C “What are the compliance costs?” to include more information about revenues from product recovery, as well as a simple sensitivity analysis.

18. Reviewer recommends clarifying that while the Endangerment find ing in 2009 only

reviewed six well

- mixed GHGs that there are more than six GHGs and not all of them are

well

- mixed (see page 31). Reviewer also recommends that similar language on page 77

be c larified to reflect this.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has provided clarification to the text in section IV.C. and VI.A.2.

Well Completions:

1. Reviewer recommends providing the marginal cost

- effectiveness of requiring RECs alone (90% control of emissions) to REC with completion combustion device (95% control of emissions). If the REC with completion combustion device is not as

cost

- effective as the RECs alone, reviewer recommends providing additional justification for why EPA chose that option.

EPA RESPONSE:

We don’t think this cost comparison is necessary. As discussed in section VIII.F.1. , we determined that REC alone would not be BSER because of the initial gas produced from

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

6 the well may not meet quality specifications for entering gathering lines, and as a r esult, the gas must be either vented or combusted. REC combined with combustion is estimated to provide 90 percent product recovery and 95 percent overall emission reduction. Combustion alone would result in no product recovery.

2. Reviewer recommends provid ing additional discussion of the benefits of using REC versus just flaring for well

- completions (Section VII.F).

EPA RESPONSE: Please see the response to question #1 in the “general comments” section of this response to interagency review document.

Pne umatic Pumps:

1. (a) Reviewer recommends clarifying why standards for pneumatic pumps are limited to sites where a control device is already available onsite. (b) Reviewer also recommends including control requirements for sites that do not currently include control devices, how this punishes early actors, and how enforcement of this standard would work. (c) Also, page 170 does not include the caveat that it is only at sites that currently have control

devices.

EPA RESPONSE: (a) Although there are several options for reducing emissions from pumps, we identified that some of these options are not broadly applicable . The remaining one option available is routing emiss ions to a process or control device. Based on our BSER analysis, we believe that the cost is excessive if the process or control device does not currently exist.

Please see the discussion in section VIII.E . However, cost is not excessive for routing to

exi sting process or control device on site. For segments of the in dustry, we believe that existing processes or combustors already are in common use. See example of storage

vessels in section VIII.E

. (b) We are proposing requirements for when a control device is not on site, facilities would need to submit an initial and annual certification that no device is on site and comply with the standard within 30 days of installing a device and reporting such in the next annual report. (see §60. 5393a(b)(2)(i) and (ii) ). We also

encourage operators to use other options than natural gas

- driven pneumatic pumps where their use is technically feasible. To incentivize the use of such alternatives, we propose

that defining “pneumatic pump affected facility” (see §60.5365(h) ) to include only natural gas

- driven pumps. As a result, pumps which are driven by means other than natural gas would not be affected facilities subject to the pneumatic pump provisions of the proposed NSPS. (c) We believe that t his is clearly stated in section VIII.E

.

Fugitive Emissions:

1. Reviewer recommends providing additional information on how semiannual monitoring is BSER. It is unclear how semiannual monitoring is BSER over quarterly or yearly

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

7 monitoring. Reviewer also recommends taking com ment on other alternative approaches to leak surveys that are more akin to approaches taken by Colorado and Wyoming.

EPA RESPONSE:

Please see the revised discussion in section VIII.G. and additional text to solicit comment on other approaches. We are so liciting comment on the use of Method 21, which is one of the options that Colorado allows in Rule 7; however, we are concerned with the ambiguity of the “other Division approved instrument based on monitoring device or method” provision. There are no ope rational requirements to ensure that leaks can consistently be found during monitoring with such an instrument. In addition to Method 21, we are soliciting comment on other potential leak detection approaches.

2. Reviewer recommends providing additional di scussion on what different assumptions were made for the OGI monitoring to have a change in efficiency from quarterly surveys (80% emissions reduction) to annual surveys (40% emission reduction) and what the ranges of emissions reduction are within each of these estimates. Specifically, it does not appear that EPA has a justification for these assumptions and should provide sensitivities on these assumptions and how they would change the final determinations.

EPA RESPONSE: The preamble states that i nformation in the white paper related to the potential emission reductions from the implementation of an OGI monitoring program varied from 40 to 99

percent. The causes for this range in reduction efficiency were the frequency of surveys performed and diff erent assumptions made by the study authors. We used engineering judgment to identify anticipated percent reduction based on frequency. We believe that 40%, 60%, and 80% are adequately representative of the reduction we would expect with increased frequenc ies of survey

.

