Texa s Pipelin e Associatio n

Thur e Canno n Presiden t 

### Jun e 16 , 201 4 Submitte dt o oilandgas.whitepapers@epa.gov Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 120 0 Pennsylvani aAvenue , NW Washington , D.C
. 2046 0 Re : Technical Whit e Paper s o n Potentiall y Significan t Source s o f

Emission s i n th e Oi l an dGa s Secto r Dea r Sir o r Madam : Th e Texa s Pipelin e Associatio n ("TPA" ) submit s th e followin g comment s o n th e Whit e Paper s release db y EP A o n Apri l 15 , 201 4 concernin g methan e an dvolatil e organi c compoun d ("VOC" ) emission s fro mleaks , compressors , an dpneumati c device s i n th e oi l an dnatura l ga s secto r (hereinafte r

referre dto a s "the Whit e Papers")
. TP A i s a n organizatio n compose do f 4 8 member s wh o gather , process , treat , an dtranspor t natural ga s an dhazardou s liquid s material s throug h intrastat e pipeline s i n Texas
. TP A member s ow n an doperat e facilitie s that ar e th e subjec t o f methan e control s discusse di n th e Whit e Papers
. Accordingly , TP A member s wil l b e impacte db y an y polic y choice s mad e b y EP A tha t migh t follo w finalizatio n o f

th e Whit e Pape r process . TP A recognize s that

EP A i s currentl y subjectin g th e Whit e Paper s t o apee r revie w proces s an dha s als o provide dan opportunity fo r person s t o fil e comment s o n th e Whit e Paper s i n general
. An y concret e regulatory o r polic y proposal s woul db e develope db y EP A onl y afte r th e Whit e Paper

peer revie w proces s i s complete
. However , TP A believe s that i t i s importan t

t o share it s general comment s o n th e Whit e Paper s at thi s earl y stage
. Whil e TP A ha s no t bee n abl e t o conduc t

acomprehensiv e revie w o f th e proposal s containe di n th e Whit e Paper s no r a comprehensiv e revie w o f th e studie s relie dupo n i n th e Whit e Papers , i t doe s offe r

general overarchin g comment s o n th e Whit e Paper s here followe db y specifi c comment s o n thre e o f th e fiv e Whit e Paper s that

directl y pertai n t o TP A members ' operations : leaks , compressors , an d pneumati c devices
. I n addition , TP A endorse s an dsupport s th e comment s o f American Petroleu mInstitute ("API" ) an dth e Interstate Natura l Ga s Associatio n o f Americ a("INGAA")
. 1 . Natura l ga s i s a ke y componen to f a strateg y t o addres s th e impact s o f climat e change , an d a s such EPA shoul d encourag e voluntar y action s rathe rtha n promulgatin g ne w prescriptiv e regulation s

60 4 Wes t 14t h Street , Austin , Texa s 7870 1 phone : (512)478-287 1 fax:(512)473-847 6 Email : thure.cannon@texaspipelines.co mTh e Whit e Paper s ar e apart o f th e Obam aAdministration' s strateg y t o reduc e methan e emissions , whic h i s aime dat takin g actio n o n th e effect s o f climat e chang e b y reducin g methan e emission s fro mlandfills , coa l mines , agricultur e sources , an dsource s i n th e oi l an dga s industry. 1 Inasmuc h a s th e Whit e Paper s wer e issue da s astep i n th e Administration' s effor t t o addres s climat e change , at

th e outset , TP A wishe s t o emphasiz e that th e natura l ga s industry , an dth e us e o f clean burnin g natura l gas , i s acrucia l componen t i n th e strateg y t o combat climat e change
. Natura l ga s i s acleane r

burnin g fue l compare dt o other fue l sources . Increase dus e o f natura l gas , fo r exampl e b y electricity generators , ha s le dt o reduction s i n domesti c greenhous e ga s ("GHG" ) emission s i n th e recen t decade. 2 Additiona l GH G emissio n reduction s wil l b e achieve d a s natura l ga s usag e increase s i n othe r sector s o f

th e economy , suc h a s transportatio n an d manufacturing
. Moreover , th e natura l ga s industry ha s itsel f achieve dsignifican t

reduction s i n methan e emission s ove r

th e las t tw o decades ; specifically , natura l ga s syste mmethan e emission s hav e decrease dalmos t

