***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

***EO12866_Oil and Gas CTG 2060-ZA22 Emission Reduction and Cost of Control_20150724***

Oil and Natural Gas Source Category Estimated Reasonably Available

Emissions Control Technology Emission Reduction and Cost of Control

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides that state implementation plans (SIPs) for ozone 

nonattainment (NA) areas must include reasonably available control technology (RACT) for 

sources of emissions, and stipulates that for moderate (and higher) ozone nonattainment (NA)

areas, states must revise their SIPs to include RACT for each category of volatile organic 

compound (VOC) sources covered by control techniques guidelines (CTG).1Furthermore, the 

CAA requires that SIPs for states in ozone transport regions (OTRs) must comply with and 

implement RACT with respect to all sources of VOC in the state covered by a CTG.

2

The 

proposed Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Source Category, 

henceforth the CTG, proposes recommendations for RACT for select emission sources in the oil 

and natural gas (ONG) source category.

3

The proposed CTG provides state, local and tribal air agencies (air agencies) with 

information to assist them in determining RACT for VOCs from select ONG source category

emission sources. During the development of the guidelines, the EPA evaluated the sources of 

VOC emissions from the ONG source category and the available control approaches to reduce 

these emissions, including the costs of the evaluated approaches. The EPA is recommending

RACT for compressors, natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers, natural gas-driven pneumatic 

pumps, storage vessels, equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants and fugitive emissions 

at well sites and compressor stations in the ONG source category. Table 1-1 presents a summary

of the recommended RACT level of control for each of these sources. 

Air agencies can use the recommendations in the CTG to inform their own determination 

as to what constitutes RACT for VOC emissions for the ONG source category sources included 

in the CTG. The information contained in the CTG is provided only as guidance. The CTG does 

not change, or substitute for, requirements specified in applicable sections of the CAA or the 

EPA’s regulations; nor is it a regulation itself. The CTG does not impose any requirements on 

facilities in the ONG source category. It provides only recommendations for air agencies to 

consider when they determine RACT. Air agencies are free to implement other technically-sound 

approaches that are consistent with the CAA and the EPA’s implementing regulations.

To understand the potential impact of the CTG, the EPA conducted a scoping analysis 

based on a snapshot of the existing ONG source category. While the CTG itself does not require 

facilities in the ONG source category to adopt specific control technologies, assessing the 

emission reductions and costs of the case where recommended RACTs were adopted by ONG 

sources in moderate and higher ozone NA areas and the OTR provides a reasonable basis for the 

impact of the RACT requirements ultimately determined by air agencies. Therefore, this 

document presents an assessment of the emission reductions and net expenditures required by the 

 

1 CAA Section 172(c)(1) and Section 182(b)(2)(A).

2 CAA Section 184(b)(1)(B).

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas 

Source Category. August 2015
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

2

source category in the case where all affected ONG sources that existed in 2012 adopt the 

recommended RACT. It is estimated that in this case VOC emissions would be reduced by 

approximately 114,000 tpy at an annualized net cost to the source category of approximately

$206.8 million dollars based on the CTG recommended RACT. Additionally, the recommended 

RACT is estimated to reduce methane emissions by approximately 338,000 tpy and hazardous 

air pollutants (HAP) by 4,230 tpy. 

The assessment provides a reasonable estimate of the magnitude of expected emission 

reductions and net costs to the source category associated with the proposed CTG; however there 

are limitations, including some that suggest the cost estimates may be conservative in some 

dimensions. For example, while the analysis attempts to include existing state regulations, the 

2012 snapshot may not fully account for state permit limits for individual sources that meet or 

exceed the recommended RACT level of control. Thus, the percentage of existing sources that 

are already achieving the recommended RACT level of control may be underestimated which 

would lead to fewer emission reductions and lower expected costs for owners and operators as a 

result of the CTG. Also, air agencies have the flexibility of determining RACT that may differ 

from what the EPA recommends. This flexibility allows them to potentially take advantage of 

their local conditions and implement a tailored RACT, which may lower the costs for sources in 

their jurisdiction. This analysis is based on source category averages and does not account for 

heterogeneity in sources that affect the costs or emission reductions. The resulting state and local 

regulations may also require a lower level of control or may affect a lower number of sources 

than were included in the analysis presented here. The focus on a 2012 snapshot of existing 

sources may include some sources that are no longer in use. However, any small changes to the 

existing universe of sources it is not expected to notably change the magnitude of the estimates 

in this analysis.

The document is organized as follows: 

 Section 2 presents a short discussion about the moderate or greater ozone NA and 

OTR areas impacted by RACT. 

 Sections 3 presents a summary of the information used to determine the number of 

sources, baseline emissions, emission reductions and costs. 

 Section 4 presents the methodology used to estimate baseline emissions, emission 

reductions and costs. 

 Section 5 presents a summary of the VOC RACT emission reductions and costs. 

 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

3

Table 1-1. Summary of the ONG Source Category Emission Sources and 

Proposed Recommended RACT

Emission Source Applicability RACT Requirements

1. Storage Vessels Individual storage vessel 95 percent reduction of VOC emissions from 

storage vessels with a potential to emit (PTE) 

greater than 6 tpy

2. Natural Gas-Driven 

Pneumatic Controllers

Individual continuous bleed, 

natural gas-driven pneumatic 

controller located at a natural gas 

processing plant

Must have a natural gas bleed rate of zero scfh 

(unless there are functional needs, including but 

not limited to response time, safety and positive 

actuation, requiring a bleed rate greater than zero 

scfh).

Individual continuous bleed 

natural gas-driven pneumatic 

controller located from the 

wellhead to the natural gas 

processing plant or point of 

custody transfer to an oil pipeline

Must have a natural gas bleed rate less than or 

equal to 6 scfh (unless there are functional needs, 

including but not limited to response time, safety 

and positive actuation, requiring a bleed rate 

greater than 6 scfh). 

3. Natural Gas-Driven 

Pneumatic Pumps

Individual natural gas-driven 

chemical/methanol and diaphragm 

pump located at a natural gas 

processing plant

Must have zero natural gas emissions

Individual natural gas-driven 

chemical/methanol and diaphragm 

pump located from the well site to 

the point of custody transfer to the 

natural gas transmission and 

storage segment.

If there is an existing control device at the 

location of the pneumatic pump, reduce VOC 

emissions from each gas-driven 

chemical/methanol and diaphragm pump at the 

location by 95 percent or greater. 

4. Compressors 

(Centrifugal and 

Reciprocating)

Individual reciprocating 

compressor located between the 

wellhead and point of custody 

transfer to the natural gas 

transmission and storage segment. 

Reduce VOC emissions by replacing 

reciprocating compressor rod packing after 

26,000 hours of operation or 36 months since the 

most recent rod packing replacement. 

Alternatively, route rod packing emissions to a 

process through a closed vent system under 

negative pressure. 

Individual reciprocating 

compressor located at a well site, 

or an adjacent well site and 

servicing more than one well site 

RACT would not apply.

Individual centrifugal compressor 

using wet seals that is located 

between the wellhead and point of 

custody transfer to the natural gas 

transmission and storage segment. 

Reduce VOC emissions from each centrifugal 

compressor wet seal fluid gassing system by 95 

percent or greater. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

4

Emission Source Applicability RACT Requirements

Individual centrifugal compressor 

using wet seals located at a well 

site, or an adjacent well site and 

servicing more than one well site 

RACT would not apply.

Individual centrifugal compressor 

equipped with a dry seal

RACT would not apply.

5. Equipment Leaks Equipment components in VOC 

service located at a natural gas 

processing plant

Implement the 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa 

LDAR program for natural gas processing plants 

constructed or modified on or before August 23, 

2011.

6. Fugitive Emissions Individual well site Implement a semiannual optical gas imaging 

(OGI) monitoring and repair program.

Individual compressor station 

located from the wellhead to the 

point of custody transfer to the 

natural gas transmission and 

storage segment or point of 

custody transfer or to an oil 

pipeline

Implement a semiannual OGI monitoring and 

repair program.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

5

2 MODERATE OR GREATER OZONE NA AND OTR AREAS

In order to estimate the potential moderate or greater ozone NA area and OTR area 

(referred to collectively as “RACT-impacted areas”) emission reduction impacts for the proposed 

RACT recommendations, we obtained information on U.S. ozone NA areas from the EPA’s 

Greenbook as of January 30, 2015 (http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html). The list of 

the moderate or greater ozone NA areas included in this analysis is presented in Attachment 1 to 

this memorandum. The OTR areas included in this analysis are the States of Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and the CMSA that includes the District of Columbia). 

3 INFORMATION USED TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF SOURCES 

IMPACTED BY RACT, RACT-IMPACTED AREA BASELINE EMISSIONS AND 

EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS BASED ON RACT

Activity data, baseline emissions and emission reductions per source were estimated 

based on information obtained from the following sources:

 2012 DI Desktop U.S. oil and natural gas wells information (2012 DI Desktop).4

Includes location and production information for oil and gas wells in the U.S.

Discussed further below.

 Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ). Worldwide Gas Processing (Capacities as of January 1, 

2013, and average production). June 3, 2013. (2012 Gas Processing Survey). 

Includes information on the number, location and capacities of gas processing plants 

worldwide. Discussed further below.

 Emissions information and counts for various emission sources were used from 

facility-level data submitted to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) and 

data used to calculate national emissions in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks. The published data from 2013 was used in this analysis. For the 

purposes of this document these data sources are referred to as "GHGRP" and “GHG 

Inventory”.5

 The proposed Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Source 

Category (CTG).

6

Includes information on the baseline VOC emissions per unit, 

VOC emission reductions per unit, and VOC cost of control per unit used in this 

analysis.

 The TSD for the 2015 proposed NSPS standards is referred to in this document as the 

“2015 NSPS TSD”.7

 The gas composition memorandum that was developed during the NSPS process 

 

4 DI Desktop. 2012. Drilling Info. Inc.

5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-

2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. EPA 430-R-15-004 Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html.

6

See reference 3.

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and 

Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Distribution - Background Technical Support Document for the 

Proposed Amendments to the New Source Performance Standards. June 2015.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

6

which characterizes an analysis of data to determine the gas composition and develop 

ratios for natural gas composition to be used for the various segments in the 

development of regulations for the ONG sector. This document is referred to in this 

document as the "2011 Gas Composition Memorandum".8

 All of the calculations supporting the analyses in this document are included in the 

CTG docket in the form of spreadsheets.