3. Reviewer recommends allowing Method 21 as an acceptable compliance option to OGI. As there are significantly different capital costs for these two methods, but do not appear to be any emission reduction differences, EPA should allow compa nies to choose a less capital

- intensive option.

EPA RESPONSE: We are taking comment on this in section VIII.G.

4. Reviewer recommends that EPA also propose allowing flexibility to enable the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems and mass flow rate thresholds for compliance. Reviewer recommends using mass flow rate as it is a better measure of emissions rate since it can account for ambient conditions (e.g., wind, temperature) and discriminate among methane sources.

EPA RESPONSE: The CEMS technology is not used to determine the presence of fugitive emissions nor does EPA believe that CEMS are appropriate to be used in this case. Fugitive emissions

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

8 are inconsistent by nature and come from various emissions points. CEMS are typically used on a source emission stack (e.g. boiler).

5. Reviewer recommends providing additional context of fugitive emission leakage to one percent of components by providing EPA’s estimate of the number of components that typically leak at uncontrolled facilities.

EPA RESPONSE:

Please see the revised section VIII.G. EPA will provide this additional context in the technical support document.

6. Reviewer recommends providing further discussion of the distribution of fugitive emissions between components t hroughout a facility along with a statement on why it is preferable to conduct comprehensive facility surveys as opposed to surveying just those components most likely to be large emissions sources. See page 240.

EPA RESPONSE: While we do think we adequa tely discuss that that the monitoring technologies (e.g. OGI) have the capacity to analyze a significant number of components per hour and because components can be surveyed simultaneously cost is reduced, we have added a short

discussion on the distribut ion of fugitives and why comprehensive surveys are more beneficial than only surveying large components. Please see additional discussion in

section VIII.G.

7. Reviewer recommends that the proposed regulation text cross

- reference the section that provide s guidance on who should be the recipient of the annual reports on fugitive emissions. See page 376.

EPA RESPONSE:

Please see cross reference added in section 60.5401a of the regulatory text

.

8. Reviewer recommends that EPA take comment on the appropriate mass flow rate that

should be used for leak detection and under what circumstances this could be used to meet compliance. Reviewer notes that a mass flow rate (scfh) is preferable to a

concentra tion measurement (ppm), which is a less accurate measurement of leaks since it does not consider the impact of atmospheric conditions, such as wind or background

methane.

EPA RESPONSE: This request does not make sense in the context of this action. This is not how fugitives

are measured or occur.

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

9 9. Reviewer recommends creating a performance

- based or approval approach for fugitive emission detection technologies to allow for new technologies that may provide equal to or greater emissions reductions than OGI or Method 21.

EPA RESPONSE: We agree that we should encourage continued development of new technologies, but also

need BSER to be adequately demonstrated . We are required to identify and consider existing control options in order evaluate BSER. Without first identifying the control options, which is being suggested, it would be extremely challenging to identify BSER. We are soliciting comment on other appr oaches, see section VIII.G.

10. Reviewer recommends clarifying if the methodology for monitoring and reporting of fugitive emissions is sufficient given that much of the emissions come from

super

- emitters.

EPA RESPONSE:

W e believe that the methodology for surveying, repairing, and rep orting fugitives is

sufficient and that the OGI is optimized if all the parameters are met.

11. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification of any potential perverse incentives for operators to avoid finding or reporti ng leaks in relation to monitoring and reporting fugitive emissions.

EPA RESPONSE: Please see our response to comment number 10. Our response is the same here.

12. Reviewer recommends providing additional explanation as to why 15 days is an appropriate req uirement for repairing a leak and allowing for delays in repair due to unforeseen events such as inclement weather and/or equipment supply chain distributions. Reviewer also recommends taking comment on whether a longer or shorter

time

- frame should be all owed for repairs. See page 468 and 473.

EPA RESPONSE: A footnote providing additional explanation has been added to the preamble. See VIII.G. This is also where we request comment on the appropriateness of this timeframe.

13. Reviewer recommends proposing a threshold less than 10,000 ppm for Method 21 technologies (see page 240) as there are many forms of technology that can meet lower

detection thresholds.

EPA RESPONSE: We request comments on the appropriateness of this threshold in section VIII.G.

