EPA FOLLOW UP RESPONSE TO 8/6/2015 MEETING

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-AS30

Follow-Up 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 revised RIA.

2. Reviewer recommends exempting vertical wells and asks why EPA is only taking 

comment on this when the white paper process only looks at horizontal wells.

EPA RESPONSE: 

In response to the question about exempting vertical wells from the oil well completion 

requirements, it is important to clarify that the white paper oil well completion dataset 

(A-7) and emissions estimates also include vertical wells. Information on whether 

hydraulic fracturing occurred at a well is not directly available in the national data set 

used, so EPA developed a process to estimate the number of completions with hydraulic

fracturing. The process for identifying hydraulically fractured oils wells evaluates wells 

in both conventional and unconventional formations. For wells in unconventional 

formations, any well occurring in a formation type (both vertical and horizontal wells) of 

coalbed methane, tight, and shale, is assumed to be hydraulically fractured. To identify 

wells likely to have been completed with hydraulic fracturing in conventional formations, 

wells identified as being drilled horizontally are assumed to have been completed with 

hydraulic fracturing. The data set and oil well completion emission estimates include 

both vertical and horizontal wells. 

Once the population of wells completed in 2011 was identified, hydraulically fractured 

wells were identified as those wells meeting either of the following (A-3): 

o Wells completed in a coalbed methane, tight, or shale formation as determined 

using the DOE EIA formation type crosswalk [This step includes both vertical 

and horizontal wells]; and

o Additional wells identified in the DI Desktop database as horizontal wells that 

were not captured by the formation cross-walk [This step represents hydraulic 

fracturing of wells in conventional formations.]

3. Reviewer request that EPA solicit broad comments on the fugitive requirements

EPA RESPONSE: 
EPA FOLLOW UP RESPONSE TO 8/6/2015 MEETING

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2

EPA agrees with the reviewer and is soliciting the following comments on the fugitive 

requirements:

- “We solicit comment on the appropriateness of the percentage of emission reduction 

level that can be reasonably expected to be achieved with quarterly, semiannual, and 

annual monitoring program frequencies.” 

- “That said, we are also soliciting comment on whether 15 days is an appropriate

amount of time for repair of sources of fugitive emissions at well sites.”

- “We solicit comment on this approach, including the percentage used to adjust the 

monitoring frequency.”

- “To encourage broadly applied fugitive emissions monitoring, we solicit comment on 

whether new or modified well sites should not be affected facilities subject to the 

fugitive emission standards of the NSPS if, at the time such standards are 

promulgated, the owner or operator has a corporate-wide fugitive emissions 

monitoring plan in place and is implementing such a plan through a legally and 

practically enforceable requirement in an operating permit or other requirement 

established under a Federal, State, local or tribal authority that meets the NSPS 

standards, including the repair and recordkeeping requirements.”

- “We are requesting comment on whether the fugitive emissions requirements should 

apply to all fugitive emissions components at modified well sites or just to those 

components that are connected to the fractured, refractured or added well. For some 

modified well sites, the fractured or refractured or added well may only be connected 

to a subset of the fugitive emissions components on site. We are soliciting comment 

on whether the fugitive emission requirements should only apply to that subset. 

However, we are aware that the added complexity of distinguishing covered and noncovered sources may create difficulty in implementing these requirements.”

- “While we are confident with the ability of Method 21 to detect fugitive emissions 

and therefore consider it a viable alternative to OGI, we solicit comment on the 

appropriate fugitive emissions repair threshold for Method 21 monitoring surveys.”

- “In light of the above, we solicit comment on whether the fugitive emissions repair 

threshold for Method 21 monitoring surveys should be set at 10,000 ppm or whether a 

different threshold is more appropriate (including information to support such 

threshold).”

- “We are requesting comment on whether 30 days is an appropriate amount of time to 

begin conducting fugitive emissions monitoring.”

- “We solicit comment on both the availability of OGI instruments and the availability 

of qualified OGI technicians and operators to perform surveys and repairs.”
EPA FOLLOW UP RESPONSE TO 8/6/2015 MEETING

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3

- “We are also requesting comment on whether new or modified wells at well sites 

produce less than a daily average of 15 barrels per day. We also solicit comment on 

whether those types of well sites and other types of well sites have inherently low 

fugitive emissions, even when a new well is drilled or a well site is fractured or 

refractured and, if so, descriptions of such type(s) of well sites. The proposed 

standards are not intended to cover well sites with no fugitive emissions of methane 

or VOC. We are aware that some sites may have inherently low fugitive emissions 

due to the characteristics of the site, such as the gas to oil ratio of the wells or the 

specific types of equipment located on the well site. We solicit comment on these 

characteristics and data that would demonstrate that these sites have consistently low 

production and consistently low methane and VOC fugitive emissions.”