2012 DI Desktop Data

The EPA obtained well production data from the DI Desktop database dated February, 

2014.9The DI Desktop data collected by DrillingInfo. Inc. consists of oil and natural gas well 

information that provides parameters describing the location, operator, and production 

characteristics. The DI Desktop data extract from the DrillingInfo. Inc. database included the 

population of all wells with gas or hydrocarbon liquid production during 2010 to 2012 and with a 

recorded completion year of 2010 to the date of the extract (February, 2014). 

The 2012 DI Desktop data was queried to identify oil and natural gas wells in production

in 2012 in RACT-impacted areas using Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes 

for the respective areas. Gas wells were defined as those wells with an average gas to liquids 

ratio greater than or equal to 100,000 standard cubic feet per barrel over the lifetime of the well, 

and oil wells were defined as those wells with an average gas to liquids ratio less than 100,000

standard cubic feet per barrel over the lifetime of the well. If a well had liquids production but no 

gas production, it was classified as an oil well, and if a well had gas production but no liquids 

production, it was classified as a gas well. As a result of this analysis, 101,466 oil and gas wells 

(63,938 oil wells and 37,528 gas wells) were identified in moderate or greater ozone NA areas 

and 90,232 oil and gas wells (24,169 oil wells and 66,063 gas wells) were identified in OTR 

areas. An estimated 22,426 oil and gas wells (1,249 oil wells and 21,177 gas wells) were located 

in OTR areas that were also located in moderate or greater ozone NA areas. States that had wells 

with RACT-impacted areas include California, Maryland, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Texas and Virginia.

This information was used to:

 estimate the number and location of wells and well sites in OTR and moderate or 

greater ozone NA areas (as noted), 

 estimate the number and location of storage vessels in OTR and moderate or greater 

ozone NA areas (assuming one storage vessel per well10),

 

8 Memorandum to Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA from Heather Brown, EC/R. "Composition of Natural Gas for use in the 

Oil and Natural Gas Sector Rulemaking". July 2011. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-0084.

9 DrillingInfo is a private organization specializing in oil and gas data and statistical analysis. The DrillingInfo

database is focused on historical oil and gas production data and drilling permit data.

10 The EPA is aware that there is often more than one storage vessel per well site. However, for emissions 

calculation purposes, we assumed that all storage vessels are likely manifolded together or could reasonable be 

manifolded together such that there is a single emission point for all storage vessels on the well site. Thus, we count 

one storage vessel per well site for emission calculation purposes because only one emission point would need to be 

controlled.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

7

 estimate the number of production segment pneumatic controllers and pumps located 

in OTR and moderate or greater ozone NA areas (using the percentage of the number 

of wells located in each of the respective areas), and 

 estimate the number of gathering and boosting stations located in OTR and moderate 

or greater ozone NA areas (using the average of the percentage of wells and the 

percentage of total natural gas processing plants located in each respective areas).

OGJ Worldwide Gas Processing Survey (Capacities as of January 1, 2013, and Average 

Production)

The OGJ Gas Processing Survey reflecting capacities as of January 1, 2013 (which would 

reflect capacities for 2012) was used to obtain location information of natural gas processing 

plants in OTR and moderate or greater ozone NA areas. Of the estimated 606 natural gas 

processing plants in the U.S., an estimated 10 natural gas processing plants were located in OTR 

areas and 40 were located in moderate or greater ozone NA areas. None of the 40 natural gas 

processing plants in moderate or greater ozone NA areas were located in OTR areas. States that 

had processing plants with RACT-impacted areas include California, Pennsylvania and Texas.

This information was used to:

 estimate the number and location of natural gas processing plants in OTR and 

moderate or greater ozone NA areas,

 estimate the number of processing segment compressors and pneumatic controllers 

located in OTR and moderate or greater ozone NA areas (using the percentage of the 

number of gas processing plants located in OTR and moderate or greater ozone NA

areas), and

 estimate the number of gathering and boosting stations located in OTR and moderate 

or greater ozone NA areas (using the average of the percentage of wells and the 

percentage of gas processing plants located in OTR and moderate or greater ozone 

NA areas).

4 METHODOLOGY USED TO ESTIMATE RACT-IMPACTED AREA BASELINE 

EMISSIONS, EMISSION REDUTIONS AND COSTS 

The following paragraphs present the methodologies used to estimate RACT-impacted 

area baseline emissions, emission reductions and costs for storage vessels, pneumatic controllers, 

pneumatic pumps, compressors, equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants and fugitive 

emissions at well sites and compressor stations.

4.1 Storage Vessels

4.1.1 Approach

RACT-impacted baseline emissions and emission reductions from storage vessels were 

calculated by multiplying the number of estimated uncontrolled storage vessels by emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

8

factors based on oil and condensate production and production information from the 2012 DI 

Desktop database. Emission reductions were estimated by multiplying the emissions calculated 

for each storage vessel by 95 percent. The RACT-impacted area costs were estimated by 

multiplying the number of RACT-impacted storage vessels by costs per storage vessel. 

4.1.2 RACT-Impacted Population of Storage Vessels

In order to estimate the number of storage vessels that would potentially be impacted by

RACT, we conducted an analysis using the following procedures:

 Estimated the number of wells in existence and located in RACT-impacted areas in 

2012 (assuming one storage vessel per well) based on 2012 DI Desktop location 

information.

 Subtracted the wells completed in 2012 from this number (assuming that these 

storage vessels would be subject to the NSPS).

 Subtracted the number of storage vessels subject to and presumed to be controlled at 

baseline under state air regulations from the number of storage vessels that would 

potentially be impacted by RACT,

 Used the emission factor from a typical storage vessel within each throughput bracket

established under the NSPS11 to estimate emissions based on 2012 DI Desktop 

production information.

 Determined the number of storage vessels that would likely have VOC emissions 

greater than the RACT recommended applicability threshold of 6 tons per year (tpy).

 Estimated the number of storage vessels that would likely have VOC emissions 

greater than 6 tpy that would also be subject to and controlled under state air

regulations.

 Using information on state environmental regulations developed for the CTG, we 

subtracted the number of storage vessels subject to and controlled under state air

regulations from the number of storage vessels with VOC emissions greater than 6

tpy to determine the number of storage vessels that would potentially be impacted by 

RACT.

Attachments 2 and 3 to this memorandum include the RACT-impacted storage vessel 

population and baseline emissions analysis. Table 4-1 presents the estimated number of RACTimpacted storage vessels. 

 

11 Heather Brown, EC/R Incorporated to Moore, B., EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/FIG. Revised Analysis to Determine the 

Number of Storage Vessels Projected to be Subject to New Source Performance Standards for the Oil and Natural 

Gas Sector. April 8, 2013.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

9

Table 4-1. RACT-Impacted Population of Storage Vessels

Emission 

Source

Number of RACT-Impacted Storage Vessels

Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas Outside of OTR 

Areas

OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas/OTR Areas

Storage 

Vessels 2,452 211 2,463

4.1.3 RACT-Impacted Storage Vessel Baseline Emissions, Emission Reductions and Costs

Using average storage vessel VOC emission factors based on well production rate 

brackets developed under the NSPS12 and 2012 DI Desktop production information, we 

calculated the RACT-impacted number of storage vessels and baseline VOC, methane and 

HAP emissions. RACT-impacted storage vessel emission reductions were estimated by

multiplying the calculated baseline emissions per storage vessel by the 95 percent reduction 

efficiency attributable to combustion or capture and recovery. Using VOC to methane and 

VOC to HAP ratios developed for the ONG sector as presented in the 2011 Gas Composition 

memorandum, we estimated methane and HAP baseline emissions and emission reductions for 

storage vessels. Table 4-2 presents the estimated RACT-impacted storage vessel baseline 

emissions. RACT-impacted storage vessel emission reductions are provided in Table 4-3.

Table 4-2. RACT-Impacted Storage Vessel Baseline Emissions

Emission 

Source

RACT-Impacted Storage Vessel Baseline Emissions (tpy)

Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas Outside of OTR 

Areas

OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas /OTR Areas

VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP

Storage 

Vessels 24,522 5,075 770 101 21 3 24,623 5,096 773

 

12 Ibid.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

10

Table 4-3. RACT-Impacted Storage Vessel Emission Reductionsa

Emission 

Source

Type of 

Control

RACT-Impacted Storage Vessel Emission Reductions (tpy)

Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas Outside of OTR 

Areas

OTR Areas

Moderate or Greater 

Ozone NA Areas/OTR 

Areas

VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP

Storage 

Vessel

95% 

Control 23,296 4,822 731 96 20 3 23,392 4,842 734

a

Assumes 90 percent of sources will use a combustion control device and 10 percent will use a VRU to comply

with the recommended RACT.

Using the retrofit costs for a combustor or VRU developed for the CTG, we multiplied 

these costs by the number of RACT-impacted storage vessels, assuming 90 percent of the 

storage vessels would use combustion and 10 percent would use a vapor recovery unit (VRU). 

Tables 4-4 and 4-5 present the estimated RACT-impacted storage vessel costs. Gas savings 

were estimated for storage vessels using a VRU only, assuming gas recovered would be valued

at $4 per Mcf of recovered natural gas. No gas savings was attributed to storage vessels using 

combustion control. Attachment 2 presents the VRU and combustion cost analysis. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

11

Table 4-4. RACT-Impacted Storage Vessel Total Annual Costs and VOC Cost of Controla

Emission Source

Natural Gas 

Savings Per 

Source (million 

cubic feet (Mcf))

Total Value 

of Natural 

Gas Savings 

Per Source 

($/yr)

Total Capital 

Costs Per 

Source ($)

Total Annual Costs Per Source 

($/year (yr))

VOC Cost of Control ($/ton of 

VOC reduced)

w/o savings w/ savings w/o savings w/ savings

Storage Vessel 296 $1,184 $2,698 $296 ($886) $210 ($627)

a

Assumes 90 percent of sources will use a combustion control device and 10 percent will use a VRU to comply with the recommended RACT.