17 % fro m199 0 to 2012, 3 eve n a s natura l ga s production , processing , an d transmissio n hav e significantl y increase ddurin g th e sam e tim e period
. Thi s progres s ha s bee n th e resul t o f voluntary efforts , no t

federa l regulations
. Operator s hav e both an economi c an dasafety incentiv e t o reduc e losse s o f natura l ga s i n th e processing , transmission , an ddelivery sectors
. Thu s i t i s unnecessary t o institut e ane w regulatory program that woul dprescrib e method s t o cur b leak s o r

other losses ; operator s ar e alread y implementin g voluntar y method s t o reduc e leak s an demissions , an dthes e effort s hav e bee n successfu l becaus e operator s ar e fre e t o implemen t whateve r

method s ar e bes t

suite dt o thei r

ow n particula r facilities
. Instea dEP A shoul dloo k t o voluntary o r

cooperativ e program s that achiev e th e same en dresult
. I n thi s regar dw e woul dals o poin t t o find-and-fi x initiative s that hav e bee n use di n th e pas t b y th e Texa s Commissio n o n Environmenta l Quality ("TCEQ" ) a s an exampl e o f an effor t that effectivel y reduce demission s throug h cooperativ e effort s betwee n governmen t an d privat e industry
. Whe n TCE Q fly-over s detecte dhig h emission s level s i n agive n area , TCE Q ha s contacte dth e operator s that coul db e responsibl e fo r th e emission s s o that

th e operator s can make any necessar

y correction s to stop th e emissions
. I n on e instance , suc h a n effor t i n th e Housto n Shi p Channe l resulte di n reduction s o f VO C emission s o f

7,00 0 ton s pe r

year . An y prescriptiv e regulation s i n thi s are awoul dboth reduc e operators ' flexibility an d woul dundoubtedl y hav e th e ancillary effec t o f raisin g operationa l costs , thu s contributin g t o a ris e i n natura l ga s prices
. On e o f th e mai n reason s wh y us e o f natura l ga s i s increasin g i s that i t i s arelativel y inexpensiv e domesti c resource . Us e o f natura l ga s a s afue l result s i n lowe r GH G emission s upo n combustio n relativ e t o other fue l choices
. A s such , i t woul db e unfortunat e i f
"Climat e Actio n Plan , Strateg y t o Reduc e Methan e Emissions, " Marc h 2014 , available a t http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strateg y to_reduce_methane_emissionsj2014-03

- 28_fmal.pdf
. 2 See, e.g., "Leveragin g Natura l Ga s t o Reduc e Greenhous e Ga s Emissions, " Cente r fo r Climate an d Energ y Solutions , Jun e 201 3 a t 1 , 20 , available a t

http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/leveraging-natural

gas-reduce-ghg-emissions.pdf
. 3 Se e "Inventor

y o f U.S
. Greenhous e Ga s Emission s an dSinks : 1990-2012, " EP A 430-R-14-00 3 (Apri l 15 , 2014) , Executiv e Summar y a

t ES-13-14 , available a t http://www.epa
. gov/climatechange/ghgemiss i ons/usi n ventorvreport.html
.

### EPA' s promulgatio n o f ne w regulation s undul y burdene dth e natura l ga s industr y an dresulte di n highe r price s fo r

natura l gas , thu s reducin g th e economi c incentive s t o us e natura l ga s that currentl y exist
. EP A shoul dencourag e industry participant s t o engag e i n voluntar y / cooperativ e action s t o reduc e methan e an dVO C emissions , rathe r tha n promulgatin g ne w regulation s that woul dprescrib e costl y reduction s an dth e method s that woul db e require dt o achiev e them
. 2 . Th e Whit e Paper s contai n variou s flaw s an d inconsistencie s tha tlimi tthei r usefulnes s a s a sourc e o f informatio n upo n whic h th e consideratio n o f methan e reductio n regulation s ma y b e based . W e not e that

EP A ha s characterize dth e Whit e Paper revie w proces s a s amajo r ste p i n th e developmen t

o f strategie s t o reduc e methan e emissions
. EP A ha s indicate dthat i t intend s t o us e th e informatio n containe di n th e Whit e Papers , an dth e underlyin g studie s t o whic h th e Whit e Paper s refer , t o infor mit s action s goin g forward , whic h action s coul dinclud e th e promulgatio n o f ne w regulations
. TPA urge s EPA to wor

k wit h industr y befor e th e agenc y take s any step s i n respons e to th e finding s reporte di n th e Whit e Papers
. W e dee mi t t o b e crucial that , prio r t o th e consideratio n o f

an y futur e polic y choice s suc h a s th e possibl e promulgatio n o f ne w regulations , EPA obtai n aful l an dcomplet e understandin g bot

h o f operational processe s i n th e oi l an dga s industry an do f

potentia l cost s o r

logistica l issue s that

migh t b e cause db y ne w regulations
. Activel y engagin g knowledgeabl e stakeholder s suc h a s industry representative s i n th e development

o f any potentia

l approache s to encouragin g voluntar y reduction s o f

methan e emissions , o r

th e promulgatio n o f

ne w rules , wil l increas e th e probability that suc h ne w policie s wil l b e targete dan dnarrowl y focused ; a s oppose dt o police s that are broa dan dundul y burdensome
. Ou r emphasi s o n th e nee dfo r continue dactiv e industry participatio n i n th e consideratio n o f an y futur e polic y choice s that EP A migh t