- “We are requesting comment on whether there are other fugitive emission detection 

technologies for fugitive emissions monitoring, since this is a field of emerging 

technology and major advances are expected in the near future.”

- “To encourage broadly applied fugitive emissions monitoring, we solicit comment on 

the whether new or modified compressor stations should not be affected facilities 

subject to the fugitive emission standards of the NSPS, if, at that time such standards 

are promulgated, the owner or operator has a corporate-wide fugitive emissions 

monitoring plan in place and is implementing such a plan through legally and 

practically enforceable requirements in an operating permit or other requirement 

established under a Federal, State, local or tribal authority that meets the NSPS 

standards, including the repair and recordkeeping requirements.”

- “We are requesting comment on whether the fugitive emissions requirements should 

apply to all of the fugitive emissions sources at the compressor station for modified 

compressor stations or just to fugitive sources that are connected to the added 

compressor. For some modified compressor stations, the added compressor may only 

be connected to a subset of the fugitive emissions sources on site. We are soliciting 

comment on whether the fugitive emission requirements should only apply to that 

subset.”

- “Based on this information, we solicit comment on whether the fugitive emissions 

monitoring program should be limited to “gross emitters.” 

-

4. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification of any potential perverse 

incentives for operators to avoid finding or reporting leaks in relation to monitoring and 

reporting fugitive emissions.

EPA RESPONSE: 

EPA shares these concerns. In effort to ensure that fugitive emissions will be found when 

using OGI, we are proposing that all OGI operators develop fugitive emission monitoring 
EPA FOLLOW UP RESPONSE TO 8/6/2015 MEETING

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

4

plans. This plan includes daily instrument checks, determination of maximum wind speed 

during monitoring along with other specific parameters that ensure that leaks will be 

found. The monitoring plan would also require proof of inspection (i.e. still images of 

components during monitoring survey). The plan would require record keeping and 

reporting requirements to ensure compliance. We therefore believe that the methodology 

for surveying, repairing, and reporting fugitives is sufficient and that the OGI is 

optimized if all the parameters are met. §60.5397a titled “What fugitive emissions 

methane and VOC standards apply to the affected facility which is the collection of 

fugitive emissions components at a well site and the affected facility which is the 

collection of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station?” details the plan 

requirements. 

Additional Follow Up Items: 

Preamble Redline Strike Out:

EPA RESPONSE: 

EPA made suggested changes.

Preamble/Rule Language Comments:

1. Reviewer recommends adding the following language into the preamble within the 

fugitive emissions section:

a. In addition, we are requesting comment on several alternative approaches to 

fugitive emissions monitoring. Given the capability of surveying an entire site 

with OGI, we request comment on 1) requiring operators to survey an entire site, 

instead of individual emissions components, 2) a using a fixed verses a 

performance-based monitoring frequency, and 3) using a specific number of leaks 

to serve as the threshold for increasing or decreasing monitoring frequency in lieu 

of using the percentage of leaks found, and if so, what that number should be.

EPA RESPONSE: 

EPA requests comment on alternate approaches specifically: “...whether there are other fugitive 

emission detection technologies for fugitive emissions monitoring, since this is a field of 

emerging technology and major advances are expected in the near future.” EPA’s proposed 

monitoring program would require OGI monitoring of an entire site. The OGI camera can see 

multiple sources of emissions; however, only the fugitive emissions components are subject to 

repair. EPA added a solicitation for comment on the appropriateness of performance based 

monitoring frequencies. Lastly, EPA solicits comment on whether the fugitive emissions 

monitoring program should be limited to “gross emitters.” 
EPA FOLLOW UP RESPONSE TO 8/6/2015 MEETING

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

5

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Comments:

1. Reviewer recommends removing the revenue offset from the cost column and put it in the 

benefit column, adjusting the numbers accordingly throughout the RIA.

2. Reviewer recommends inserting the length of the analytic timeline in p.1-2.

3. Reviewer recommends deleting the NAAQS language in pp. 4-4 and 4-5.

4. Reviewer recommends replacing OMB’s OIRA with OMB on p. 4-9.

EPA RESPONSE: 

Please see the revised RIA.