Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems, 18608-18650 [2010-6767]
Download as PDF
18608
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
DC 20004. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation, and special
40 CFR Part 98
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0923; FRL–9131–1]
Instructions: Direct your comments to
RIN 2060–AP99
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0923. EPA’s policy is that all comments
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse
received will be included in the public
Gases: Petroleum and Natural Gas
docket without change and may be
Systems
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
personal information provided, unless
Agency (EPA).
the comment includes information
ACTION: Proposed rule.
claimed to be CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a
Do not submit information that you
supplemental rule to require reporting
of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
petroleum and natural gas systems.
Specifically, the proposed supplemental www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
rulemaking would require emissions
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
reporting from the following industry
means EPA will not know your identity
segments: Onshore petroleum and
or contact information unless you
natural gas production, offshore
provide it in the body of your comment.
petroleum and natural gas production,
If you send an e-mail comment directly
natural gas processing, natural gas
to EPA without going through https://
transmission compressor stations,
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
underground natural gas storage,
liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage, LNG address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
import and export terminals, and
that is placed in the public docket and
distribution. The proposed
made available on the Internet. If you
supplemental rulemaking does not
submit an electronic comment, EPA
require control of GHGs, rather it
requires only that sources above certain recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
threshold levels monitor and report
the body of your comment and with any
emissions.
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
DATES: Comments must be received on
cannot read your comment due to
or before June 11, 2010. There will be
technical difficulties and cannot contact
one public hearing. The hearing will be
you for clarification, EPA may not be
on April 19, 2010 in Arlington, VA and
able to consider your comment.
will begin at 8 a.m. local time and end
Electronic files should avoid the use of
at 5 p.m. local time.
special characters, any form of
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
encryption, and be free of any defects or
comments, identified by docket EPA–
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
HQ–OAR–2009–0923 and/or RIN
are listed in the https://
number 2060–AP99 by any of the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// listed in the index, some information is
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
instructions for submitting comments.
restricted by statute. Certain other
• E-mail: GHG_Reporting_Rule_Oil_
material, such as copyrighted material,
and_Natural_Gas@epa.gov. Include
will be publicly available only in hard
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0923 and/or RIN
copy. Publicly available docket
number 2060–AP99 in the subject line
materials are available either
of the message.
electronically in https://
• Fax: (202) 566–1741.
• Phone: (202) 566–1744.
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
• Mail: Environmental Protection
the Air Docket, EPA’s Docket Center,
Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Public Reading Room, EPA West
Attention Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
0923, Mail Code 2822T, 1200
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket excluding legal holidays. The telephone
Center Public Reading Room, Room
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
3334, EPA West Building, Attention
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0923, 1301 number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 1742.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION
CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change
Division, Office of Atmospheric
Programs (MC–6207J), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 343–9263; fax
number: (202) 343–2342; e-mail address:
GHGMRR@epa.gov. For technical
information contact the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule Hotline at telephone
number: (877) 444–1188; or e-mail:
GHGMRR@epa.gov. To obtain
information about the public hearings or
to register to speak at the hearings,
please go to https://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/
ghgrulemaking.html. Alternatively,
contact Carole Cook at 202–343–9263.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA first
proposed Mandatory GHG Reporting
requirements for petroleum and natural
gas systems (under 40 CFR, part 98,
subpart W) in April 2009. EPA received
a substantial number of comments on
this initial proposal for petroleum and
natural gas systems. For this reason,
EPA decided not to finalize the rule for
petroleum and natural gas systems, and
instead to propose a supplemental rule.
EPA reviewed and considered
comments submitted on the previous
proposal in drafting this proposed
supplemental rulemaking. However, as
this is a new proposal, EPA is not here
responding to comments on the earlier
version of this rule. Any comments
must be submitted as provided herein,
to be considered. A more detailed
background concerning the subpart W
rulemaking and proposed changes can
be found in section II–A.