make i s base di n par

t o n ou r revie w o f

th e White Paper s her e at

issue
. EP A ha s indicate dthat th e conten t

o f th e White Paper s wil l b e importan t i n informin g futur e EP A effort s t o reduc e methan e emissions , ye t w e believ e that

th e Whit e Paper s suffe r fro msom e overarchin g flaw s that substantiall y reduc e thei r effectivenes s an dusefulnes s a s an informationa l tool
. Ou r general concern s regardin g th e Whit e Paper s ar e discusse dbelow
. a . I ti s difficul to rimpossibl e t o dra w accurat e conclusion s fro m informatio n presente d i n th e Whit e Papers , du e t o inconsistencie s tha texis tfro m on e repor tto th e next . First , i t i s very difficul t

t o follo w th e Whit e Papers ' discussio n o f th e variou s studie s bein g referenced
. There i s n o conversio n o f th e measurement s an dcalculation s i n th e studies , meanin g that

"apple s t o apples " comparison s fro mon e report t o th e nex t

ar e no t possible
. Emission s calculation s ar e state di n varyin g measurements , e.g., Mscf/yr , MT/yr , scf7day/compressor , tons/compressor/year , scfy/device , o r scfy/plant , t o nam e afew ; thi s make s i t very difficul t

t o dra w aconsisten t

comparativ e pictur e o f

emission s o r

potential emission s reduction s fro mstud y t o study
. Moreover , th e measurement s themselve s ar e calculate di nvariou s ways , e.g. som e b y direc t measurement , som e b y us e o f emissio n factors , an dsome b y th e us e o f

Bes t Availabl e Monitorin g Method s ("BAMM")
. Th e ability t o compare result s fro mon e report t o th e nex t

i s furthe r

complicate db y th e fac t that i t i s no t alway s clea

r what sor t o f component s compris e th e variou s categorical groupings , i.e. production , processing , transmission , storage , an ddistribution
. A n exampl e o f thi s i s th e categorizatio n o f gatherin g an dboostin g facilities : o n occasio n i t i s no t clea r whethe r suc h facilitie s ar e groupe dwithi n th e statistic s fo r productio n o r

fo r processing
. Uncertaintie s suc h a s thes e mak e i t

har dt o us e th e result s o f th e reference dreport s i n an y meaningfu l way . Ye t anothe r issu e i n thi s regar di s tha t th e univers e o f

facilitie s bein g examine dvarie s widel y fro mstud y t o study
. Some studie s purpor t t o calculat e results , e.g. methan e emissions , fro mal l domesti c sources , whil e other s (e.g. th e mandatory GH G reportin g programresults ) onl y captur e informatio n fro msource s meetin g th e program' s ton s pe r yea r reportin g threshold
. Stil l other report s wer e extremel y localize di n nature , suc h a s th e URS/University o f Texa s report

o n compresso r

methan e emissio n factors , whic h measure donl y 1 1 facilitie s i n Texa s an dNe w Mexico , o r

th e Marcellu s Shal e pneumati c devic e emission s report , whic h focuse donl y o n a singl e shal e play
. Localize dstudie s suc h a s thes e may b e o f limite dus e i n understandin g operation s i n othe r

part s o f th e country , wher e operatin g condition s may b e fundamentall y different
. A t aminimum , EP A shoul dreconcil e an dharmoniz e th e figure s an destimate s se t fort h i n th e variou s studie s befor e th e agenc y draw s an y conclusion s abou t emission s levels , appropriat e emission s reductio n strategies , an dcost s associate dwith implementatio n o f suc h strategies
. Unti l thi s i s done , i t

wil l b e very difficul t

fo r th e agenc y o r

thir dpartie s t o understan dth e nuance s i n th e underlyin g informatio n presente di n th e variou s studie s reviewe di n th e Whit e Paper s an dt o determin e appropriat e regulatory o r polic y response s t o th e data
. b . Th e Whit e Paper s omitte d th e inclusio n o f relevan tan d curren temission s studie s tha twoul d furthe r infor m it s decisio n makin g process . Th e White Paper s summariz e some , bu t b y n o mean s all , o f

th e curren t

studie s concernin g methan e emission s an dpotential reduction measure s i n th e oi l an dga s industry
. TP A i s no t aware o f th e criteri autilize db y EP A i n th e selectio n o f som e relevan t

ai r emission s studie s o r report s bu t

no t others
. W e reques t

that EP A provid e an explanatio n a s t o wh y i t chos e t o revie w certai n report s an dexclud e others
. W e urg e EP A t o refrai n fro mplacin g undu e weigh t o n th e limite dinformatio n no w se t fort h i n th e variou s Whit e Papers , a s the y represen t apartia l bu t no t acomplete vie w o f