Table 4-5. RACT-Impacted Storage Vessel Costsa

Emission 

Point

Moderate or Greater Ozone NA Areas 

Outside of OTR Areas OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas

Capital ($)

Annual w/o 

savings 

($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings 

($/yr)

Capital ($)

Annual w/o 

savings 

($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings 

($/yr)

Capital ($)

Annual w/o 

savings 

($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings 

($/yr)

Storage 

Vessel $264,927,827 $55,977,029 $55,661,874 $1,188,453 $251,110 $249,808 $266,116,280 $56,228,139 $55,911,683 

a

Assumes 90 percent of sources will use a combustion control device and 10 percent will use a VRU to comply with the recommended RACT.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

12

4.2 Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Controllers

4.2.1 Approach 

RACT-impacted natural gas-driven pneumatic controller baseline emissions and 

emission reductions were calculated by multiplying the number of uncontrolled natural gasdriven pneumatic controllers reported in the 2012 GHG Inventory (assuming that they were 

natural gas-driven) by emissions and emission reductions per controller. The RACT-impacted 

area costs were estimated by multiplying the calculated RACT VOC emission reductions by

costs per controller.

 

4.2.2 RACT-Impacted Population of Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Controllers 

Based on information in the 2012 GHG Inventory, there were an estimated 135 natural 

gas-driven pneumatic controllers in the processing segment nationally. The percentage of 

natural gas processing plants located in RACT-impacted areas based on the 2012 Gas 

Processing Survey was used to estimate the number of RACT-impacted natural gas-driven 

pneumatic controllers.

Similarly, based on information in the 2012 GHG Inventory, there were an estimated 

165,372 high bleed natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers installed in the production 

segment nationally. The percentage of wells located in RACT-impacted areas based on 2012 

DI Desktop location information was used to estimate the number of high bleed natural gasdriven pneumatic controllers located in RACT-impacted areas.

Table 4-6 presents the estimated population of RACT-impacted natural gas-driven 

pneumatic controllers. 

Table 4-6. RACT-Impacted Population of Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Controllers

Segment

Number of RACT-Impacted Sources

Moderate or Greater 

Ozone NA Areas 

Outside of OTR Areas

OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas/OTR Areas

Oil and Natural Gas 

Production 10,219 11,666 21,885

Processing Plants 9 2 11
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

13

4.2.3 RACT-Impacted Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Controller Baseline Emissions, 

Emission Reductions and Costs

RACT-impacted natural gas-driven pneumatic controller baseline emissions were 

estimated by multiplying the population of natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers and the 

VOC, methane and HAP baseline emissions per natural gas-driven pneumatic controller. Using 

the cost and emission reductions developed for the CTG, we estimated emission reductions and 

costs by multiplying the number of natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers by the emission 

reductions and costs per natural gas-driven controller. For processing segment natural gas-driven 

pneumatic controllers, we used the emission reductions and costs associated with the use of an 

existing instrument air system. For production segment natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers, 

we used the emission reductions and costs associated with the replacement of an existing high 

bleed controller with a low bleed controller. Using methane to HAP ratios developed for the 

ONG sector as presented in the 2011 Gas Composition memorandum, we estimated RACTimpacted natural gas-driven pneumatic controller HAP baseline emissions and emission 

reductions.

Tables 4-7 and 4-8 present the RACT-impacted natural gas-driven pneumatic controller 

baseline emissions and emission reductions. Tables 4-9 and 4-10 present the RACT-impacted 

natural gas-driven pneumatic controller costs.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

14

Table 4-7. RACT-Impacted Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Controller Baseline Emissions

Segment

Baseline Emissions Per Natural 

Gas-Driven Pneumatic Controller

(tpy)

RACT-Impacted Pneumatic Controller Baseline Emissions (tpy)

Moderate or Greater Ozone NA 

Areas Outside of OTR Areas OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone NA Areas /OTR Areas

VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP

Oil and Natural 

Gas Production 1.47 5.30 0.055 15,057 54,162 567 17,189 61,831 647 32,246 115,993 1,214

Processing 

Plants 0.28 1.00 0.010 2 9 0.1 1 2 0.02 3 11 0.1

Table 4-8. RACT-Impacted Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Controller Emission Reductions

Segment

Type of 

Control

Emission Reductions Per 

Pneumatic Controller (tpy)

RACT-Impacted Pneumatic Controller Emission Reductions (tpy)

Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas Outside of OTR

Areas

OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas/OTR Areas

VOC Methane HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP

Oil and 

Natural Gas 

Production 

Replace w/ 

Low Bleed 1.41 5.10 0.05 14,444 52,118 546 16,489 59,498 623 30,933 111,616 1,169

Processing 

Plants

Existing 

Instrument 

Air System

0.28 1.00 0.01 2 9 0.1 1 2 0 3 11 0
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

15

Table 4-9. Total Annual Costs and VOC Cost of Control Per Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Controller

Segment

Natural 

Gas 

Savings 

Per 

Source 

(Mcf)

Total Value 

of Natural 

Gas Savings 

Per Source 

($/yr)

Total Capital 

Costs Per 

Source ($)

Total Annual Costs Per Source ($/yr) VOC Cost of Control ($/ton of 

VOC reduced)

w/o savings w/ savings w/o savings w/ savings

Oil and Gas Production 296 $1,184 $2,698 $296 ($886) $210 ($627)

Processing Plants 58 $232 $2,000 $285 $53 $1,018 $190

Table 4-10. RACT-Impacted Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Controller Costs

Segment

Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas Outside of OTR 

Areas

OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone NA 

Areas/OTR Areas

Capital ($) Annual w/o 

savings ($yr)

Annual w/ 

savings 

($/yr)

Capital ($)

Annual w/o 

savings 

($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings ($/yr) Capital ($)

Annual w/o 

savings 

($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings ($/yr)

Oil and Gas 

Production $27,571,450 $3,027,197 ($9,054,192) $31,475,544 $3,455,846 ($10,336,259) $59,046,994 $6,483,043 ($19,390,451)

Processing 

Plants $17,822 $2,540 $474 $4,455 $635 $118 $22,277 $3,175 $592 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

16

4.3 Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Pumps

4.3.1 Approach 

RACT-impacted natural gas-driven pneumatic pump baseline emissions and emission 

reductions were calculated by multiplying the number of uncontrolled natural gas-driven 

pneumatic pumps reported in the 2012 GHG Inventory (assuming they were all natural gasdriven pumps) by emissions and emission reductions per pump. The RACT-impacted natural 

gas-driven pneumatic pump costs were estimated by multiplying the calculated RACT VOC 

emission reductions by costs per pump. 

4.3.2 RACT-Impacted Population of Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Pumps

Based on information in the 2012 GHG Inventory for oil production, there were an 

estimated 14,408 diaphragm pumps and 14,293 piston pumps. The number of pneumatic 

pumps reported in the 2012 GHG Inventory for gas production was an estimated 37,477 

pneumatic pumps (for both diaphragm and piston pumps). Similar to the assumption used in 

the 2015 NSPS TSD, we assumed that 50 percent of the gas production inventory pumps to be 

diaphragm pumps and 50 percent of the pumps to be piston pumps. Based on these 

assumptions, and assuming that all of the reported pumps were natural gas-driven, we 

estimated that there were 33,147 diaphragm and 33,031 piston natural gas-driven pneumatic 

pumps in the production segment nationally. The percentage of RACT-impacted wells based 

on 2012 DI Desktop location information was used to estimate the number of RACT-impacted 

high bleed natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers. 

The 2012 GHG Inventory did not estimate emissions from pneumatic pumps for the 

natural gas processing segment.

Table 4-11 presents the estimated RACT-impacted population of natural gas-driven 

pneumatic pumps. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

17

Table 4-11. RACT-Impacted Population of Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Pumps

Pneumatic 

Pump Type 

Number of RACT-Impacted Sources

Moderate or Greater 

Ozone NA Areas Outside 

of OTR Areas

OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas/OTR Areas

Diaphragm 33,147 2,048 2,338

Piston 33,032 2,041 2,330

 

4.3.3 RACT-Impacted Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Pump Baseline Emissions, Emission 

Reductions and Costs

RACT-impacted natural gas-driven pneumatic pump baseline emissions were estimated 

by multiplying the population of natural gas-driven pneumatic pumps and the VOC, methane 

and HAP baseline emissions per diaphragm and piston natural gas-driven pneumatic pump. 

Using the emission reductions and costs developed for the CTG, we estimated the emission 

reductions and costs by multiplying the number of natural gas-driven pneumatic pumps by the 

emission reductions and costs associated with routing emissions to an existing combustion 

device. Using methane to HAP ratios developed for the ONG sector as presented in the 2011 

Gas Composition memorandum, we estimated RACT-impacted natural gas-driven pneumatic 

pump HAP baseline emissions and emission reductions. 

Tables 4-12 and 4-13 present the RACT-impacted natural gas-driven pneumatic pump 

baseline emissions and emission reductions. Tables 4-14 and 4-15 present the RACT-impacted 

natural gas-driven pneumatic pump costs.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

18

Table 4-12. RACT-Impacted Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Pump Baseline Emissions

Emission 

Source

Baseline Emissions Per Natural GasDriven Pneumatic Pump (tpy)

RACT-Impacted Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Pump Baseline Emissions (tpy)

Moderate or Greater NA Areas 

Outside of OTR Areas OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas

VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP

Diaphragm 0.96 3.46 0.04 1,966 7,087 74 2,245 8,091 85 4,211 15,178 159

Piston 0.11 0.38 0.004 225 776 8 256 885 9 481 1,661 17

Table 4-13. RACT-Impacted Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Pump Emission Reductions

Emission 

Source

Type of 

Control

Emission Reductions Per Natural 

Gas-Drven Pneumatic Pump (tpy)

RACT-Impacted Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Pump Emission Reductions (tpy)

Moderate or Greater NA 

Areas Outside of OTR

Areas

OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas/OTR Areas

VOC Methane HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP

Diaphragm

Existing 

Combustion 

Device

0.91 3.3 0.034 1,872 6,733 70 2,137 7,686 80 4,008 14,419 151

Piston

Existing 

Combustion 

Device

0.10 0.36 0.0038 205 737 8 234 841 9 439 1,578 17
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

19

Table 4-14. Total Annual Costs and VOC Cost of Control Per Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Pump

Emission Source

Natural 

Gas 

Savings 

Per 

Source 

(Mcf)

Total Value 

of Natural 

Gas Savings 

Per Source 

($/yr)

Total Capital Costs

Per Source ($)

Total Annual Costs Per Source 

($/yr)

VOC Cost of Control ($/ton

of VOC reduced)

w/o savings w/ savings w/o savings w/ savings

Diaphragm 0 $0 $2,000 $285 $285 $312 $312

Piston 0 $0 $2,000 $285 $285 $2,840 $2,840

Table 4-15. RACT-Impacted Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Pump Costs

Emission 

Point

Moderate or Greater NA Areas Outside of 

OTR Areas OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas

Capital 

($)

Annual w/o 

savings ($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings 

($/yr)

Capital 

($)

Annual w/o 

savings ($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings 

($/yr)

Capital 

($)

Annual w/o 

savings ($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings ($/yr)

Diaphragm $4,096,598 $583,765 $583,765 $4,676,673 $666,426 $666,426 $8,773,271 $1,250,191 $1,250,191 

Piston $4,082,385 $581,740 $581,740 $4,660,447 $664,114 $664,114 $8,742,833 $1,245,854 $1,245,854 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

20

4.4 Compressors

4.4.1 Approach 

RACT-impacted reciprocating compressor and wet seal centrifugal compressor baseline 

emissions and emission reductions were calculated by multiplying the number of uncontrolled 

compressors based on information reported in the 2012 GHG Inventory by emissions and 

emission reductions by compressor. The RACT-impacted reciprocating compressor and wet 

seal centrifugal compressor costs were estimated by multiplying the calculated RACT VOC

emission reductions by costs per controller. 

