BEFORE THE U NITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: ) Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 200 9

- 0923 P etr ol e u m and Na t ural G as Systems; ) FRL

- 9 226

- 3 Final Rule ) RIN 2060

- AP99 PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
P e r section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B), and for the reasons set forth below, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (“INGAA”) petitions the Administrator of the U nited States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to reconsider provisions of its f inal r ule in “ Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems ,” 75 Fed. Reg. 74458 ( November 30 , 2010) ( the “ Final Rule ”)

. T his petition voice s objections that could not have been raised during the public comment period because the y concern Final Rule provisions that did not appear in the proposed rule, 74
F ed. R eg. 16448 ( April 10, 200 9 ) (the “Proposed Rule”). Each of INGAA’s first t hree concerns deal with regulations allowing operators to compute greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions using “best alternative m onitoring method s ” (“BAMM”) in lieu of the methods prescribed elsewhere in Subpart W of EPA’s GHG reporting regulations. The BAMM regulations were not part of Proposed Rule, and there was no reasonable basis for INGAA to anticipate their issu ance. Also , as noted in INGAA’s fourth item for reconsideration, the Final Rule rais es implemen tation issues that were not evident in the Proposed Rule because they relate to previously unannounced requirements for emissions estimation and reporting. The issu es presented below are of central relevance to the outcome of th is rulemaking and reconsideration should be granted to address them. Because w e anticipate these issues will- 2

- require further discussion of a technical nature, INGAA would welcome the opportunity to meet with EPA to discuss our concerns further.
I NGAA seeks reconsider ation of the following four matters : 1 . There is a confusing disconnect between the BAMM requests due April 30, 2011, and those due September 30, 2011 . Both the legal requirements commonly applicable to interstate natural gas transmission , and t he basic desig n of compressor station equipment, buildings and grounds , pose significant and long

- term safety, technical and legal barriers to obtaining the data necessary to calculate GHG emissions per the procedures prescribed in Subpart W of the GHG reporting ru le. See generally 40 C.F.R. § 98.233. For many of these compressor stations , reporters will be requesting approval to use BAMM during 2011 , 2012 and beyond. For leak detection and measurement (40 C.F.R. § 98.23 4(f)(4)), the Final Rule specif ies two sepa rate BAMM request s , subject to different filing deadlines, content requirements and decision criteria, for approval to use BAMM during two separate p e riods. Requests t o use BAMM during calendar 2011 must be filed by April 30, 2011, 40 C.F.R. § 98.234(f)( 5 ) (iii)(A); requests to use BAMM in 2012 and beyond must be filed by September 30, 2011, 40 C.F.R. § 98.234(f)( 8 )(i)

. For other emissions subject to Subpart W, the Final Rule still specifies t w o separate BAMM requests, due the April 30 th and September 30 th , but the April 30 th request covers only the period from July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.
T he content requirements and approval criteria

— and thus the apparent circumstances that warrant the use of BAMM

— differ widely between the two BAMM requests. The Ap r il 30 th request, governing calendar 2011, focuses on the reporter making “all reasonable efforts to obtain the information, services, or equipment necessary to comply with Subpart W

. ”
See 40 C.F.R. § § 98.234(f)(5)(iii)( B ) (3)

- (4), ( C ) . In c o ntrast, the September 30 th request,- 3

- governing 2012 and beyond, asks the reporter to describe why the prescribed data collection methodologies do not meet safety requirements, are technically infeasible , or conflict w ith other laws or regulations. 40 C.F.R. § 98.234(f)(8)(i v ). Several aspects of the regulations applicable to the April 30 th requests are confusing, particularly whe n compar ed with the corresponding regulations applicable to the September 30 th requests. The first point of confusion concerns timing and eligibility assessment. Reporters will not have time to assess whether all of their facilities qualify for BAMM by this April 30 th , yet the Final Rule requires that a request must be filed by April 30 th for every facility where BAMM will be sought for 2011. In discussions subsequent to its issuance of the Final Rule, EPA suggested that for these facilities reporters should submit modified April 30 th requests that would serve as notice of potential BAMM elig ibility

— in effect, a placeholder

— to be supplemented by the September 30 th request or other subsequent filing. This approach is consistent with the “potential situation ” provision in the Final Rule: If the reporter anticipates the potential need for [B AMM] for sources for which they need to petition EPA and the situation is unresolved at the time of the deadline, reporters should submit written notice of this potential situation to EPA by the specified deadline for requests to be considered. 40 C.F.R. § 98.234(f)( 1 )