availabl e information , an dothe r extan t report s may dra w differen t conclusion s o n th e sam e subjec t matter
. Fo r example , th e Whit e Paper s fai l t o referenc e pertinen t source s o f

informatio n regardin g cost-effectiv e method s o f reducin g methan e emissions
. Thi s topi c ha s bee n reviewe d b y th e International Petroleu mIndustry Environmenta l Conservatio n Association 4 an dth e
4 Se e "Oil an dNatura l Ga s Industry Guideline s fo r Greenhous e Ga s Reductio n Projects, " (Marc h 2007) , available a t

http://www.ipieca.org/publication/oil-aiid-natural-gas-industry-guidelines-greenhouse-gas

reduction-proiects
.Intergovernmenta l Pane l o n Climat e Change, 5 amon g others , ye t n o mentio n o f

thes e review s i s mad e i n th e Whit e Papers
. Similarly , th e Whit e Paper s d o no t tak e int o accoun t

th e ongoin g serie s o f methan e report s bein g produce db y th e Environmenta l Defens e Fun di n collaboratio n wit h representative s fro mth e oi l an dga s industry an dacademia ; thi s effor t ha s already resulte d i n report s o n methan e emission s durin g productio n o f natura l ga s an do n methan e emission s i n Colorado , an dfutur e report s wil l addres s th e extent o f methan e emission s i n othe r part s o f th e natura l ga s suppl y chain , includin g th e transmission , storage , gathering , an dprocessin g segment s o f

th e industry
. Anothe r repor t that EP A fail s t o referenc e i s arecen t stud y b y Eastern Researc h Grou p ("ERG" ) whic h develope dcounty
- an dregion-specifi c emissio n factor s fo r estimatin g condensat e storag e tan k emission s fo r

differen t area s i n Texas
. Th e ER G repor t correcte dan inaccurate 33. 3 Ib s VOC/bb l emissio n facto r fo r condensat

e storag e tank s tha

t hadbee n use db y TCEQ , whic h i n tur n wa s derive dfro ma200 6 stud y prepare db y UR S Corporatio n fo r th e Housto n Advanc e Researc h Cente r ("HARC")
. Th e UR S /

HAR C stud y wa s widel y considere d t o b e erroneous , an dth e 33. 3 Ib s VOC/bb l emissio n facto r wa s viewe da s bein g fa r to o conservativ e an dthu s to o high
. Respondin g t o widesprea dcriticis mo f th e 33. 3 Ib s VOC/bb l emissio n factor , TCE Q contracte dwit h ER G to conduc t

ane w stud

y o n condensat

e storag e tan k emission s fo r

differen t region s i n Texas
. ER G analyze da n extensiv e amoun t o f information , muc h o f whic h ha dbecome availabl e sinc e th e UR S / HAR C repor

t wa s issued , includin g TCEQ' s Barnet

t Shal e Phas e I I Special Inventor y data ; availabl e literatur e containin g dat ao n emission s testin g an demission s estimate s fo r condensate tank s i n Texas ; th e result s o f phon e survey s o f

Texa s condensate producers ; an dadditional dat ao n emission s estimate s obtaine d fro mseveral recen t

studie s evaluatin g condensate storag e tan k emissions
. TCE Q publishe dth e ER G repor

t o n Octobe

r 24 , 2012, 6 an damon g th e report' s conclusion s wa s that th e appropriate Productio n Weighte dEmissio n Factor s fo r us e i n Texa s were substantiall y lowe r tha n th e 33. 3 Ib s VOC/bb l facto r

containe di n th e UR S /

HAR C report
. Thi s report i s importan t

i n assessin g VO C emission s fro mstorag e tank s an da s suc h i t shoul db e considere db y EP A befor e th e agenc y make s an y additiona l polic y choice s relate dt o reductio n o f VO C emission s fro mstorag e tanks
. W e urg e EP A to conduc t acomprehensiv e revie w an danalysi s o f al l pertinen t

studie s i n th e Whit e Pape r

proces s befor e th e agenc y make s an y futur e polic y choice s relate dt o reducin g methan e o r

VO C emissions
. Only i f thi s i s don e wil l EP A an dth e regulate dcommunity hav e befor e i t th e mos t up-to-dat e an dcurren t

analysi s o f

emissions , an dpotentia l emissio n reductio n opportunities , presen t

i n th e oi l an dga s industry
. c . Th e Whit e Paper s fai l t o consistentl y recogniz e tha trecovere d produc tdu e t o methan e emissio n reduction s d o no talway s benefi tth e owne r o f th e site , no r

5 Se e "Climat

e Chang e 2007, " Fourt

h Assessmen

t Repor t (AR4 ) o f th e Unite dNation s Intergovernmenta l Pane l o n Climate Change , Synthesi s Report , available a t http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment

report/ar4/syr/ar4 svr.pdf
. 6 Th e ER G repor

t i s availabl e a

t https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/ozone/pApp B AreaSourceCondensateT a nkpdf
.