4.4.2 RACT-Impacted Population of Reciprocating Compressors and Wet Seal Centrifugal

Compressors

Based on information in the 2012 GHG Inventory, there were an estimated 36,066

reciprocating compressors located at gathering and boosting stations. The average of the 

percentage of the total number of RACT-impacted natural gas processing plants based on the 

2012 Gas Processing Survey and the percentage of the total number of RACT-impacted oil and 

natural gas wells based on 2012 DI Desktop location information was used to estimate the 

number of RACT-impacted reciprocating compressors located at gathering and boosting 

stations.

Based on information in the 2012 GHG Inventory, there were an estimated 5,624 

reciprocating compressors in the processing segment. The percentage of the total number of 

RACT-impacted natural gas processing plants based on the 2012 Gas Processing Survey was 

used to estimate the number of RACT-impacted reciprocating compressors in the processing 

segment. 

Based on information in the 2012 GHG Inventory, there were an estimated 658 wet seal 

compressors in the processing segment. The percentage of the total number of RACT-impacted 

natural gas processing plants based on the 2012 Gas Processing Survey was used to estimate 

the number of RACT-impacted reciprocating compressors in the processing segment.

Table 4-16 presents the estimated population of RACT-impacted reciprocating 

compressors and wet seal compressors. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

21

Table 4-16. RACT-Impacted Population of Reciprocating Compressors and Wet Seal 

Compressors

Emission Source

Number of RACT-Impacted Sources

Moderate or Greater 

Ozone NA Areas 

Outside of OTR Areas

OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas/OTR Areas

Reciprocating 

Compressors -

Gathering/Boosting 

Stations

2,305 1,570 3,874

Reciprocating 

Compressors -

Processing Plants

371 93 464

Centrifugal 

Compressors - Wet 

Seals Processing 

Plants

43 11 54

4.4.3 RACT-Impacted Reciprocating Compressor and Wet Seal Centrifugal Compressor

Baseline Emissions, Emission Reductions and Costs

RACT-impacted compressor baseline emissions were estimated by multiplying the 

population of compressors and the VOC, methane and HAP emissions per compressor. Using 

the emission reductions and costs developed for the CTG, we estimated emission reductions 

and costs by multiplying the number of compressors by the emission reductions and costs per 

compressor. For reciprocating compressors, we used the emission reductions and costs

associated with replacing reciprocating compressor rod packing after 26,000 hours of operation 

or 36 months since the most recent rod packing replacement. For wet seal compressors, we 

used the emission reductions and costs associated with routing emissions to an existing 

combustion device. Using methane to HAP ratios developed for the ONG sector as presented 

in the 2011 Gas Composition memorandum, we estimated natural gas-driven pneumatic pump 

HAP baseline emissions and emission reductions.

Tables 4-17 and 4-18 present the RACT-impacted reciprocating compressor and wet 

seal compressor baseline emissions and emission reductions. Tables 4-19 and 4-20 present the 

RACT-impacted reciprocating compressor and wet seal compressor costs.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

22

Table 4-17. RACT-Impacted Reciprocating Compressor and Wet Seal Compressor Baseline Emissions

Emission Source

Baseline Emissions Per 

Compressor (tpy)

RACT-Impacted Compressor Baseline Emissions (tpy)

Moderate or Greater NA Areas 

Outside of OTR Areas OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas

VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP

Reciprocating Compressor –

Gathering and Boosting 

Station

3.42 12.3 0.129 7,892 28,390 297 5,375 19,377 203 13,267 47,726 500

Reciprocating Compressor –

Processing 6.12 22 0.230 2,270 8,176 86 568 2,042 21 2,838 10,209 107

Wet Seal Compressor –

Processing 19.1 210.53 2.209 2,548 9,144 96 637 2,286 24 3,185 11,430 120

Table 4-18. RACT-Impacted Reciprocating Compressor and Wet Seal Compressor Emission Reductions

Emission Source

Type of 

Control

Emission Reductions 

Per Compressor (tpy)

RACT-Impacted Compressor Emission Reductions (tpy)

Moderate or Greater NA 

Areas Outside of OTR 

Areas

OTR Areas

Moderate or Greater 

Ozone NA Areas/OTR 

Areas

VOC Methane HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP

Reciprocating 

Compressor –

Gathering and 

Boosting Station

Replace 

Packing After 

Three Years

1.90 6.84 0.07 4,385 15,774 165 2,986 10,744 113 7,371 26,518 278

Reciprocating 

Compressor –

Processing

Replace 

Packing After 

Three Years

4.89 17.58 0.18 1,814 6,525 68 453 1,631 17 2,267 8,156 85

Wet Seal Compressor 

– Processing

95 Percent 

Control; 

Existing 

Combustion 

Device

55.73 200.45 2.10 2,420 8,706 91 605 2,177 23 3,025 10,883 114
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

23

Table 4-19. Total Annual Costs and VOC Cost of Control Per Compressor

Emission Source

Natural 

Gas 

Savings 

Per 

Source 

(Mcf)

Total Value 

of Natural 

Gas Savings 

Per Source 

($/yr)

Total Capital Costs

Per Source ($)

Total Annual Costs Per Source 

($/yr)

VOC Cost of Control ($/ton

of VOC reduced)

w/o savings w/ savings w/o savings w/ savings

Reciprocating Compressor –

Gathering and Boosting 

Station

397 $1,587 $5,650 $2,153 $566 $1,132 $298 

Reciprocating Compressor –

Processing 1,019 $4,074 $4,280 $1,631 ($2,443) $334 ($500)

Wet Seal Compressor –

Processing 0 $0 $23,252 $3,311 $3,311 $59 $59 

Table 4-20. RACT-Impacted Reciprocating Compressor and Centrifugal Compressor Costs

Emission Source

Moderate or Greater NA Areas Outside 

of OTR Areas OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas

Capital ($)

Annual w/o 

savings 

($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings 

($/yr)

Capital 

($)

Annual w/o 

savings 

($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings ($/yr) Capital ($)

Annual w/o 

savings 

($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings 

($/yr)

Reciprocating 

Compressor –

Gathering and 

Boosting Station

$13,020,363 $4,961,431 $1,305,079 $8,868,297 $3,379,279 $888,902 $21,888,661 $8,340,711 $2,193,981 

Reciprocating 

Compressor –

Processing

$1,588,826 $605,462 ($906,997) $397,207 $151,365 ($226,749) $1,986,033 $756,827 ($1,133,746)

Wet Seal 

Compressor –

Processing

$1,009,889 $143,804 $143,804 $252,472 $35,951 $35,951 $1,262,361 $179,756 $179,756 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

24

4.5. Equipment Leaks at Natural Gas Processing Plants

4.5.1 Approach 

RACT-impacted equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants baseline emissions 

and emission reductions were calculated by multiplying the number of natural gas processing 

plants and the baseline emissions and emission reductions per plant. The RACT-impacted 

equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants costs were estimated by multiplying the 

emission reductions by costs per natural gas processing plant. 

4.5.2 RACT-Impacted Population of Natural Gas Processing Plants

The number of RACT-impacted natural gas processing plants was obtained from 

information in the 2012 Gas Processing Survey. There were 40 natural gas processing plants 

located in moderate or greater ozone NA areas and 10 natural gas processing plants in OTR 

areas in 2012. Table 4-21 presents the estimated RACT-impacted population of natural gas 

processing plants. 

Table 4-21. RACT-Impacted Population of Natural Gas Processing Plants

Emission Source

Number of RACT-Impacted Sources

Moderate or Greater NA 

Areas Outside of OTR 

Areas

OTR Areas

Moderate or Greater 

Ozone NA Areas/OTR 

Areas

Natural Gas 

Processing Plants 40 10 50

4.5.3 RACT-Impacted Equipment Leaks at Natural Gas Processing Plants Baseline Emissions, 

Emission Reductions and Costs

RACT-impacted equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants baseline VOC, 

methane and HAP emissions were estimated by multiplying the population of natural gas 

processing plants and the methane and VOC emissions per plant. The baseline assumes that 

existing natural gas processing plants currently implement an LDAR program equivalent to 40 

CFR part 60 subpart VV. Using the emission reductions and costs developed for the CTG, we 

estimated emission reductions and costs by multiplying the number of natural gas processing 

plants by the emission reductions and costs associated with the implementation of an LDAR 

program equivalent to 40 CFR part 60 subpart VVa (subpart VVa). Using methane to HAP 

ratios developed for the ONG sector as presented in the 2011 Gas Composition memorandum, 

we estimated HAP baseline emissions per natural gas processing plant. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

25

Tables 4-22 and 4-23 present the RACT-impacted equipment leaks at natural gas 

processing plants baseline emissions and emission reductions. Tables 4-24 and 4-25 present the 

RACT-impacted equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants costs.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

26

Table 4-22. RACT-Impacted Natural Gas Processing Plant Equipment Leaks Baseline Emissions

Emission Source

Baseline Emissions Per Natural 

Gas Processing Plant (tpy)