Additional Information on Submitting
Comments: To expedite review of your
comments by Agency staff, you are
encouraged to send a separate copy of
your comments, in addition to the copy
you submit to the official docket, to
Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of
Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change
Division, Mail Code 6207–J, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460, telephone (202) 343–9263, email: GHG_Reporting_Rule_Oil_and
_Natural_Gas@epa.gov.
Although as indicated above, EPA
previously proposed a version of this
rule, that proposal never became final.
This is a newly proposed rule and
comments which were submitted on the
earlier version of the rule are not being
considered in the context of this rule.
Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time.
Regulated Entities. The Administrator
determined that this action is subject to
the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 307(d). See CAA section
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section
307(d) apply to ‘‘such other actions as
the Administrator may determine.’’).
This is a proposed regulation. If
finalized, these regulations would affect
owners or operators of petroleum and
18609
natural gas systems. Regulated
categories and entities include those
listed in Table 1 of this preamble:
TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY
Source Category
NAICS
Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems ..............................................
Table 1 of this preamble is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding
facilities likely to be affected by this
action. Table 1 of this preamble lists the
types of facilities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially affected by the
reporting requirements. Other types of
facilities listed in the table could also be
subject to reporting requirements. To
determine whether you are affected by
this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria found
486210
221210
211
211112
Examples of affected facilities
Pipeline transportation of natural gas.
Natural gas distribution facilities.
Extractors of crude petroleum and natural gas.
Natural gas liquid extraction facilities.
in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart A
or the relevant criteria in the sections
related to petroleum and natural gas
systems. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a
particular facility, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Many facilities that are affected by the
proposed supplemental rule have GHG
emissions from multiple source
categories listed in Table 1 of this
preamble. Table 2 of this preamble has
been developed as a guide to help
potential reporters in the petroleum and
natural gas industry subject to the
proposed rule identify the source
categories (by subpart) that they may
need to (1) consider in their facility
applicability determination, and/or (2)
include in their reporting. The table
should only be seen as a guide.
Additional subparts in 40 CFR part 98
may be relevant for a given reporter.
Similarly, not all listed subparts are
relevant for all reporters.
TABLE 2—SOURCE CATEGORIES AND RELEVANT SUBPARTS
Other Subparts recommended for review to determine
applicability
Source category
Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems ..................................................................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The
following acronyms and abbreviations
are used in this document.
ASTM American Society for Testing and
Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
cf cubic feet
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2-equivalent
EO Executive Order
EOR enhanced oil recovery
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
ICR information collection request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
kg kilograms
LDCs local natural gas distribution
companies
LNG liquefied natural gas
LPG liquefied petroleum gas
MRR mandatory GHG reporting rule
MMTCO2e million metric tons carbon
dioxide equivalent
N2O nitrous oxide
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
40
40
40
40
40
40
CFR
CFR
CFR
CFR
CFR
CFR
part
part
part
part
part
part
98,
98,
98,
98,
98,
98,
NGLs natural gas liquids
OMB Office of Management and Budget
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TCR The Climate Registry
TSD technical support document
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
WCI Western Climate Initiative
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Organization of this Preamble
B. Background on the Proposed Rule
C. Legal Authority
D. Relationship to Other Federal, State and
Regional Programs
II. Rationale for the Reporting, Recordkeeping
and Verification Requirements
A. Overview of Proposal
B. Summary of the Major Changes Since
Initial Proposal
C. Definition of the Source Category
D. Selection of Reporting Threshold
E. Selection of Proposed Monitoring
Methods
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
subpart
subpart
subpart
subpart
subpart
subpart
C.
Y.
MM.
NN.
PP.
RR (proposed).
F. Selection of Procedures for Estimating
Missing Data
G. Selection of Data Reporting
Requirements
H. Selection of Records That Must Be
Retained
III. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule
A. How were compliance costs estimated?
B. What are the costs of the proposed rule?
C. What are the economic impacts of the
proposed rule?
D. What are the impacts of the proposed
rule on small businesses?