### d o the y tak e int o accoun tal l relevan tcost s associate d wit h step s t o reduc e emissions . Anothe r overarchin g concern i s that th e Whit e Papers ' discussio n o f potentia l economi c benefi t that asit e operato r

may realiz e b y reducin g emission s shoul dalway s take int o accoun t th e potential that

th e site operato r

may no t ow n th e natura l ga s throughput
. Whe n thi s i s th e case , th e sit e operato r

doe s no t

stan dt o realiz e an economi c benefi t throug h emission s reductions
. W e not e that

th e Whit e Paper s d o tak e thi s int o accoun t o n at leas t on e occasion, 7 

### bu t thi s i s an importan t

facto r that EP A shoul dalway s tak e int o accoun t whe n assessin g asit e operator' s potential saving s throug h emissio n reductions : i f an operato r

doe s no t ow n th e gas , i t wil l no t receiv e th e correspondin g benefi t o f th e valu e o f

recovere dproduct
. I n addition , TP A i s concerne dthat th e Whit e Paper s d o no t accuratel y reflec t

al l o f th e cost s associate dwit

h equipmen t

maintenance , repair , an dreplacement
. A t variou s point s th e Whit e Paper s se t

fort h monetary amount s purportedl y representin g operators ' cost s t o take step s t o reduc e emissions , e.g. replacin g we t seal s with dry seal s o n centrifuga l compressors , replacin g ro dpackin g o n reciprocatin g compressors , o r replacin g high-blee dpneumati c controller s wit h low-blee dcontrollers
. Bu t i t doe s no t appear that th e cost s associate dwith suc h step s ar e full y accounte dfo r

i n th e Whit e Papers , becaus e fo r exampl e th e cost s associate dwit h equipmen t downtim e are no t

included
. I n short , equipmen t o r labo r expense s are certainl y apar t o f th e cos t associate dwith implementin g th e step s suggeste db y EP A i n th e Whit e Papers , bu t th e cost s b y n o mean s en dthere
. An y realisti c assessmen t o f th e overal l cost s associate dwit h takin g step s to reduc e emission s shoul db e assesse db y EPA i n conjunctio n wit h industr y stakeholder s s o that ther e i s an accurate accountin g o f al l relevan t

costs
. d . EPA shoul d remai n ope n t o comment s o n th e Whit e Paper s an d revis e the m befor e basin g an y fina l polic y decision s o n them . I n summary , w e believ e that issue s suc h a s thos e se t

fort h abov e limi t

th e usefulnes s o f th e Whit e Papers , a s currentl y drafted , a s asourc e o f informatio n upo n whic h t o bas e an y futur e polic y decisions , suc h a s th e promulgatio n o f ne w methan e reductio n regulations
. Accordingly , w e woul dcautio n agains t over-relianc e o n th e curren t draft s o f th e Whit e Papers
. W e woul d urg e EP A t o remai n ope n t o revision s an daddition s t o thei r conten t befor e an y fina l policie s ar e developed
. Onc e agai n w e woul dstrongl y recommen dthat EP A engag e i n clos e communicatio n with industry representative s i n th e cours e o f an y agenc y polic y o r

rulemakin g initiatives , s o tha t industr y processe s an dpotential economi c impac t o f ne w regulations , ar e full y understoo db y th e agency . I n addition , w e woul durg e EP A t o finaliz e it s dat acollectio n throug h th e comprehensiv e GH G reportin g rul e program , i.e. Subpar t W , befor e considerin g whether additiona l regulation s aime dat reducin g methan e emission s fro mth e oi l an dga s industry ar e necessary . 3 . TPA' s comment s o n th e individua l Whit e Papers .

7 

### Se e "Oi l an dNatura l Ga s Sector

Compressors, " Repor

t fo r Oi l an dNatura l Ga s Secto r Compressor s Revie w Panel , Apri l 2014 , a t 38
.TPA' s abilit y t o full y analyz e th e White Paper s wa s hindere db y th e shor t amoun t o f tim e provide dfo r

th e filin g o f

comments
. A complet e analysi s woul dhav e necessitate da n in-dept h revie w no t

jus t o f th e Whit e Paper s themselve s bu t eac h an dever

y repor t reference di n th e Whit e Paper s - task s that

woul dhav e require dfar mor e tim e tha n wa s availabl e t o reviewer s give n EPA' s adherenc e to it s Jun e 16 , 201 4 comment deadline. 8 Accordingly , TPA' s response s to th e individua l Whit e Paper s wil l b e limite dt o thos e area s o f particula r concer n t o TPA , an dw e adop t an dincorporat e th e comment s file db y th e AP I an dINGAA
. a . Leaks . Th e Whit e Pape r

addressin g leak s incorrectl y assume s tha t i t i s alway s i n th e operator' s economi c interes t