RACT-Impacted Natural Gas Processing Plant Baseline Emissions (tpy)

Moderate or Greater NA Areas 

Outside of OTR Areas OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas

VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP

Natural Gas Processing 

Plants - Equipment 

Leaks

34.94 125.67 1.32 1,397 5,027 53 349 1,257 13 1,747 6,284 66

Table 4-23. RACT-Impacted Natural Gas Processing Plant Equipment Leaks Emission Reductions

Emission Source

Type of 

Control

Emission Reductions Per 

Natural Gas Processing Plant

(tpy)

RACT-Impacted Natural Gas Processing Plant Emission Reductions (tpy)

Moderate or Greater NA 

Areas Outside of OTR 

Areas

OTR Areas

Moderate or Greater 

Ozone NA Areas/OTR 

Areas

VOC Methane HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP

Natural Gas 

Processing Plants -

Equipment Leaks

Subpart VVa 4.56 16.39 0.17 182 656 7 46 164 2 228 820 9
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

27

Table 4-24. Total Annual Costs and VOC Cost of Control Per Natural Gas Processing Plant

Emission Source

Natural 

Gas 

Savings 

Per 

Source 

(Mcf)

Total Value 

of Natural 

Gas Savings 

Per Source 

($/yr)

Total Capital Costs

Per Source ($)

Total Annual Costs Per Source 

($/yr)

VOC Cost of Control ($/ton

of VOC reduced)

w/o savings w/ savings w/o savings w/ savings

Natural Gas Processing 

Plants - Equipment Leaks 950 $3,800 $8,499 $12,959 $9,159 $2,844 $2,010 

Table 4-25. RACT-Impacted Natural Gas Processing Plant Equipment Leaks Costs

Emission Point

Moderate or Greater NA Areas Outside 

of OTR Areas OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas

Capital 

($)

Annual w/o 

savings ($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings 

($/yr)

Capital 

($)

Annual w/o 

savings ($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings 

($/yr)

Capital 

($)

Annual w/o 

savings ($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings 

($/yr)

Natural Gas 

Processing Plants -

Equipment Leaks

$339,960 $518,366 $366,379 $84,990 $129,591 $91,595 $424,950 $647,957 $457,974 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

28

4.6 Fugitive Emissions at Well Sites and Compressor Stations

4.6.1 Approach

RACT-impacted fugitive emissions at well sites and gathering and boosting stations 

baseline emissions and emission reductions were calculated by multiplying the number of well 

sites and gathering and boosting stations by the baseline emissions and emission reductions per 

site/station. The RACT-impacted well site and gathering and boosting station costs were 

estimated by multiplying the emission reductions by costs per well site and gathering and 

boosting station. 

4.6.2 RACT-Impacted Population of Wells Sites and Gathering and Boosting Stations 

The DI Desktop database was used to obtain information on the number of oil and natural 

gas wells in 2012 in the U.S. The number of natural gas wells in RACT impacted areas was 

estimated to be 82,414. The number of oil wells in RACT-impacted areas was estimated to be 

86,858. Using information developed for the 2015 NSPS TSD and CTG, we estimated the 

number of well sites that would be subject to RACT by dividing the number of wells by two

(assuming a national average of two wells per well site). 

Based on information in the 2015 NSPS TSD, we estimated that there would be 8,015

gathering and boosting stations nationally. The average of the percentage of the total RACTimpacted number of natural gas processing plants based on the 2012 Gas Processing Survey and 

the percentage of the total RACT-impacted number of oil and natural gas wells based on 2012 DI 

Desktop location information was used to estimate the number of RACT-impacted gathering and 

boosting stations.

Table 4-26 presents the estimated population of RACT-impacted well sites and gathering 

and boosting stations.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

29

Table 4-26. RACT-Impacted Population of Oil and Gas Well Sites and Gathering and 

Boosting Stations

Emission 

Source

Number of RACT-Impacted Sources

Moderate or Greater NA 

Areas Outside of OTR 

Areas

OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas/OTR Areas

Gas Well Sites 8,176 33,332 41,507

Oil Well Sites 31,345 12,085 43,429

Gathering and 

Boosting 

Stations

512 349 861

4.6.3 RACT-Impacted Oil and Gas Well Site and Gathering and Boosting Station 

Fugitive Emissions, Fugitive Emission Reductions and Costs

RACT-impacted oil and gas well site and gathering and boosting station baseline 

fugitive emissions were estimated by multiplying the population of oil and gas well sites and 

gathering and boosting stations and VOC baseline emissions per site/station. Using the 

emission reductions and costs developed for the 2015 NSPS TSD and CTG, we estimated 

emission reductions and costs by multiplying the number of oil and gas well sites and gathering 

and boosting stations by the emission reductions and costs per well site/station. Using VOC to 

methane and VOC to HAP ratios developed for the ONG sector as presented in the 2011 Gas 

Composition memorandum, we estimated methane and HAP baseline emissions and emission 

reductions. 

Tables 4-27 and 4-28 present the RACT-impacted oil and gas well site and gathering 

and boosting station baseline fugitive emissions and fugitive emission reductions. Tables 4-29 

and 4-30 present the RACT-impacted oil and gas well site and gathering and boosting station 

costs.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

30

Table 4-27. RACT-Impacted Oil and Gas Well Site and Gathering and Boosting Station Baseline Fugitive Emissions

Emission 

Source

Baseline Emissions Per Natural 

Gas Processing Plant (tpy)

RACT-Impacted Oil and Gas Well Site and Gathering and Boosting Station Baseline Fugitive 

Emissions (tpy)

Moderate or Greater NA Areas 

Outside of OTR Areas OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas

VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP

Gas Well Sites 1.26 4.54 0.05 10,316 37,111 389 42,057 151,300 1,584 52,373 188,410 1,973

Oil Well Sites 0.30 1.09 0.01 9,475 34,088 357 3,653 13,142 138 13,129 47,230 495

Gathering and 

Boosting 

Stations

9.77 35.14 0.37 5,003 17,999 188 3,408 12,259 128 8,411 30,258 317

Table 4-28. RACT-Impacted Oil and Gas Well Site and Gathering and Boosting Station Fugitive Emission Reductions

Emission 

Source

Type of 

Control

Emission Reductions Per 

Natural Gas Processing Plant

(tpy)

RACT-Impacted Oil and Gas Well Site and Gathering and Boosting Station Fugitive 

Emission Reductions (tpy)

Moderate or Greater NA 

Areas Outside of OTR 

Areas

OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone 

NA Areas/OTR Areas

VOC Methane HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP VOC CH4 HAP

Gas Well 

Sites

Semiannual 

OGI 0.76 2.72 0.03 6,189 22,266 233 25,234 90,780 951 31,424 113,046 1,184

Oil Well 

Sites

Semiannual 

OGI 0.18 0.65 0.01 5,685 20,453 214 2,192 7,885 83 7,877 28,338 297

Gathering 

and Boosting 

Stations

Semiannual 

OGI 5.86 21.09 0.22 3,002 10,799 113 2,045 7,356 77 5,047 18,155 190
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

31

Table 4-29. Total Annual Costs and VOC Cost of Control Per Well Site/Station

Emission Source

Natural 

Gas 

Savings 

Per 

Source 

(Mcf)

Total Value 

of Natural 

Gas Savings 

Per Source 

($/yr)

Total Capital Costs

Per Source ($)

Total Annual Costs Per Source 

($/yr)

VOC Cost of Control ($/ton

of VOC reduced)

w/o savings w/ savings w/o savings w/ savings

Gas Well Sites 158 $631 $801 $2,230 $1,599 $2,945 $2,111 

Oil Well Sites 38 $151 $801 $2,230 $2,079 $12,294 $11,460 

Gathering and Boosting 

Stations 1,222 $4,888 $10,993 $15,881 $10,993 $2,710 $1,876 

Table 4-30. RACT-Impacted Oil and Gas Well Site and Gathering and Boosting Station Fugitive Emission Costs

Emission 

Point

Moderate or Greater NA Areas Outside 

of OTR Areas OTR Areas Moderate or Greater Ozone NA Areas/OTR Areas

Capital ($)

Annual w/o 

savings 

($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings 

($/yr)

Capital ($)

Annual w/o 

savings 

($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings ($/yr) Capital ($)

Annual w/o 

savings 

($/yr)

Annual w/ 

savings 

($/yr)

Gas Well 

Sites $6,547,981 $18,230,307 $13,068,772 $26,696,107 $74,324,933 $53,281,361 $33,244,088 $92,555,240 $66,350,133 

Oil Well 

Sites $25,104,665 $69,894,180 $65,153,104 $9,678,806 $26,946,872 $25,119,006 $34,783,471 $96,841,052 $90,272,109 

Gathering 

and 

Boosting 

Stations

$5,630,384 $8,133,758 $5,630,384 $3,834,910 $5,539,982 $3,834,910 $9,465,294 $13,673,740 $9,465,294 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

32

5 SUMMARY OF THE VOC RACT EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS

Table 5-1 presents a summary of the VOC RACT emission reductions and costs for 

storage vessels, natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers, natural gas-driven pneumatic pumps, 

reciprocating compressors, wet seal centrifugal compressors, natural gas processing plant 

equipment leaks, and fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

33

Table 5-1. Summary of the ONG VOC RACT Emission Reductions and Costs

VOC Methane HAP w/o savings w/ savings VOC Methane HAP Capital ($)

Annual w/o 

savings ($/yr)

Annual w/

savings ($/yr)

Fugitive Emissions - Gas 

Well Sites

Semiannual OGI 0.76 2.72 0.03 $2,945 $2,111 31,424 113,046 1,184 33,244,088 92,555,240 66,350,133

Fugitive Emissions - Oil 

Well Sites

Semiannual OGI 0.18 0.65 0.01 $12,294 $11,460 7,877 28,338 297 34,783,471 96,841,052 90,272,109

Fugitive Emissions - 

Gathering and Boosting

Stations

Semiannual OGI 5.86 21.09 0.22 $2,710 $1,876 5,047 18,155 190 9,465,294 13,673,740 9,465,294

