-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/30/2010 09:25PM ----- To: Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <japplekamp@gpaglobal.org>, "Hastie, Roderick" <rhastie@hunton.com>, "Stone, Scott J." <sstone@hunton.com>, "Currier, Patrick T." <pcurrier@hunton.com> From: "Wehrum, William L." <wwehrum@hunton.com> Sent by: "Boyd, Tira" <tboyd@hunton.com> Date: 10/29/2010 04:21PM Subject: Request for Administrative Reconsideration of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
(See attached file: GPA RICE Petition for Reconsideration.pdf) Please find attached a copy of the Request for Administrative Reconsideration of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines submitted by the Gas Processors Association.

Tira J. Boyd Professional Assistant tboyd@hunton.com Hunton & Williams LLP 1900K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 955-1961 Fax: (202) 778-2201 www.hunton.com

This communication is confidential and is intended to be privileged pursuant to applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify Hunton & Williams LLP immediately by telephone (877-374-4937) and by electronic mail to: help_desk@hunton.com and then delete this message and all copies and backups thereof.October 2 9 , 2010

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460

Re: Request for Administrative Reconsiderat io n of th e National Emissio n Standards for Hazardous A ir Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Co mbust io n Engines Dear Administrator Jackson: The Gas Processors Associat io n (“GPA”) hereby requests th at th e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or the “Agency”) reconsider certain aspects of the recent ly

- signed National Emissio n Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 51570 (August 20, 2010) (“ RICE MACT ”)

. Pursuant to § 307(d)(7)(B) of th e Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7 )(B), where it is impract icable to raise an objection during the period of public co mment or if the g rounds for such an object io n arise af ter the public comment period (but within the time specified for judicial review), and if such object io ns are of centr al relevance to the outcome of the rule, EPA is authorized to reconsider a rule. GPA is a non

- profi

t trade organizat io n made up of approximately 120 corporate members, all of who m are engaged in the processing of natural gas into merchantable pipeline gas , or in the manufacture, transportation, or further processing of liquid products fro m nat ural gas. GPA’s membership accounts for approximately 92 percent of all natural gas liquids produced by the midstream energy sector in the United States. Our member s also produce, gather, transmit, and market natural gas and natural gas liquids, and include a number of Canadian and internat io nal co mpanies that produce natural gas liquids on a global scale. As described more fully below, GPA is request ing reconsideration of seven key elements of th e final rule. These obj ect io ns arose after the clo se of th e public comment period and are of central relev ance to the outcome of the rule . Thus, reconsiderat io n is authorized and appropriate. GPA’s seven object io ns are as fo llo ws:The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

October 29, 2010 Page 2

Gas Processors Association • 6526 E. 60 th St. • Tulsa, OK 74145 Phone (918) 493

- 3872 • Fax (918) 493 -3875

www.GPAglobal.org 1. The final rule fa ils to dist inguish between rural and urban areas in imposing Maximum Achievable Control Techno lo gy (“MACT”) standard s fo r spark

- ig nit io n reciprocating int ernal co mbustion engines (“ SI RICE ”)

. 2. The final rule imposes mo nit oring requi rements fo r majo r and area source SI RICE that are impract icable and unreasonably costly. 3. The final rule relied on a different set of emissio ns data in establishing th e “MACT floor” fo r 4SLB SI RICE than what appeared in the proposed rule. 4. T he final rule relied on a small , non - representative , and inadequate subse t of th e affected engine populat io n in establishing the MACT floor for exi st ing SI RICE. 5. The final rule improperly relies on th e “co

- benefits” of non- HAP emissio ns reductions in setting above

- th e- flo or standards. 6. The final rule did not adequately account for variabilit y w hen setting the MACT floor. 7. The final rule fa iled to adequately account for shutdowns and malfunctions. Each of these object io n s is discussed in detail belo w. 1. The final rule fails to distinguish between rur al and urban areas in imposing MACT standard s for SI RICE. The final rule sets standards for existing SI RICE located at area sources. EPA asserts th at the final rule is authorized by CAA § 112(k)(3)(i) , which requi res EPA to li st not less than 30 HAP that, as a result of emissio ns from area sources, present the greatest threat to public healt h in t he largest number of urban areas. 75 Fed. Reg. at 51577