t o repai r alea k a s soo n a s i t

i s discovered
. EP A fail s t o conside r th e fac t that , i n agive n circumstance , afacility may hav e t o shu t dow n operation s s o that

alea k repai r can b e accomplished
. Th e downtim e associate dwith lea k repai r result s i n los t

economi c opportunity , whic h may outweig h an y economi c benefi t gaine db y repairin g th e leak
. Similarly , i n agive n situatio n th e cos t

o f repai r may fa r outweig h th e valu e o f

th e ga s bein g emitted
. EP A itsel f ha s acknowledge dthat

i t make s economi c sens e t o repai r some leak s bu t

no t others ; thi s recognitio n i s on e o f th e base s o f

aDirecte dInspectio n an dMaintenanc e ("DI&M" ) approac h t o lea k repair s at compresso r

stations , whic h EP A ha s characterize da s a"proven , cost-effectiv e way t o detect , measure , prioritize , an drepai r equipmen t

leak s t o reduc e methan e emissions." 9 A s EP A ha s noted : Lea

k measurement s .. . mus t

b e evaluate dt o pinpoin t

th e leakin g component s tha t are cost-effectiv e to repair
. Leak s are prioritize db y comparin g th e valu e o f th e natura l ga s los t

with th e estimate dcos t

i n parts , labor , an dequipmen t downtim e t o fi x th e leak
. Some leak s can b e fixe do n th e spo t b y simpl y tightenin g a connection
. Other

repair s ar e more complicate dan drequir e equipmen t downtim e o r ne w parts
. Fo r

thes e repairs , operator s ma y choos e to attac h identificatio n markers , s o that

th e leak s can b e fixe dlate r i f th e repai r

cost s are warranted. 1 0 Thus , whil e some facility operator s hav e an economi c incentiv e t o preven t los s o f natura l gas , EPA' s discussio n o f

th e economi c incentive s fo r operator s to repai r

leaks , an dit s discussio n o f th e cost s involved , shoul dno t assum e that

i t i s alway s i n an operator' s economi c interes t t o immediatel y repai r

leak s whe n the y are detected
. I n addition , i n som e instance s repairin g alea k can resul t

i n mor e emission s than th e lea k itself ; i n thi s regar dw e not e that i n on e TCE Q regulatio n whe n arepai r o f alea k woul dgenerate mor e emission s tha n th e lea k at issue , th e

8 B y letter

date dMa

y 15 , 2014 , TP A requeste da n extensio n o f

time fo r th e filin g o f

thes e comments , notin g that

eac h o f th e Whit e Paper s raise dnumerou s issue s tha t woul drequir e commenter s t o undertak e adetaile danalysi s an dpresent detaile deconomi c an dtechnical response s t o addres s th e issue s raised
. EP A di dno t

gran t tha t request
. 9 "Directe dInspectio n an dMaintenanc e a t Compresso r

Stations, " Lesson s Learne dfro mNatura l Ga s STARPartners , EP A 430-B-03-00 8 (Octobe r 2003 ) a

t 1 , available a t http://epa.gov/gasstar/documcnts/l l dimcompstat.pdf
. 1 0 Id
. a t 5 ; se e also id

. a t 1 , 4- 5 (on e o f

th e step s i n th e DI& M approac h i s identifyin g candidate s fo r cost
effectiv e repair)
.repai r

may b e delaye dunti l th e nex t schedule dshutdown. 1 1 Accordingly , EPA' s assessmen t o f th e economi c o r

environmenta l benefit s o f lea k repai r shoul dbea

r i n min dno t

onl y that i t may no t b e economicall y advantageou s t o immediatel y repai r ever y lea k that i s found , bu t

als o that i t may b e mor e beneficia l t o th e environmen t i n agive n circumstanc e i f lea k repai r i s delaye dunti l suc h tim e a s th e repai r

can b e accomplishe dwithou t an unnecessar

y increas e i n emissions
. Anothe r fla w i n th e Whit e Papers ' assessmen t o f th e economi c benefit s o f stoppin g leak s i s th e fac t

that th e valu e o f

leake dnatura l ga s i s ofte n unrealisticall y inflate di n th e cite dreports
. I t i s commo n knowledg e that th e pric e o f

natura l ga s ha s significantl y decrease di n recen t years , ye t thes e pric e decrease s ar e no t alway s reflecte di n th e cite dreport s whic h purport t o sho w th e valu e t o th e operato r

i n repairin g leaks
. Studie s puttin g th e valu e o f save dnatura l ga s at

figure s suc h a s $7.15/Mcf 1 2 ar e unrealisti c an dd o no t reflec t curren t natura l ga s prices
. A s aresult , suc h studie s overestimat e th e economi c valu e o f lea k repair
. TP A als o disagree s with th e Whit e Paper' s inclusio n o f "ambient/mobil e monitoring " a s an availabl e metho do f

