### 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

- A S30

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 whit e 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

fractu ring. 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 compl eted 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 well s 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 wit h quarterly, semiannual, and annual monitoring program frequencies.”

- “That said, w e 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 em ission 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 requi rements 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 b e 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 no n

covered 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 fu gitive 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 threshol d 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 O GI 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. T he 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 wel ls 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 fugi tive 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 operato r 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 auth ority 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 station s 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 fug i tive emissions sources on site. We are solici ting

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 recommend s 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 fugi tive 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 plan s . This plan includes daily instrument checks, determination of maximum wind speed during monitoring along with other specific par ameters 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 fa cility 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:

Preamb le 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 individ ual 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 tec hnology 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 t he 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.