- 78. The final rule further states that CAA §§ 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(ii) requ ir e EPA to list area source categories that represent not less than 90 percent of the area source emissions of each of the listed HAP s, and th at CAA § 112(c) requires EPA to issue standards for listed categories under CAA § 112(d). Id

. at 51578. GPA obje cts to the final rule as i t applies to SI RICE lo cated in non

- urban areas. EPA has demonstrated in prior area source standards adopted to satisfy the requirements of CAA § 112(k) that the applicabilit y of such standards may appropriately be tailored such th at the standards apply only to the urban areas targeted by § 112(k). See 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart HH. It i s unreasonable for EPA to adopt a rule of nat io nwide applicabilit y in t his case, where it is not needed to satisfy the Agency’s minimum statutory o bligat io ns and where the Agency has not demonstrated on the record that rural engines present adverse impacts on health or the environment. In addit io n, GPA objects to the final rule as it applies to SI RICE associated with oil and gas production wells , including engines on gathering lines that convey gas to processing facilit ies . Section 112(n)(4)(B) expressly states that EPA does not have authority under CAAThe Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

October 29, 2010 Page 3

Gas Processors Association • 6526 E. 60 th St. • Tulsa, OK 74145 Phone (918) 493

- 3872 • Fax (918) 493 -3875

www.GPAglobal.org § 112(c) to list oil and gas production wells and associ ated equipment as an area source cate gory unless such operation s are located in certain metropolitan areas and the Administrator has determined that HAPs fro m such operations present more than a negligible risk of adverse effects to publi c healt h. CAA § 112(n)(4)(B). In stating “EPA believe s that sections 112(c) and 112(k) of th e CAA do not prohibit issuing area source rules of nat io nal applicabilit y, ” the final rule overlooks the plain statutory la nguage of CAA § 112(n)(4)(B) that exempts oil and gas production wells and associated equipmen t f rom § 112(c) authority except in specific ci rcumstances. Although the final rule notes that the term “associated equipment” was defined fo r the purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZ Z in t he fir st RICE MACT rule not to include stationary RICE , and that th e Agency said it took other steps in the final rule to reduce the burden on owners and operators of engines subject to the final rule, this does not change the fact th at EPA lacks statutory authorit y t o regulate such engines in t he fir st instance. 75 Fed. Reg. at 51578. The regulat io n of SI RICE located at area sources is of central relevance to th e rule , given th at GPA members operate thousands of affected engines, most of which are located in rural areas of the country. EPA’s decisio n to establish a rule of nat io nwide applicabilit y will cause the rule to apply to a significant ly greater number of engines owned or operated by GPA members th an if the rule were limited to engines in urban areas. 2. The final rule imposes monitoring requirements for major and area source SI RICE that are impracticable and unreasonably costly . The final rule requires continuous parameter monit oring systems (“CPMS”) to be installed on area source engines and imposes extensive and detailed specificat io ns fo r the installat io n and operation of the CPMS. See Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ and § 63.6625(b). These requi rements were not included in the proposed rule, so GPA members did not have the opportunit y t o submit co mments on the m during the public co mment period. These requiremen

ts are of great concern to GPA because many affected engines owned or operated by GPA members are located at remote locations, such that they are not staffed on a continuous basis and are operated from a distance. Implementation of the CPMS requirements w ill be extremely difficult and costly because compliance wit h t hese provisio ns will require mo re frequent staffing of these remote sites and could require installat io n and operation of com plex and costly remote instrumentation systems. The CPMS requiremen

ts are of central relevance to the rule because o f t he inordinate com pliance costs that will be imposed on the thousands of remote engines operated by GPA members. We also note that the final rule imposes CMPS requirements on affected engines lo cated at maj or sources. We have the same concerns for these engines as we do for area source engines with respect to the significant implementatio n difficult ie s and costs. Therefore, we request that the Agency also reconsider the CPMS requirements for affected eng ines at major sources.The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