Liquids Unloading:

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

10 1. Reviewer recommends considering best practices for reducing emissions from liquids unloading and taking comment on whether performance standards for liquids unloading is appropriate.

EPA RESPONSE: Any new source performance standard (including “best practices”) under section 111 of the CAA, whether it is a numerical emission standard or a work practice or operational

standard under section 111(h), must reflect the best system of emission reduction (BSER). In determining BSER, the EPA must identify technology or practices that can be applied universally. As discussed in the preamble, liquids unloading operations are highly variable and differ based on individual well characteristics. As a result, we were unable to identify universally a pplicable technologies or practices that represent BSER at this time.

2. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification why EPA is unable to propose standards for liquid unloading operations.

EPA RESPONSE: See response above.

Specific Comments:

1. E xecutive Summary. (a) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether the standards apply to source categories in the transmission segment. (b) Reviewer also recommends considering adding a reference to the Climate Action Plan and the Methane Strategy.

EPA RESPONSE: (a) Please see th e clarification added in section II.A. (b) References to t he Climate Action Plan and the Methane Strategy are in section IV.C.

2. Executive Summary. Reviewer recommends providing discussion of the standards for subcategory 1 and 2 we lls within the executive summary (see page 97).

EPA RESPONSE:

Ple ase see clarification in section II.B.

3. Page 13. Reviewer recommends providing a citation for the 2009 GHG endangerment finding.

EPA RESPONSE:

Please se e the citation added in section II.A.

4. Page 14. Reviewer recommends clarifying whether regulated entities already complying with the 2012 Oil and Gas NSPS are in compliance with the proposed regulation.

EPA RESPONSE:

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

11 Affected facilities subject to the 2012 NSPS ( 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOOO) remain subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOOO unless they are modified or reconstructed after the date of publication of the proposed 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOOOa rule. 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOOOa would apply to facilities that are new or mo dified after the proposal

date

. F acilities would not have to comply with 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOOOa until 60 days after publication of the final rule. Sources who comply with the new subpart 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOOOa are deemed to be in compliance wit h 40 CFR part 60 subpart

OOOO

. We include language to this effect in the proposed revisions to the regulatory text

of 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOOO in this action.

5. Page 16. Reviewer recommends clarifying “across the source category” within the

compressors section. Specifically whether it includes storage.

EPA RESPONSE: The “transmission and storage segment” includes both natural gas transmission facilities and natural gas storage facilities. Please see clarification added in section II.B.

6. Page 18. Reviewer recommends clarifying up front who is required to perform the monitoring for fugitive emissions, whether leaks are required to be reported, and how long the entity has to fix the leaks that are identified.

EPA RESPONSE:

Please see the c larification added to Section II.B

.

7. Page 18. Reviewer recommends clarifying the language within the hydraulically fractured oil well completions as to when exemptions apply and what the requirements

are.

EPA RESPONSE:

Please see the clarification added to Section II.B

.

8. Page 19. Reviewer recommends adding a reference to the Methane Challenge Program.

EPA RESPONSE: Because it is still in the proposal/development stages, we feel a specific reference to the Methane Challenge Program is premature.

9. Page 19. Reviewer recommends defining the term “corporate

- wide.” Specifically whether a corporation would need to cover emissions in other countries.

EPA RESPONSE: Section VIII.G. of the preamble and §60.5397a of the regulatory text outlines the items that a monitoring plan would need to included. We do not think a formal definition is

necessary.

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

12 10. Page 19. Reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state as follows:

a. In addition, we solicit comment on the whether new or modified we ll sites or compressor stations should not be affected facilities subject to the fugitive emission standards, if the owner or operator is implementing a corporate

- wide fugitive emissions monitoring and repair plan which is legally and practically enforceab le.

EPA RESPONSE: This change has been made.

11. Page 19. Reviewer recommends clarifying that when a unit is required to perform quarterly scheduled surveys, that if two consecutive surveys find less than one percent

whether the unit would move to semi

- a nnual or annual survey.

EPA RESPONSE:

Please see the clarification added to Section II.B

.

12. Page 21. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification on the term “perceived adverse effects” in relation to whether EPA believes these, or any part thereof, are actual

adverse effects.

EPA RESPONSE:

Please see the clarification added to Section II.C

.

13. Page 22. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification on the benefits and the costs outside of 2020 and 2025, why they are not included, and if they were included, how they would calculated.