lea k detection
. A s an exampl e o f suc h technology , EP A discusse s th e agency' s Geospatial Measuremen t o f Ai r Pollutio n ("GMAP" ) program. 1 3 Suc h technolog y i s no t ausefu l too k

i n lea k detectio n becaus e i t

doe s no t identif y th e specific sourc e o f

th e leak , i.e. th e leakin g component
. Rather , i t merel y identifie s atmospheri c methan e an destimat e emission s that may b e attributabl e t o an upwin dsourc e o r sources . Becaus e multipl e oi l an dga s site s are ofte n locate dclos e t o on e another , th e ambient/mobil e monitorin g technolog y may detec t emission s fro mmultipl e sites , eve n thos e owne db y differen t companies
. Thi s i s th e opposite o f th e precisio n that

i s ofte n require di n prope r lea k detection
. Effectiv e lea k detectio n technolog y enable s a n operato r

to identif

y th e sourc e o f

th e leak , e.g. a

n infrare dcamer ao r

audio , visual , an dolfactor y ("AVO" ) methods
. Ambient/mobil e monitorin g doe s no t fulfil l th e requiremen t

t o identif y th e leak

sourc e an da s suc h i t

shoul dno t

b e identifie da s alea

k detectio n technology
. Finally , TP A urge s EP A t o refrai n fro mpromulgatin g an y regulation s that woul drequir e operator s t o utiliz e traditiona l lea k detectio n an drepai r

("LDAR" ) methods , includin g th e us e o f Metho d21 , t o detec t

leak s at thei r facilities
. Th e us e o f

LDA Ri s no t

alway s necessar

y o r cos t effective
. Indeed , EP A itsel f note s that

"typicall y 20 % o f

th e to p leakin g component s accoun t fo r approximatel y 80 % o f th e emission s fro mafacility." 1 EPA' s focu s shoul db e o n th e detectio n an drepai r

o f thi s grou p o f

larg e leaks , an dsuc h larg e leak s can b e detecte db y th e us e

1 1 Se e 3 0 Tex
. Admin
. Cod e § 106.352(e)(5)(B ) (providin g that "[ajl l component s foun dt o b e leakin g shal l b e repaired
. Ever

y reasonabl e effor t

shal l b e mad e t o repair

aleakin g component
. Al l leak s no t repaire dimmediatel y shal l b e tagge do r note di n alog
. A t

manne dsites , leak s shal l b e repaire dn o later than 3 0 day s afte r

th e lea k i s found
. A t

unmanne dsites , leak s shal l b e repaire dn o late r than 6 0 day s afte r th e lea k i s found. I f

th e repai r o f acomponent

woul drequir e auni t

shutdown , whic h woul dcreate mor e emission s than th e repair

woul deliminate , th e repair ma y b e delaye dunti l th e next shutdown.")
. TPA urge s EP A t o ensure that

asimilar , common-sens e approac h i s incorporate dint o an y regulation s that th e agenc y may promulgat e i n th e future
. 1 2 Se e "Oi l an dNatura l Ga s Sector

Leaks, " Repor

t fo r Oi l an dNatura l Ga s Sector Leak s Revie w Panel , Apri l 2014 , a

t 48
. 1 3 Id. a t 45
. 14 Id. at 50.o f

AV O method s o r

FLI Rcameras , withou t th e nee dfo r

th e pinpoin t

detectio n provide db y traditional LDA R/

Metho d21
. AV O ha s bee n prove n to b e a n effectiv e metho do f

lea k detectio n i n th e oi l an dga s industry ; inspector s an doperator s consistentl y detec t leak s usin g thi s metho do n adail y basis
. I t i s mor e cos t

effective , require s les s specialize dtrainin g an dn o equipment , an di t

can b e conducte db y individual s that ar e already onsit e fo r

dail y duties
. Ther e i s n o nee dfo r

mandate dus e o f

traditiona l LDA R/

Metho d21
. b . Compressors . TP A i s concerne dwith EPA' s conclusion s regardin g th e efficac y o f vapo r recovery uni t ("VRU" ) system s t o contro l emissions
. Specifically , th e White Pape r state s that

emission s can b e capture dfro mreciprocatin g compresso r ro dpackin g vent s b y manifoldin g th e ven t lin e t o a VR U system. 1 5 Whil e thi s may b e tru e i n som e cases , th e Whit e Pape r fail s t o acknowledg e that us e o f aVRU t o captur e emission s i s no t alway s feasible
. Fo r example , th e us e o f

aVR U syste mpresent s safety an doperationa l issue s that mus t b e considered
. Th e influ x o f oxyge n associate dwith aVR U can pos e th e ris k o f explosio n an dcan caus e pipelin e corrosion
. I n addition , i f aVR U syste mwere use do n ro dpackin g ven t lines , there i s th e possibility that amalfunctio n coul doccu r that woul dcaus e negativ e pressur e t o misdirec t th e natura l ga s bac k