Equipment Leaks - 

Processing Plants

NSPS Subpart VVa 4.56 16.39 0.17 $2,844 $2,010 228 820 9 424,950 647,957 457,974

Reciprocating Compressors

- Gathering and Boosting 

Stations

Replace Packing

After 3 Years

1.90 6.84 0.07 $1,132 $298 7,371 26,518 278 21,888,661 8,340,711 2,193,981

Reciprocating Compressors

- Processing

Replace Packing

After 3 Years

4.89 17.58 0.18 $334 ($500) 2,267 8,156 85 1,986,033 756,827 (1,133,746)

Centrifigal Compressors w/ 

Wet Seals - Processing

95% Control, 

Existing 

Combustion Device

18.15 200.45 2.10 $182 $182 985 10,883 114 1,262,361 179,756 179,756

Natural Gas-Driven

Pneumatic Controllers - Oil 

and Gas Production 

Replace w/ Low

Bleed 1.41 5.10 0.05 $210 ($627) 30,933 111,616 1,169 59,046,994 6,483,043 (19,390,451)

Natural Gas-Driven

Pneumatic Controllers - 

Processing

Existing Instrument 

Air System

0.28 1.00 0.01 $1,018 $190 3 11 0 22,277 3,175 592

Natural Gas-Driven

Pneumatic Pumps - 

Production - Diaphram

95% Control, 

Existing 

Combustion Device

0.91 3.29 0.03 $312 $312 4,008 14,419 151 8,773,271 1,250,191 1,250,191

Natural Gas-Driven

Pneumatic Pumps - 

Production - Piston

95% Control, 

Existing 

Combustion Device

0.10 0.36 0.00 $2,840 $2,840 439 1,578 17 8,742,833 1,245,854 1,245,854

Storage Vessels 95% Control, 

Combustion/VRU a a a a a 23,392 4,842 734 266,116,280 56,228,139 55,911,683

Total 113,974 338,381 4,227 445,756,512 278,205,683 206,803,370

a - There are a wide variety of storage vessel sizes, as well as rates of throughput for each tank. Emissions and costs are directly related to the throughput of liquids for a given storage vessel. In lieu of using 

emission reductions and costs per storage vessel, we used production rate brackets developed by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) for our emission estimates and costs (see Attachments 2 and 3).

Emission Reductions (tpy) Costs ($)

Emission Source

Type of Control Emission Reduction Per Unit (tpy) VOC Cost of Control 

($/ton)

Note: Minor differences may result from rounding.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

ATTACHMENT 1

Moderate or Greater Ozone NA Areas
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A1 - 2

Moderate or Greater Ozone NA Areas

State County Name NA Area Name

CA Amador County Amador and Calaveras Cos. (Central Mountain Cos.)

CA Calaveras County Amador and Calaveras Cos. (Central Mountain Cos.)

CA El Dorado County Sacramento Metro

CA Fresno County San Joaquin Valley

CA Imperial County Imperial County Area

CA Kern County Kern County (Eastern Kern)

CA Kings County San Joaquin Valley

CA Los Angeles County

Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties (Western 

Mojave Desert)

CA Madera County San Joaquin Valley

CA Mariposa County

Mariposa and Tuolumne Cos. (Southern Mountain 

Counties)

CA Merced County San Joaquin Valley

CA Nevada County Nevada County (Western part)

CA Orange County Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin

CA Placer County Sacramento Metro

CA Riverside County Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin

CA Sacramento County Sacramento Metro

CA San Bernardino County

Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties (Western 

Mojave Desert)

CA San Diego County

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the 

Pechanga Reservation

CA San Joaquin County San Joaquin Valley

CA Solano County Sacramento Metro

CA Stanislaus County San Joaquin Valley

CA Sutter County Sacramento Metro

CA Tulare County San Joaquin Valley

CA Tuolumne County

Mariposa and Tuolumne Cos. (Southern Mountain 

Counties)

CA Ventura County Ventura County

CA Yolo County Sacramento Metro

CT Fairfield County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

CT Hartford County Greater Connecticut Area

CT Litchfield County Greater Connecticut Area

CT Middlesex County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

CT New Haven County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

CT New London County Greater Connecticut Area

CT Tolland County Greater Connecticut Area
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A1 - 3

State County Name NA Area Name

CT Windham County Greater Connecticut Area

DE Kent County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

DE New Castle County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

DE Sussex County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

DC District of Columbia Washington Area

MD Anne Arundel County Baltimore

MD Baltimore County Baltimore

MD Calvert County Washington Area

MD Carroll County Baltimore

MD Cecil County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

MD Charles County Washington Area

MD Frederick County Washington Area

MD Harford County Baltimore

MD Howard County Baltimore

MD Montgomery County Washington Area

MD Prince George's County Washington Area

MD Baltimore city Baltimore

MA Barnstable County Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. Mass) Area

MA Berkshire County Springfield (W. Mass) Area

MA Bristol County Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. Mass) Area

MA Dukes County Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. Mass) Area

MA Essex County Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. Mass) Area

MA Franklin County Springfield (W. Mass) Area

MA Hampden County Springfield (W. Mass) Area

MA Hampshire County Springfield (W. Mass) Area

MA Middlesex County Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. Mass) Area

MA Nantucket County Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. Mass) Area

MA Norfolk County Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. Mass) Area

MA Plymouth County Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. Mass) Area

MA Suffolk County Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. Mass) Area

MA Worcester County Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. Mass) Area

MO Franklin County St. Louis Area

MO Jefferson County St. Louis Area

MO St. Charles County St. Louis Area

MO St. Louis County St. Louis Area

MO St. Louis city St. Louis Area

NJ Atlantic County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

NJ Bergen County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NJ Burlington County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A1 - 4

State County Name NA Area Name

NJ Camden County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

NJ Cape May County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

NJ Cumberland County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

NJ Essex County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NJ Gloucester County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

NJ Hudson County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NJ Hunterdon County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NJ Mercer County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

NJ Middlesex County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NJ Monmouth County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NJ Morris County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NJ Ocean County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

NJ Passaic County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NJ Salem County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

NJ Somerset County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NJ Sussex County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NJ Union County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NJ Warren County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NY Bronx County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NY Chautauqua County Jamestown

NY Dutchess County Poughkeepsie Area

NY Erie County Buffalo-Niagara Falls

NY Jefferson County Jefferson County Area

NY Kings County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NY Nassau County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NY New York County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NY Niagara County Buffalo-Niagara Falls

NY Orange County Poughkeepsie Area

NY Putnam County Poughkeepsie Area

NY Queens County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NY Richmond County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NY Rockland County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NY Suffolk County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

NY Westchester County New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area

PA Allegheny County Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

PA Armstrong County Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

PA Beaver County Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

PA Bucks County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

PA Butler County Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A1 - 5

State County Name NA Area Name

PA Chester County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

PA Delaware County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

PA Fayette County Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

PA Montgomery County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

PA Philadelphia County Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area

PA Washington County Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

PA Westmoreland County Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

RI Bristol County Providence (all of RI) Area

RI Kent County Providence (all of RI) Area

RI Newport County Providence (all of RI) Area

RI Providence County Providence (all of RI) Area

RI Washington County Providence (all of RI) Area

TX Brazoria County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area

TX Chambers County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area

TX Collin County Dallas-Fort Worth

TX Dallas County Dallas-Fort Worth

TX Denton County Dallas-Fort Worth

TX Ellis County Dallas-Fort Worth

TX Fort Bend County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area

TX Harris County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area

TX Johnson County Dallas-Fort Worth

TX Kaufman County Dallas-Fort Worth

TX Liberty County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area

TX Montgomery County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area

TX Parker County Dallas-Fort Worth

TX Rockwall County Dallas-Fort Worth

TX Tarrant County Dallas-Fort Worth

TX Waller County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area

TX Wise County Dallas-Fort Worth

VA Arlington County Washington Area

VA Fairfax County Washington Area

VA Loudoun County Washington Area

VA Prince William County Washington Area

VA Alexandria city Washington Area

VA Fairfax city Washington Area

VA Falls Church city Washington Area

VA Manassas city Washington Area

VA Manassas Park city Washington Area

WI Sheboygan County Sheboygan Area
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

ATTACHMENT 2

ONG CTG – RACT-Impacted Population of Storage Vessels and RACTImpacted Storage Vessel Baseline Emissions, Emission Reductions and Costs 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A2-2

Table A2-1. Number of RACT-Impacted Oil Storage Vessels 

Well Productivity 

Bracket (bbls/day range)

Representative 

(bbls/day)

Number of RACTImpacted Storage Vessels –

2012

Number of Storage Vessels 

Not Impacted by RACT

>0-1 0.385 0 34,577

1-2 1.34 0 8,727

2-4 2.66 0 10,589

4-6 4.45 0 6,174

6-8 6.22 0 4,228

8-10 8.08 0 3,361

10-12 9.83 0 2,592

12-15 12.1 0 2,880

15-20 15.4 0 3,177

20-25 19.9 0 2,017

25-30 24.3 0 1,306

30-40 30.5 1,087 423

40-50 39.2 505 197

50-100 61.6 755 279

100-200 120 104 64

200-400 238 13 21

400-800 456 0 2

800-1600 914 0 0

1600-3200 1,692 0 1

3200-6400 3,353 0 0

6400-12800 6,825 0 0

TOTAL 2,463 80,616
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A2-3

Total A2-2. Number of RACT-Impacted Condensate Storage Vessels

Well Productivity Bracket 

(bbls/day range)

Representative 

(bbls/day)

CTG Covered 

Vessels 2012

Total Number of Vessels Not 

Covered by RACT

>0-1 635 0 80,133

1-2 349 0 257

2-4 648 0 127

4-6 766 0 48

6-8 640 0 10

8-10 525 0 12

10-12 408 0 9

12-15 564 0 7

15-20 758 0 5

20-25 674 0 2

25-30 531 0 0

30-40 927 0 1

40-50 747 0 0

50-100 2,691 0 0

100-200 3,800 0 0

200-400 2,705 0 0

400-800 1,165 0 0

800-1600 348 0 0

1600-3200 69 0 0

3200-6400 37 0 0

6400-12800 5 0 0

>12800 0 0 0

TOTAL 0 80,611
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A2-4

Table A2-3. RACT-Impacted Oil Storage Vessel Baseline Emissions

Well Productivity Bracket (bbls/day 

range)

Representative 

(bbls/day)

Average Baseline Emissions per Unit 

(tpy/unit)