EPA RESPONSE: In estimating and presenting benefits and costs for air rules, the EPA generally presents estimates based on a single analysis year, a year that is far enough into the future that the

new r egulation has come into full effect. For this proposed NSPS, we present two years of analysis, 2020 and 2025, in order to better characterize the effects of the NSPS over time. As described in the RIA, impact estimates in 2020 approximate early impacts of the program, and 2025 represents impacts after new sources have accumulated in the program, such that impacts, benefits and costs, are likely to increase with time.

14. Page 23. Reviewer recommends clarifying the discussion of non

- monetized benefits because, as written, it gives the appearance that methane was not monetized in the rule.

EPA RESPONSE: Please find clarifying text in Section II.C. “The EPA was unable to monetize all of the benefits anticipated to result from this proposal. The only benefits mo netized for this rule

are methane

- related climate benefits. However, there would be additional benefits from reducing VOC and HAP emissions, as well as additional benefits from reducing methane emissions because methane is a precursor to global background concentrations of ozone.

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

13 A detailed discussion of these unquantified benefits are discussed in section XI of this

document as well as in the RIA available in the docket.”

15. Page 31. Reviewer recommends clarifying what “LDAR for open

- ended valves or lines, compliance period for LDAR for newly affected process units” means.

EPA RESPONSE: This discussion describes the list of issues from the 2012 NSPS that we are granting

reconsideration on. Additional discussion can be found in section IX.B

.

16. Page 35. Reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state as follows:

a. Building on the 2012 NSPS, the EPA intends to encourage corporate

- wide efforts to achieve emission reductions through transparent and verifiable voluntary action that

obviate the burden associa ted would make it easier to comply with NSPS standards applicability

.

EPA RESPONSE: We decline these edits as they change the intended meaning of the sentence. We believe it is important to preserve the concept that well sites and compressor stations in cluded in such corporate

- wide fugitive emissions monitoring and repair programs would be

exclude d from NSPS affected facility status altogether.

17. Page 36. Reviewer recommends clarifying what “no set regulatory criteria for making

such determination” mean s.

EPA RESPONSE:

Removed unclear text.

18. Page 40. Reviewer recommends clarification on footnote 7 about whether the Kraft Pulp Mill NSPS was adding an additional emission to be regulated as in this rule.

EPA RESPONSE:

Please see clarification in footnote 7.

19. Page 80. Reviewer recommends providing Table 3 in both Methane and CO 2e instead of just in CO 2e

.

EPA RESPONSE: Please see additional table provided in Section VI.A

.

20. Page 87. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification with how the peer review and public submissions have been used in both the development of this proposed rule and any modifications to the white papers.

EPA RESPONSE:

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

14 Please see clarification in Section VI.B. “ The peer review and public comments on the white pape rs included additional technical information that provided further clarification of our understanding of the emission sources and emission control options. The comments also provided additional data on emissions and number of sources, and pointed out newly published studies that further informed our emission rate estimates. Where appropriate, we used the information and data provided to adjust the control options considered and the impacts estimates presented in the 2015 TSD. ”

21. Page 99. Reviewer recommend s clarifying whether low pressure gas wells are exempt from the proposed rule.

EPA RESPONSE:

Please see clarification in Section VII.F

.

22. Page 101. Reviewer recommends clarifying the list provided is a comprehensive list of fugitive emissions component s and, if so, whether comment should be taken to determine if other components should be included or removed.

EPA RESPONSE:

Please see clarification in Section VII.G.

23. Page 102. Reviewer recommends clarifying the following sentence as it is unclear:

a. The proposed standards would require replacement or repair of components if evidence of fugitive emissions is detected during the monitoring survey through

visual confirmation from OGI

EPA RESPONSE:

Please see clarification in Section VII.G

.

24. Page 109. Reviewer recommends clarifying how often a compressor is added to a compressor station.

EPA RESPONSE: It is our understanding that compressors are rarely added to a compressor station. An analysis of the RBLC database found that for NAICS 221210 (Natural Gas Distribution) there were two permits in the last 10 years for modifications to existing compressor stations. For NAICS 486210 (Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas), there were five modifications to existing compressor stations during the same perio d. Note that these counts do not include modifications that did not require a PSD/NSR permit, new facilities, or facilities that are not compressor stations such as natural gas processing plants or LNG facilities.

25. Page 125. Reviewer recommends providing references for when the “multipollutant

cost

- effective” approach has been used by EPA in previous rulemakings.