towar dth e ro dpacking , thu s caus e th e are asurroundin g th e compresso r

t o b e engulfe di n natura l ga s an dcreatin g afir e hazard
. Th e us e o f

aVR U syste mwoul dals o hav e th e effec t o f increasin g emission s i n some cases . Fo r

example , i f

aVRU were use dt o capture ro dpackin g emissions , th e operato r woul d hav e t o instal l acompresso r t o compres s th e leakag e t o th e pressur e rat e necessar y t o pip e i t

t o th e VRU , resultin g i n additional emissions
. Further , engin e oil s an dlubricant s mus t b e remove d befor e the y reac h th e compresso r associate dwith th e VR U syste mbecaus e the y woul ddamag e th e compresso r

equipment

i f the y reache dth e compressor . Accordingly , control s woul dhav e to b e installe dtha t

woul dshu t

th e syste mdow n i f

liqui dwer e detecte di n th e line
. An y subsequen t blowdow n o f

th e system s that

ha dbee n shu t

dow n woul dresul t

i n th e releas e o f

additiona l emission s t o th e atmosphere
. I n short , TP A doe s no t

believ e tha t

th e Whit e Paper s hav e sufficientl y considere dth e safety , operational , o r

environmenta l issue s associate dwit h attemptin g t o transfe r

th e technolog y o f vapo r recovery fo r

us e o n ro dpackin g ven t lines
. c . Pneumati c devices . I n additio n t o th e comment s submitte db y AP I an dINGA A regardin g EPA' s Whit e Pape r o n pneumati c devices , TP A believe s that i t i s importan t

t o emphasiz e th e impracticability o f th e White Papers ' suggestio n that operator s conver

t to pneumati c device s drive n b y compresse dai r o r t o solar-powere dsystems
. Bot h o f thes e purporte dalternative s presen t significan t

reliability issues
.

5 Se e "Oi l an dNatura l Ga s Secto

r Compressors, " Repor

t for Oi l an dNatura l Ga s Sector Compressor s Revie w Panel , Apri l 2014 , a t 34-35
.

### Th e us e o f compresse dai r

require s th e installatio n o f equipmen t

t o compres s an dcontro l th e pressure dair
. A ke y componen t o f acompresse dai r

syste mi s an electri c compressor , meanin g that

reliabl e electricit

y i s essential t o th e prope r continuou s functionin g o f th e system
. Th e proble mi s that

operators , particularl y thos e i n remot e areas , d o no t alway s hav e acces s t o consistentl y reliabl e electri c power . Electricity outage s ar e no t uncommon , especiall y i n rura l area s where electricit

y may b e supplie db y rura l electri c cooperative s whos e system s may b e particularl y susceptibl e t o outages
. O f course , back-u p system s can b e implemented , bu t suc h system s (e.g. powere db y diese l fuel ) wil l suppl y powe r fo r onl y alimite dperio do f

time , afte r whic h th e absenc e o f

electricity wil l forc e th e operato r t o shu t th e syste mdown
. This , i n turn , ca n resul t i n ablowdown , whic h ironicall y result s i n increase dmethan e emissions
. Th e same unreliability concern s appl y t o solar-powere dsystems
. Sola r powe r can b e an effectiv e sourc e o f energ y i n certai n limite dsituations , bu t b y it s ver y natur e i t

i s no t acontinuou s powe r

sourc e an d thu s i s inherentl y unreliable
. TP A appreciate s th e fac t

tha t alternativ e source s o f

energ y may b e availabl e i n certai n circumstances , an dwher e thi s i s th e case , th e feasibility o f takin g advantag e o f

suc h alternativ e source s i s wort

h exploring
. Bu t

i n n o event

shoul dreliabilit y b e sacrificed , becaus e withou t continuou s powe r

th e productio n an dtransmissio n o f natura l ga s canno t

tak e place
. Accordingly , EP A shoul dno t assum e that

switchin g t o instrumen t

ai r o r sola r powe r i s anythin g mor e tha n apossibl e alternativ e tha t may , i n certai n cases , b e aviabl e optio n t o an operator
. I n n o even t shoul dth e us e o f

suc h alternative s b e mandated
. 4 . TPA endorse s an d adopt s th e comment s submitte d b y AP I an d INGAA . A s note dabove , thes e comment s addres s some bu t no t al l o f TPA' s concern s regardin g EPA' s methan e Whit e Papers
. Man y o f TPA' s concern s ar e addresse di n th e comment s file db y AP I an dINGAA , TP A expressl y adopt s an dendorse s thos e comment s a s i f full y state dherein
. W e appreciate th e opportunity t o submi t thes e comments
. Your s t i

Thur e Canno n Presiden t



### 1 0