Nationwide Baseline Emissions 

2012

VOC Methane HAP VOC Methane HAP

>0-1 0.385 0.083 0.017 0.003 0 0 0.0

1-2 1.34 0.287 0.059 0.009 0 0 0.0

2-4 2.66 0.570 0.118 0.018 0 0 0.0

4-6 4.45 0.953 0.197 0.030 0 0 0.0

6-8 6.22 1.33 0.28 0.04 0 0 0.0

8-10 8.08 1.73 0.36 0.05 0 0 0.0

10-12 9.83 2.11 0.44 0.07 0 0 0.0

12-15 12.1 2.59 0.54 0.08 0 0 0.0

15-20 15.4 3.31 0.68 0.10 0 0 0.0

20-25 19.9 4.27 0.88 0.13 0 0 0.0

25-30 24.3 5.22 1.08 0.16 0 0 0.0

30-40 30.5 6.54 1.35 0.21 7,111 1,472 223.2

40-50 39.2 8.41 1.74 0.26 4,245 879 133.2

50-100 61.6 13.2 2.7 0.4 9,968 2,063 312.9

100-200 120 25.6 5.3 0.8 2,657 550 83.4

200-400 238 51.0 10.6 1.6 643 133 20.2

400-800 456 97.7 20.2 3.1 0 0 0.0

800-1600 914 196.0 40.6 6.2 0 0 0.0

1600-3200 1,692 362.9 75.1 11.4 0 0 0.0

3200-6400 3,353 719.1 148.8 22.6 0 0 0.0

6400-12800 6,825 1463.7 302.9 45.9 0 0 0.0

TOTAL 24,623 5,096 772.9
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A2-5

Table A2-4. RACT-Impacted Condensate Storage Vessel Baseline Emissions

Well Productivity Bracket 

(bbls/day range)

Representative 

(bbls/day)

Average Baseline Emissions per Unit (tpy/unit) Nationwide Baseline Emissions 2012

VOC Methane HAP VOC Methane HAP

>0-1 635 0.038 0.008 0.001 0 0 0

1-2 349 0.168 0.037 0.005 0 0 0

2-4 648 0.318 0.070 0.009 0 0 0

4-6 766 0.573 0.126 0.017 0 0 0

6-8 640 0.82 0.18 0.02 0 0 0

8-10 525 1.04 0.23 0.03 0 0 0

10-12 408 1.37 0.30 0.04 0 0 0

12-15 564 1.53 0.34 0.04 0 0 0

15-20 758 2.10 0.46 0.06 0 0 0

20-25 674 3.32 0.73 0.10 0 0 0

25-30 531 3.85 0.85 0.11 0 0 0

30-40 927 5.33 1.17 0.16 0 0 0

40-50 747 7.59 1.67 0.22 0 0 0

50-100 2,691 11.7 2.6 0.3 0 0 0

100-200 3,800 25.4 5.6 0.7 0 0 0

200-400 2,705 49.8 11.0 1.5 0 0 0

400-800 1,165 92.3 20.3 2.7 0 0 0

800-1600 348 142.2 31.3 4.2 0 0 0

1600-3200 69 310.7 68.5 9.1 0 0 0

3200-6400 37 489.9 107.9 14.4 0 0 0

6400-12800 5 1864.4 410.8 54.7 0 0 0

>12800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A2-6

Table A2-5. RACT-Impacted Oil Storage Vessel Emission Reductions

Well Productivity 

Bracket 

(bbls/day range)

Representative 

(bbls/day)

Average Emission Reduction 

Per Unit (tpy) Assuming 95% 

Reduction

Nationwide Emissions Reductions 

2012

Natural Gas 

Saved 

Mcf/yr/unit

Total 

Natural Gas 

Saved 

Mcf/yr

VOC Methane HAP VOC Methane HAP

>0-1 0.385 0.078 0.016 0.002 0 0 0.000 2.7 0

1-2 1.34 0.272 0.056 0.009 0 0 0.000 9.2 0

2-4 2.66 0.542 0.112 0.017 0 0 0.000 18.3 0

4-6 4.45 0.906 0.187 0.028 0 0 0.000 30.6 0

6-8 6.22 1.27 0.26 0.04 0 0 0.000 42.9 0

8-10 8.08 1.65 0.34 0.05 0 0 0.000 55.7 0

10-12 9.83 2.00 0.41 0.06 0 0 0.000 67.8 0

12-15 12.1 2.46 0.51 0.08 0 0 0.000 83.2 0

15-20 15.4 3.14 0.65 0.10 0 0 0.000 106.3 0

20-25 19.9 4.05 0.84 0.13 0 0 0.000 137.1 0

25-30 24.3 4.96 1.03 0.16 0 0 0.000 167.7 0

30-40 30.5 6.21 1.29 0.20 6755 1398 212 210.1 22847

40-50 39.2 7.99 1.65 0.25 4033 835 127 270.3 13638

50-100 61.6 12.5 2.6 0.4 9470 1960 297 424.2 32028

100-200 120 24.4 5.0 0.8 2524 522 79 823.9 8536

200-400 238 48.5 10.0 1.5 611 126 19 1638.9 2065

400-800 456 92.8 19.2 2.9 0 0 0.000 3139.0 0

800-1600 914 186.2 38.5 5.8 0 0 0.000 6297.8 0

1600-3200 1,692 344.8 71.4 10.8 0 0 0.000 11660.3 0

3200-6400 3,353 683.2 141.4 21.4 0 0 0.000 23105.8 0

6400-12800 6,825 1390.5 287.8 43.6 0 0 0.000 47028.1 0

TOTAL 23,392 4,842 734 79,114
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A2-7

Table A2-6. RACT-Impacted Condensate Storage Vessel Emission Reductions

Well Productivity 

Bracket (bbls/day 

range)

Representative 

(bbls/day)

Average Emission Reduction 

Per Unit (tpy) assuming 95% 

reduction Nationwide Emissions Reductions 

2012

Natural Gas 

Saved 

Mcf/yr/unit

Total 

Natural Gas 

Saved 

Mcf/yr

VOC Methane HAP VOC Methane HAP

>0-1 635 0.036 0.008 0.001 0 0 0 1.151 0

1-2 349 0.159 0.035 0.005 0 0 0 5.051 0

2-4 648 0.302 0.067 0.009 0 0 0 9.558 0

4-6 766 0.545 0.120 0.016 0 0 0 17.252 0

6-8 640 0.78 0.17 0.02 0 0 0 24.818 0

8-10 525 0.99 0.22 0.03 0 0 0 31.423 0

10-12 408 1.30 0.29 0.04 0 0 0 41.27 0

12-15 564 1.46 0.32 0.04 0 0 0 46.16 0

15-20 758 1.99 0.44 0.06 0 0 0 63.11 0

20-25 674 3.15 0.70 0.09 0 0 0 99.91 0

25-30 531 3.65 0.81 0.11 0 0 0 115.68 0

30-40 927 5.07 1.12 0.15 0 0 0 160.4 0

40-50 747 7.21 1.59 0.21 0 0 0 228.4 0

50-100 2,691 11.1 2.5 0.3 0 0 0 352.6 0

100-200 3,800 24.1 5.3 0.7 0 0 0 763 0

200-400 2,705 47.3 10.4 1.4 0 0 0 1498 0

400-800 1,165 87.7 19.3 2.6 0 0 0 2777 0

800-1600 348 135.1 29.8 4.0 0 0 0 4277 0

1600-3200 69 295.1 65.0 8.7 0 0 0 9346 0

3200-6400 37 465.4 102.5 13.6 0 0 0 14737 0

6400-12800 5 1771.2 390.3 51.9 0 0 0 56086 0

>12800 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.000 0
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A2-8

Table A2-7. RACT-Impacted Oil Storage Vessel VRU and Combustor Costs

Well 

Productivity 

Bracket 

(bbls/day 

range)

Route Emissions to a VRU Route Emissions to a Combustor

Total Capital 

Cost Per Unit 

($)

Total Annual Cost Per 

Unit ($/yr)

VOC Cost of Control 

($/ton) Total Capital 

Cost Per 

Unit ($)

Total Annual Cost 

Per Unit ($/yr)

VOC Cost of Control 

($/ton)

w/o 

savings w/ savings w/o savings w/ savings w/o savings

w/ 

savings

w/o 

savings w/ savings

>0-1 $171,538 $28,230 $28,219 $359,638 $359,503 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $283,175 $283,175

1-2 $171,538 $28,230 $28,193 $103,714 $103,579 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $81,663 $81,663

2-4 $171,538 $28,230 $28,157 $52,104 $51,969 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $41,026 $41,026

4-6 $171,538 $28,230 $28,107 $31,170 $31,035 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $24,543 $24,543

6-8 $171,538 $28,230 $28,058 $22,261 $22,126 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $17,528 $17,528

8-10 $171,538 $28,230 $28,007 $17,144 $17,009 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $13,499 $13,499

10-12 $171,538 $28,230 $27,959 $14,092 $13,957 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $11,096 $11,096

12-15 $171,538 $28,230 $27,897 $11,478 $11,342 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $9,037 $9,037

15-20 $171,538 $28,230 $27,805 $8,986 $8,851 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $7,075 $7,075

20-25 $171,538 $28,230 $27,682 $6,963 $6,828 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $5,483 $5,483

25-30 $171,538 $28,230 $27,559 $5,692 $5,557 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $4,482 $4,482

30-40 $171,538 $28,230 $27,390 $4,544 $4,409 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $3,578 $3,578

40-50 $171,538 $28,230 $27,149 $3,532 $3,397 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $2,781 $2,781

50-100 $171,538 $28,230 $26,533 $2,251 $2,115 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $1,772 $1,772

100-200 $171,538 $28,230 $24,934 $1,159 $1,024 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $912 $912

200-400 $171,538 $28,230 $21,675 $583 $447 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $459 $459

400-800 $171,538 $28,230 $15,674 $304 $169 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $239 $239

800-1600 $171,538 $28,230 $3,039 $152 $16 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $119 $119

1600-3200 $171,538 $28,230 -$18,411 $82 -$53 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $64 $64

3200-6400 $171,538 $28,230 -$64,193 $41 -$94 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $33 $33

6400-12800 $171,538 $28,230 -$159,882 $20 -$115 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $16 $16
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A2-9

Table A2-8. RACT-Impacted Condensate Storage Vessel VRU and Combustor Costs

Well 

Productivity 

Bracket

(bbls/day 

range)

Routing Emissions to a VRU Routing to a Combustor

Total Capital 

Cost Per Unit 

($)