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

15 EPA RESPONSE:

Please see footnote 4 3

.

26. Page 126. Reviewer recommends providing the basis for using a natural gas price of $4.00/Mcf.

EPA RESPONSE:

Please see footnote 4 4

.

27. Page 165. Reviewer recommends providing cost information in relation to areas that do not already have an existing control device or, if not appropriate, stating why that information is not provided.

EPA RESPONSE:

We clarified this text in Section VII.E

.

28. Page 161. Reviewer recommends clarifying what “process” means in the following

sentence:

a. During our review of the Wyoming state rule covering pneumatic pumps, we identified an additional mitigation option for reducing emission from piston and diaphragm natural gas

- driven pumps, which involves routing the gas to a process or routing the gas to a combustor (often done as part of the storage vessel control system).

EPA RESPONSE:

We clarified this text in Section VII.E

.

29. Page 163. Reviewer recommends clarifying the basis for the assertion that 95 percent reduction in emissions of methane and VOC due to the control options imposed for the production and transmission and storage segments of routing natur al gas

- driven pump emission to a process or control device.

EPA RESPONSE:

We clarified this text in Section VII.E

.

30. Page 167. Reviewer recommends clarifying the sentence “Because instrument air systems are known to be used at natural gas processing plants. .

. .” whether EPA is assuming that all, most, or some other deviation of processing plants use instrument air

sys tems. If it is not all, reviewer recommends providing addition al information why EPA

assumes that it is incremental.

EPA RESPONSE:

We clarified this text in Section VII.E

.

31. Page 167. Reviewer recommends clarifying the following sentence as it is unclear:

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

16 a. We determined that the annualized cost of control for routing to a process are similar to the costs presented above for both a new and existing VRU

EPA RESPONSE:

We clarified this text in Section VII. E

.

32. Page 180. Reviewer recommends clarifyin g why the cost of performing REC are provided as a range of costs ($700

- $6,500/day) but the estimated cost for a 3

- day completion is only provided as a single number ($17,183).

EPA RESPONSE: Please see clarifying text in Section VII.F

. “ Equipment costs associated with RECs will vary from well to well. Costs of performing REC are projected to be between $700 and $6,500 per day, varying based on if key pieces of equipment are readily available on site or temporarily brought on site. Based on the 2012 NSPS evaluation, the average cost of a REC combined with completion combustion device for a 7

- day completion event was $33,327. Under our evaluation in this action, we estimate the cost for a REC combined with a completion combustion device for a 3

- day complet ion event to be $17,183. However, in both cases, there are savings associated with the use of RECs because the gas recovered can be incorporated into the production stream and sold. With the consideration of gas savings, the cost of a REC combined with a c ompletion combustion

device for a 7

- day completions event for a gas well was estimated to have a net savings. With the consideration of gas savings, the cost of a REC combined with a completion

combustion device for a 3

- day completions event for an oil wel l was estimated to be $13,586. ”

33. Page 187. Reviewer recommends providing reference to any guidance material that exists or is planned for how an operator can show or determine whether a control option is “technically infeasible.” If there is no guidance, EPA should explain how the

evaluation for this would be made.

EPA RESPONSE: Please see clarifying text in Section VII.F. “ Conditions that could prevent proper operation of the separator include insufficient gas concentration, low pressure gas, and

multi phase slug flow containing solids that could clog the separator.”

34. Page 195

- 96. Reviewer recommends clarifying the statement on page 195 that “emissions cannot be controlled or measured” when emissions numbers appear to be provided on page 196.

EPA RESP ONSE:

Deleted unclear text.

35. Page 217. Reviewer recommends providing additional information why EPA believes that available supply of qualified contractors and OGI instruments will be available for

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

17 semiannual surveys. With semiannual surveys based on t he establishment of the new source, what kind of limitations could occur with semiannual surveys?

EPA RESPONSE: EPA is taking comment on the availability of OGI operators. “ We solicit comment on both the availability of OGI instruments and the availability of qualified OGI technicians and operators to perform surveys and repairs. ”

36. Page 242. Reviewer recommends explaining what a “subpart VVa level of control” is within the preamble.

EPA RESPONSE: We simply mean that the regulatory text in thi s proposed section, like the 2012 rule, will point to 40 CFR part 60 subpart VVa. In other words, the requirement is to comply with VVa as directed by the proposed regulatory text.