. INGAA supports the “placeholder” approach and EPA should adopt it on reconsideration. A separate source of confusion confronts reporters who seek to apply BAMM seamlessly in 2011, 2012 and beyond (for example, because there is no safe way to obtain the measurements otherwise prescribed in Subpart W) . In these cases , it is unclear how the content requirements and decision criteria for the April 30 t h filing versus the September 30th should be applied when the reporter files a BAMM request.- 4

- INGAA urges EPA to reconsider the Final Rule to ad dress this problem. The content requirements and approval criteria for the April 30 th and September 30 th BAMM r equests should be expanded, or a separate class of these requests should be created , to accommodate cases where BAMM will be requested for 2012 and beyond. April 30 th request s, which under the placeholder approach would serve as written notice that BAMM may be request ed in the future, should identify the potential sources and generally identify the grounds

— safety, technical, operational, legal, etc.

— the reporter may need to cite when it later proposes using BAMM in lieu of a prescribed Subpart W metho dology. A r eporter filing September 30 th request s should identify the affected source and should be allowed the option of including the same content requirements (thus triggering the same decision criteria ) that would be used to employ BAMM for 2011

. Con versely, a reporter seeking to use BAMM for 2012 and beyond should be allowed to submit information on its reasonable efforts to obtain the information, services or equipment necessary to comply with subpart W . I f such information is submitted , EPA should consider it as an independent basis for granting the request

. 2 . The BAMM sunset provision strands sources that become subject to GHG reporting after September 30, 2011 , or where unpredictable future events necessitate . Under current regulatio ns, all requests to use BAMM beyond 2011 must be filed by Septe m ber 30, 2011 , 40 C.F.R. § 98.234(f)(8)(i). Other th a n the ability to notify EPA of a “potential situation” that may warrant a future BAMM petition, no binding provision is made for sources that are not subject to GHG reporting currently, but that become so after September 30 th

. There is no reasonable basis for denying BAMM to a natural gas compressor station that experiences an increase in throughput, thus exc eed ing the reporting threshold for the first time;

or denying BAMM to a facility already subject to reporting, that confronts an unpredictable facility or operational issue ( e.g. , low utilization) that precludes measurement, just because these- 5

- events occur after September 30, 2011 . These and other situations should be eligible for BAMM, and INGAA seeks reconsideration so EPA can offer BAMM to these otherwise stranded facilities an d unaddressed future events

. On reconsideration, EPA should also specify the criteria it will use to evaluate requests filed after September 30, 2011. U nder the Final Rule , EPA “reserves the right to review petitions after the deadline” if notified prior to the 2011 deadlines. 40 C.F .R. §98.234(f)(1). However, the Final Rule does not indicate the decision criteria EPA will apply to these requests , so future access to BAMM is needlessly uncertain. Requests filed after September 30, 2011, should be eligible for BAMM under the same cri teria available under the Final Rule (as modified in response to the other issues contained in this petition).

3 . The criteria for approving BAMM for 2012 and beyond should be modified to recognize employee safety more fully . The Final Rule provides that EPA does not anticipate a need to approve BAMM beyond 2011 “except in extreme circumstances, which include safety . 

### . . .” 40 C.F.R. § 98.234(f)(8). INGAA does not consider safeguarding employee safety to be an extreme circumstance, and we urge EPA to gra nt reconsideration so it can articulate a standard that more fully recognizes the imperative nature of maintaining employee safety.

4. N umerous technical elements of Subpart W remain unclear, co n fusing, overly complicated or conflicting. A number of the provisions in the Final Rule

— particularly those dealing with reporting requirements ; segment

- specific source inclusion ; source - speci fic emission estimation methods; and values and assumptions for facility

- specific parameters

— are unclear , possibly erron eous or conflicting. For example, the data elements for reporting reci procating compressor emissions, 40 C.F.R. § 98.236(c)(14) , cite equations and methods in 40 C.F.R. § 98.233(p). However, there are- 6

- inconsistencies or confusing requirements when reconc iling the measurements to be conducted, the equations and parameters to be used for estimating emissions, and the data elements to report. As another example, there instances where a reporter will be required to use different values for a calculation para meter ( e.g. , gas quality) when estimating emissions for different

sources within the same facility. It is imperative that EPA address unclear, confusing, overly complicated, or conflicting requirements associated with emission sources, emission estimation methods, and reporting requirements in Subpart W.

CONCLUSION In light of the arguments and authorities presented above, and the central relevance of the issues presented to the outcome of the rules contemplated in this docket, INGAA urges EPA to grant reconsideration of the Final Rule pursuant to CAA section 307(d)( 7)(B)

. Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Dan Regan, Regulatory Attorney dregan@ingaa.org I nterstate N atural G as A ssociation of America 20 F St., N.W., Suite 450 Washington, DC 20001

January 31 , 2010