E. What are the benefits of the proposed
rule for society?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18610
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
I. Background
A. Organization of This Preamble
This preamble is broken into several
large sections, as detailed above in the
Table of Contents. The paragraphs
below describe the layout of the
preamble and provide a brief summary
of each section.
The first section of this preamble
contains the basic background
information about the origin of this
proposed supplemental rulemaking,
including a discussion of the initial
proposed rule for petroleum and natural
gas systems. This section also discusses
EPA’s use of our legal authority under
the Clean Air Act to collect the
proposed data, and the benefits of
collecting the data. The relationship
between the mandatory GHG reporting
program and other mandatory and
voluntary reporting programs at the
national, regional and State level also is
discussed.
The second section of this preamble
summarizes the general provisions of
this proposed supplemental rulemaking
for petroleum and natural gas systems.
It also highlights the major changes
between the initial proposed rule and
the supplemental rule that we are
proposing today, including changes in
the scope of the proposed rule and the
monitoring methods proposed. This
section then provides a brief summary
of, and rationale for, selection of key
design elements. Specifically, this
section describes EPA’s rationale for (i)
the definition of the source category (ii)
selection of reporting thresholds (iii)
selection of monitoring methods, (iv)
missing data procedures (v) proposed
data reporting requirements, and (vi)
recordkeeping requirements. Thus, for
example, there is a specific discussion
regarding appropriate thresholds,
monitoring methodologies and reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for
each segment of the petroleum and
natural gas industry proposed for
inclusion in the rule: onshore petroleum
and natural gas production, offshore
petroleum and natural gas production,
natural gas processing, natural gas
transmission compressor stations,
natural gas underground storage, LNG
storage, LNG import and export
terminals, and distribution. EPA
describes the proposed options for each
design element, as well as the other
options considered. Throughout this
discussion, EPA highlights specific
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
issues on which we solicit comment.
Please refer to the specific source
category of interest for more details.
The third section provides the
summary of the cost impacts, economic
impacts, and benefits of this proposed
rule from the Economic Analysis.
Finally, the last section discusses the
various statutory and executive order
requirements applicable to this
proposed rulemaking.
B. Background on the Proposed Rule
The Final Mandatory GHG Reporting
Rule (‘‘Final MRR’’), (40 CFR part 98)
was signed by EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson on September 22, 2009 and
published in the Federal Register on
October 30, 2009 (74 FR 209 (October
30, 2009) pp. 56260–56519). The Final
MRR which is effective on December 29,
2009 included reporting of GHGs from
facilities and suppliers that EPA
determined met the criteria in the 2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act.1
These source categories capture
approximately 85 percent of U.S. GHG
emissions through reporting by direct
emitters as well as suppliers of fossil
fuels and industrial gases. There are,
however, many additional types of data
and reporting that the Agency deems
important and necessary to address an
issue as large and complex as climate
change (e.g. indirect emissions from
electricity use). In that sense, one could
view the Final MRR (40 CFR part 98) as
focused on certain sources of emissions
and upstream suppliers. For information
on existing programs at the Federal,
Regional and State levels that also
collect valuable information to inform
and implement policies necessary to
address climate change, relationship of
the Final MRR to EPA and U.S.
government climate change efforts and
to other State and Regional Programs,
see the Preamble to the Final MRR.
In the April 2009 proposed mandatory
GHG reporting rule the petroleum and
natural gas systems subcategory was
included as Subpart W. EPA received a
number of lengthy, detailed comments
regarding this subpart W proposal.
Some comments were focused on the
significant cost burden that the April
2009 proposed rule would impose on
petroleum and natural gas systems,
whereas others focused on whether
certain sources, such as onshore
production and distribution, that were
not included in the initial proposal,
should be included. EPA recognized the
concerns raised by stakeholders, and
decided not to finalize subpart W with
the Final MRR, but instead to propose
1 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public
Law 110–161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a new supplemental rule for petroleum
and natural gas systems. This proposed
supplemental rule incorporates a
number of changes including, but not
limited to, different methodologies that
provide improved emissions coverage at
a lower cost burden to facilities than
would have been covered under the
initial proposed rule; the inclusion of
onshore production and distribution
facilities; and separate definitions for
‘‘vented’’ and ‘‘fugitive’’ emissions. As
noted earlier, stakeholders should
submit comments in the context of this
new proposed supplemental rule.