Total Annual Cost Per 

Unit ($/yr)

VOC Cost Effectiveness 

($/ton) Total Capital 

Cost Per Unit 

($)

Total Annual Cost 

Per Unit ($/yr)

VOC Cost Effectiveness 

($/ton)

w/o 

savings w/ savings w/o savings w/ savings w/o savings

w/ 

savings

w/o 

savings w/ savings

>0-1 $171,538 $28,230 $28,225 $776,897 $776,770 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $611,720 $611,720

1-2 $171,538 $28,230 $28,210 $176,996 $176,870 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $139,365 $139,365

2-4 $171,538 $28,230 $28,192 $93,529 $93,402 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $73,643 $73,643

4-6 $171,538 $28,230 $28,161 $51,817 $51,690 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $40,800 $40,800

6-8 $171,538 $28,230 $28,131 $36,020 $35,893 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $28,362 $28,362

8-10 $171,538 $28,230 $28,104 $28,449 $28,322 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $22,400 $22,400

10-12 $171,538 $28,230 $28,065 $21,663 $21,537 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $17,057 $17,057

12-15 $171,538 $28,230 $28,045 $19,367 $19,240 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $15,249 $15,249

15-20 $171,538 $28,230 $27,978 $14,166 $14,039 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $11,154 $11,154

20-25 $171,538 $28,230 $27,830 $8,948 $8,821 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $7,045 $7,045

25-30 $171,538 $28,230 $27,767 $7,727 $7,601 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $6,085 $6,085

30-40 $171,538 $28,230 $27,588 $5,573 $5,446 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $4,388 $4,388

40-50 $171,538 $28,230 $27,316 $3,914 $3,787 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $3,082 $3,082

50-100 $171,538 $28,230 $26,820 $2,535 $2,409 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $1,996 $1,996

100-200 $171,538 $28,230 $25,177 $1,171 $1,045 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $922 $922

200-400 $171,538 $28,230 $22,239 $597 $470 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $470 $470

400-800 $171,538 $28,230 $17,120 $322 $195 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $253 $253

800-1600 $171,538 $28,230 $11,122 $209 $82 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $165 $165

1600-3200 $171,538 $28,230 -$9,152 $96 -$31 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $75 $75

3200-6400 $171,538 $28,230 -$30,717 $61 -$66 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $48 $48

6400-12800 $171,538 $28,230 -$196,116 $16 -$111 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $13 $13

>12800 $171,538 $28,230 $28,230 $0 $0 $100,986 $22,228 $22,228 $0 $0
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A2-10

Table A2-9. RACT-Impacted Oil Storage Vessel Nationwide Costs

Well Productivity Bracket

(bbls/day range)

Representative 

(bbls/day)

Total Nationwide Costs

Capital ($) Annual w/o savings 

($/yr) Annual w/ savings ($/yr)

>0-1 0.385 $0 $0 $0

1-2 1.34 $0 $0 $0

2-4 2.66 $0 $0 $0

4-6 4.45 $0 $0 $0

6-8 6.22 $0 $0 $0

8-10 8.08 $0 $0 $0

10-12 9.83 $0 $0 $0

12-15 12.1 $0 $0 $0

15-20 15.4 $0 $0 $0

20-25 19.9 $0 $0 $0

25-30 24.3 $0 $0 $0

30-40 30.5 $117,473,197 $24,821,102 $24,729,715

40-50 39.2 $54,517,590 $11,519,110 $11,464,556

50-100 61.6 $81,571,106 $17,235,291 $17,107,178

100-200 120 $11,193,068 $2,365,002 $2,330,858

200-400 238 $1,361,319 $287,635 $279,375

400-800 456 $0 $0 $0

800-1600 914 $0 $0 $0

1600-3200 1,692 $0 $0 $0

3200-6400 3,353 $0 $0 $0

6400-12800 6,825 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL $266,116,280 $56,228,139 $55,911,683
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A2-11

Table A2-10. RACT-Impacted Condensate Storage Vessel Nationwide Costs

Well Productivity Bracket 

(bbls/day range)

Representative 

(bbls/day)

Total Nationwide Costs

Capital ($) Annual w/o savings ($/yr) Annual w/ savings ($/yr)

>0-1 635 $0 $0 $0

1-2 349 $0 $0 $0

2-4 648 $0 $0 $0

4-6 766 $0 $0 $0

6-8 640 $0 $0 $0

8-10 525 $0 $0 $0

10-12 408 $0 $0 $0

12-15 564 $0 $0 $0

15-20 758 $0 $0 $0

20-25 674 $0 $0 $0

25-30 531 $0 $0 $0

30-40 927 $0 $0 $0

40-50 747 $0 $0 $0

50-100 2,691 $0 $0 $0

100-200 3,800 $0 $0 $0

200-400 2,705 $0 $0 $0

400-800 1,165 $0 $0 $0

800-1600 348 $0 $0 $0

1600-3200 69 $0 $0 $0

3200-6400 37 $0 $0 $0

6400-12800 5 $0 $0 $0

>12800 0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL $0 $0 $0
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

ATTACHMENT 3

ONG CTG – Storage Vessels Covered By State Regulation
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A3-2

This attachment presents an analysis of state regulations that estimates the number of 

existing storage vessels that are already subject to a RACT-equivalent or greater level of control. 

The number of storage vessels determined to be subject to a RACT-equivalent or greater level of 

control was subtracted from the number of storage vessels that were located in RACT-impacted 

areas that were assumed to emit greater than or equal to six tons per year. There are likely more 

storage vessels regulated or permitted at or greater than the level of control of the recommended 

RACT that have not been accounted for in this analysis (e.g., based on case-by-case permit 

limits). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

Wells in Covered Ozone NAA All none none

Wells in OTR None all none

Wells in Both NAA and OTR (Combined) None none none

Covered by State Regulations Yes No No

PROD_BRACKET CA State 

Covered

RACT 

Covered

CA Not 

Covered MD RACT Covered MO RACT Covered

1. Oil Storage 

Vessels

01. 0-1 0.0826269 7,364 0 0 7,364 0 0

02. 1-2 0.2865171 5,798 0 0 5,798 0 0

03. 2-4 0.570319 8,039 0 0 8,039 0 0

04. 4-6 0.9533338 5,550 0 0 5,550 0 0

05. 6-8 1.3348927 3,906 0 0 3,906 0 0

06. 8-10 1.7332758 3,013 0 0 3,013 0 0

07. 10-12 2.1086478 2,407 0 0 2,407 0 0

08. 12-15 2.5890449 2,668 0 0 2,668 0 0

09. 15-20 3.3068937 2,968 0 0 2,968 0 0

10. 20-25 4.2677003 1,882 0 0 1,882 0 0

11. 25-30 5.2206583 1,183 0 0 1,183 0 0

12. 30-40 6.5398044 1,409 423 986 0 0 0 1 1

13. 40-50 8.4121872 658 197 461 0 0 0 0 0

14. 50-100 13.203157 930 279 651 0 0 0 0 0

15. 100-200 25.643313 148 44 104 0 0 0 0 0

16. 200-400 51.007426 18 5 13 0 0 0 0 0

17. 400-800 97.698603 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18. 800-1600 196.00969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19. 1600-3200 362.91168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Oil Storage Vessels Total 47,941 948 2,215 44,778 0 0 1 1
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A3-4

2. 

Condensate 

Storage 

Vessels

01. 0-1 0.0382493 844 0 0 844 1 0 0 0

02. 1-2 0.1678892 20 0 0 20 0 0 0 0

03. 2-4 0.3177185 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 0

04. 4-6 0.5734743 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0

05. 6-8 0.8249768 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

06. 8-10 1.0445258 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

07. 10-12 1.3717117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

08. 12-15 1.5343912 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

09. 15-20 2.097692 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

10. 20-25 3.3210453 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

11. 25-30 3.8454636 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12. 30-40 5.3320791 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13. 40-50 7.5920188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14. 50-100 11.720472 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15. 100-200 25.372232 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16. 200-400 49.789888 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17. 400-800 92.323865 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18. 800-1600 142.16815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19. 1600-3200 310.65686 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2. Condensate Storage Vessels Total 890 0 0 890 1 0 0 0
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A3-5

MISSOURI NEW YORK PENNSYLVANIA

Wells in Covered Ozone NAA all none none

Wells in OTR none some some

Wells in Both NAA and OTR (Combined) none some some

Covered by State Regulations No No No

EPA_PROD_BRACKET MO NY NAA OTR Combined PA NAA OTR Combined

1. Oil Storage 

Vessels

01. 0-1 0.0826269 3,216 0 0 0 18,593 0 0 0

02. 1-2 0.2865171 65 0 0 0 915 0 0 0

03. 2-4 0.570319 33 0 0 0 160 0 0 0

04. 4-6 0.9533338 1 0 0 0 23 0 0 0

05. 6-8 1.3348927 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0

06. 8-10 1.7332758 1 0 0 0 48 0 0 0

07. 10-12 2.1086478 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0

08. 12-15 2.5890449 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0

09. 15-20 3.3068937 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0

10. 20-25 4.2677003 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0

11. 25-30 5.2206583 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0

12. 30-40 6.5398044 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3

13. 40-50 8.4121872 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5

14. 50-100 13.203157 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3

15. 100-200 25.643313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16. 200-400 51.007426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17. 400-800 97.698603 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18. 800-1600 196.00969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19. 1600-3200 362.91168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Oil Storage Vessels Total 3,317 0 0 0 19,862 0 0 11 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

A3-6

2. Condensate Storage Vessels 01. 0-1 0.0382493 7,074 0 0 0 52,109 0 0 0

02. 1-2 0.1678892 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0

03. 2-4 0.3177185 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0

04. 4-6 0.5734743 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0

05. 6-8 0.8249768 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0

06. 8-10 1.0445258 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0

07. 10-12 1.3717117 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0

08. 12-15 1.5343912 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

09. 15-20 2.097692 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10. 20-25 3.3210453 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11. 25-30 3.8454636 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12. 30-40 5.3320791 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13. 40-50 7.5920188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14. 50-100 11.720472 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15. 100-200 25.372232 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16. 200-400 49.789888 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17. 400-800 92.323865 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18. 800-1600 142.16815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19. 1600-3200 310.65686 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2. Condensate Storage Vessels Total 7,074 0 0 0 52,198 0 0 0