October 29, 2010 Page 4

Gas Processors Association • 6526 E. 60 th St. • Tulsa, OK 74145 Phone (918) 493

- 3872 • Fax (918) 493 -3875

www.GPAglobal.org 3. The final rule relied on a different set of emissions data in establish ing the MACT floor for 4SLB SI RICE than the data presented in the proposed rule. The final rule establishes a MACT floor for 4

- stroke lean burn (“4SLB”) stationary SI RICE using emissio ns informat io n fro m an engine database that was not included in the proposed rule or otherwise made available for public co mment. The final rule states th at addi tional emissio ns data for stationary 4SLB SI RICE were “inadvertent ly omit ted fro m t he MACT floor analysis for the proposed rule, but have been incorporated into the analysis for the final rule, along with addit io nal emissio ns data received post

- proposal.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 51579. The final rule then states: “Stakeho lders w ho believe that further review of this informat io n is in order or necessary can pet itio n fo r reconsiderat io n of this final rule.” Id

. GPA objects to the inclusio n of th ese data aft er the close of the public co mment period b ecause further review is necess ary to determine whether the se data are accurate and representative for 4SLB SI RICE. Thi s issue is of central relevance to the rule beca use GPA members own or operate thousand s of affected 4SLB engines. Thus, an error in determining the MACT floor for 4 SLB engines would have a substant ia l impact on the compliance obligat io ns and cost of compliance of GPA’s members. 4. The final rule relied on a small, non
- representative, and inadequate subset of the affected engine population in establishing the MACT floor for existing SI RICE. T he MACT floor for 4SLB SI RICE presented in the final rule was based on emissio ns testing data fro m t he “best performing 12%” of engines. Id. The final rule announced th at EPA ranked all o f t he sources for which it had data based on thei r emissio ns and “ident ified the lowest emitt ing 12 percent of the sources based on the lowest test for each engine. ” Id . In so doing, EPA noted i

t did not use the Populat io n Database

. Id

. EPA’s failure to use informat io n contained in the Populat io n Database vio lates the Agency’s obligat io n to consider all available “emissio ns informat io n” when determining the exist ing source MACT floor for source categories with more than 30 sources. See CAA § 112(d)(3)(A). In particular, the Populat io n Databas e should have been used by the Agency to determine whether the available emissio ns testing data are representative of the performance o f th e category as a who le o r, as GPA believes, are representative of the performance of the better performers in the sour ce category . The latter determinat io n would have provided a reasonable basis for averaging all o f t he available emissio ns testing data rather than taking an average of the top 12% of the sources for which testing data are available. The Agency’s failure to take thi s approach has caused the final rule to be unreasonably skewed because the “best of the best” performers were used to set the floor, rather than simply the best performers. This issue is of central relevance to th e rule because the standards ar e much more stringent than can be just ified by the available data. Thus, the standard will impose di sproporti onate compliance requirements and costs on GPA member companies.The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

October 29, 2010 Page 5

Gas Processors Association • 6526 E. 60 th St. • Tulsa, OK 74145 Phone (918) 493

- 3872 • Fax (918) 493 -3875

www.GPAglobal.org 5. The final rule improperly relie s on the “co
- benefits” of non
- HAP emissions reduct ions in setting above
- the
- floor standards. The final rule establishes “above the floor” standards fo r 4SRB SI RICE with a greater th an 500 horsepower rating

. EPA asserted that aftertreatment controls for exist ing non

emergency 4SRB engines greater than 5 00 horsepower are readily available and feasible regardless of location . In parti cular, the Agency concl udes that non- select ive catalyt ic reduction is applicable to and generally available fo r 4SRB engines. EC/R Memorandum on MACT Floor and MACT Determin ation for Existing Stationary Non

- Emergency SI RICE <100 HP and Exist ing Stationary Emergency SI RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for Exist ing Stationary SI RICE Located at Area Sources (August 10, 2010), at 15. EPA states that the costs and econo mi c impacts of implement ing these HAP

- reducing techno lo gi es are reasonable, even though it notes that for a 750 horsepower engine the per ton cost of HAP removal is about $68,000

. Id. EPA just ifies these high costs by stating that these controls will have th e co - benefit of reducing VOC, CO, and NOx emissio ns. Id