37. Page 279. Reviewer recommends providing additional discussion why EPA ch ose 4 months as the time that correction of any deficiencies need to be corrected.

EPA RESPONSE:

This section refers to a suggested structure of an audit program for fugitives. EPA is taking comment on all aspects of the proposal. “ The Agency seeks comme nt as to whether this approach is appropriate for the type of auditing we describe below, or whether an alternative approach, such as requiring auditors to have accreditation from a recognized auditing body or EPA, or other potentially relevant and applica ble consensus standards and protocols (e.g. American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM International (ASTM), European Committee for Standardization (CEM), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards), would be preferable. ”

38. Page 293. Reviewer recommends clarifying whether the total annualized engineering costs provided include the benefits from recovered natural gas. If so, reviewer recommends providing both the costs with and without the benefits from recovered natural gas.

EPA RESPONSE: We made this change in the preamble. Please see response above.

39. Page 301. Reviewer recommends providing citations to past regulatory analyses that

have used GWP of CH 4 to convert emission impacts to CO 2 e.

EPA RESPONSE:

Added citations to the text.

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

18 “For example, see (1) U.S. EPA. (2012). “Regulatory impact analysis supporting the 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency final new source performance standards and

am endments to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for the oil and natural gas industry.”

Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/oil_natural_gas_final_neshap_nsps_ria.pdf and (2) U.S. EPA. (2012). “Regulatory impact analysis: Final rulemaking for 2017

– 2025 light

- duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards and corporate avera ge fuel economy standards.”

Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r12016.pdf”

40. Page 304. Reviewer recommends providing additional information to Table 6 on what

the “95 th Percentile” relates to as it is unclear what this 95 th perce ntile relates to.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has updated table note “a” on Table 6 to explain what the 95 th percentile refers to.

41. Page 312. Reviewer recommends providing in Table 8 a discussion of the disbenefits from the proposed regulation, if they are not monetized, instead of within a footnote to

the monetized benefits.

EPA RESPONSE: Please see response above regarding our t reatment of secondary CO 2 emissions in the

RIA.

42. Page 374. Reviewer recommends clarifying whether annual surveys that detect emissions one time would return to semiannual surveys and why this difference exists.

EPA RESPONSE: Please see clarifying text i n section §60 .5397a (i)

.

Typographical Comments:

1. Page 14. Reviewer recommends modifying the sentence to state:

a. In addition, with respect to equipment used category

- wide of which only a subset of those equipment are covered under the NSPS VOC standards (i.e., pneumatic controllers and compressors located other than at well sites ) , EPA’s analysis shows that the BSER for reducing VOC from the remaining unregulated equipment to be the same as the BSER for those currently regulated.

EPA RESPONSE: Correction made to the preamble.

### EPA RESPONSE TO Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

19 2. Page 34

- 35. Reviewer recommends modifying the section to state:

a. These actions encompass both cost

- effective commonsense standards and cooperative engagement with states, tribes and industry. Building on prior actions by the Administration, and leadership in states and industry, the announcement laid out a plan for EPA to address, and if appropriate, propose and set commonsense standards for methane and ozone forming emissions from new and

modified sources and issue new gu idelines (CTG) to assist states in reducing

ozone

- forming pollutants from existing oil and gas systems in areas that do not

meet the health

- based standard for ozone.

EPA RESPONSE:

Added the CTG edits to the preamble.

3. Reviewer recommends ensuring consistency in the use of subscripts within CO 2 and CH 4 throughout the document.

EPA RESPONSE: We will verify subscripts for consistency.

4. Reviewer recommends removing “or not” whenever “whether or not” is stated within the preamble.

EPA RESPONSE:

EP A will do a word search to determine where this may be appropriate without changing the intent of this package.

Comment Moved from RIA Interagency Comments: 1) First annual report is listed as being due January 15, 2014

– date has passed but no language indicates it will be changed. Most other places there is language inserted to identify the date will be changed or inserted as it becomes necessary.

EPA RESPONSE: The first annual report date of January 15, 2014 was only provided as guidance in the 2013 final rule preamble. See 78 FR 58417. We have previously acknowledged that the

date was calculated in error. The rule text at 60.5420(b) provides that the initial annual report will be due no later than 90 days after the end of the compliance period. This date will be January 13, 2014, or will be specific to the source based on their initial compliance period established under section 60.5410, if initial startup i s after October 15,

2012.