. GPA objects to this “above the floor” standard. To begin, the cost effect iveness of applying NSCR – $ 68,000 per ton according to EPA’s own est imate

– is u nreasonably high and provides no support fo r a decisio n to go “above the floor.” In addition, the CAA unambiguously di rects EPA to consider only cost and “non

- air qualit y he al th and environmental impacts and energy requirements” in deciding whether to set a standard above the floor. Thus, cons id eration of collateral non

- HAP emissions reductions is beyond EPA’s more limited authorit y t o consider “non

- air” health and environmental impacts. This issue is of central relevance to the rule because the standards are more stringent than can be just ifi ed under the law. Thus, the standard will impose disproportionate compliance requi rements and costs on GPA member companies. 6. The final rule did not adequately account for variability when setting the MACT floor. The final rule did not adequately consider emissio ns var iabilit y in e stablishing the MACT floor f or SI RICE. The final rule stated that EPA assessed variabilit y using a statist ical approach analogous to one it developed for a wholly separate and unrelated MACT standard. 75 Fed. Reg. at 51579. E PA described this as an “upper predict ion limit” that was used in th e proposed NESHAP for Industrial, Co mmercial, and Inst it utional Bo ilers and Process Heaters. Id

. GPA objects to this statist ic al approach because th ere is nothing in the record demonstra

ting that thi s stati st ic al method produces an est imate of emissio ns variabilit y t hat reflects the actual variabilit y o f t he better performing engines in the source category. In particular, short term emissio ns performance tests typically are not designed to assess the full range of emissions that might be experienced by the given engine. Such tests typically are conducted under “normal” operating condit io ns, which would not be expected to include all lo ading condit io ns and operating rates. Thus, statistical analysis of performance testing resultsThe Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

October 29, 2010 Page 6

Gas Processors Association • 6526 E. 60 th St. • Tulsa, OK 74145 Phone (918) 493

- 3872 • Fax (918) 493 -3875

www.GPAglobal.org will not reveal the actual range of emissio ns variabilit y t hat must be factored into MACT standards. See Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. EPA , 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004). This issue is of central relevance to the rule because failure to properly account for variabilit y causes the standards to more stringent than they otherwise would be. Thus, the standard will impose disproportionate compliance requirements and costs on GPA member com panies. 7. The final r ule failed to adequately account for shutdowns and malfunctions. The final rule fa iled to adequately account for emissio ns during shutdowns and malfunct io ns. Instead, the rule imposes the standard for normal operations on emissio ns during malfunct io n and shutdown events EPA concluded that malfunct io ns should not be viewed as a di st inct operating mode and, therefore, “any emissions that occur at such times do not need to be factored into the development of CAA sect io n 112(d)standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all t imes.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 51577. EPA provides no explanat io n in eit her the proposed or final rule for its conclusion that a separate standard is not needed for shutdown. GPA objects to this approach, on th e ground s th at it is often impos sible for an engine to achieve a standard based on tests conducted during “normal” operations under th e abnormal operating condit io ns caused by a malfunction or during shutdown. While the D.C. Circuit recent ly vacated the SSM provisio ns contained in the P art 63 General Provisio ns, that decisio n does not prohibit EPA from setting separate emissions limit s or work practice standards for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunct io n . Sierra Club v. EPA , 551, F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In fact GPA contends th at EPA must set separate standards for malfunct io n and shutdown under the RICE MACT because the available informat io n shows that a standard based on normal operating condit io ns is not adequate to accommodate the more variable emissio ns that occur during shutdown and malfunct io n. This issue is of central relevance to the rule because countless affected engines owned or operated by GPA members would be held to a standard that likely cannot be achieved in practice. * * * * * * *The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

October 29, 2010 Page 7

Gas Processors Association • 6526 E. 60 th St. • Tulsa, OK 74145 Phone (918) 493

- 3872 • Fax (918) 493 -3875

www.GPAglobal.org Thank you for yo ur considerat io n of these concerns. If you have any quest io ns, do not hesi tate to contact me at 918 -493

- 3872.

Sincerely,

Jeff Applekamp Di rector, Government Affairs Gas Processors Associat io n

cc: P. Tsi

rigoti s R. Wayland M. King