This proposed supplemental rule 40
CFR part 98, subpart W requires annual
reporting of fugitive and vented carbon
dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4)
emissions from petroleum and natural
gas systems facilities, as well as
combustion-related CO2, CH4, and
nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from
flares at those facilities, following the
methods outlined in the proposal. This
proposed rule would also establish
appropriate thresholds and frequency
for reporting, as well as provisions to
ensure the accuracy of emissions
through monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
This proposed rule applies to
facilities in specific segments of the
petroleum and natural gas industry that
emit GHGs greater than or equal to
25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per
year. Reporting would be at the facility
level.
C. Legal Authority
EPA is proposing this rule under its
existing CAA authority, specifically
authorities provided in section 114 of
the CAA. As discussed further below
and in ‘‘Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to
Public Comments, Legal Issues’’ (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2008–0508–2264), EPA is not
citing the FY 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act as the statutory
basis for this action. While that law
required that EPA spend no less than
$3.5 million on a rule requiring the
mandatory reporting of GHG emissions,
it is the CAA, not the Appropriations
Act, that EPA is citing as the authority
to gather the information proposed by
this rule.
As stated in the Final MRR, CAA
section 114 provides EPA broad
authority to require the information
proposed to be gathered by this rule
because such data would inform and are
relevant to EPA’s carrying out a wide
variety of CAA provisions. As discussed
in the initial proposed rule (74 FR
16448, April 10, 2009), section 114(a)(1)
of the CAA authorizes the Administrator
to require emissions sources, persons
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
subject to the CAA, manufacturers of
control equipment, or persons whom
the Administrator believes may have
necessary information to monitor and
report emissions and provide such other
information the Administrator requests
for the purposes of carrying out any
provision of the CAA.
EPA notes that comments were
submitted on the initial rule proposal
questioning EPA’s authority under the
Clean Air Act to collect emissions
information from certain offshore
petroleum and natural gas platforms.
Some commenters argued that EPA does
not have the authority to collect
emissions information from offshore
platforms located in areas of the
Western Gulf because they are under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the
Interior. They cited, among other things,
the Outer Continental Shelf Act, 43
U.S.C. 1334. Without opining on the
accuracy of the commenter’s summary
of OCSLA or other law, we note that
even the commenter describes these
authorities as relating to the regulation
of air emissions. Today’s proposal does
not regulate GHG emissions; rather it
gathers information to inform EPA’s
evaluation of various CAA provisions.
Moreover, EPA’s authority under CAA
Section 114 is broad, and extends to any
person ‘‘who the Administrator believes
may have information necessary for the
purposes’’ of carrying out the CAA, even
if that person is not subject to the CAA.
Indeed, by specifically authorizing EPA
to collect information from both persons
subject to any requirement of the CAA,
as well as any person who the
Administrator believes may have
necessary information, Congress clearly
intended that EPA could gather
information from a person not otherwise
subject to CAA requirements. EPA is
comprehensively considering how to
address climate change under the CAA,
including both regulatory and nonregulatory options. The information
from these and other offshore platforms
will inform our analyses, including
options applicable to emissions of any
offshore platforms that EPA is
authorized to regulate under the CAA.
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR
98.2(a) so that the final MRR applies to
facilities located in the United States
and on or under the Outer Continental
Shelf. These revisions are necessary to
ensure that any petroleum or natural gas
platforms located on our under the
Outer Continental Shelf of the United
States would be required to report under
this rule. In addition, EPA is proposing
revisions to the definition of United
States to clarify that the United States
includes the territorial seas. Other
facilities located offshore of the United
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
States covered by the mandatory
reporting program at 40 CFR part 98
would also be affected by this change in
the definition of United States. Revising
the definition of United States will also
ensure that facilities located offshore of
the United States that are injecting CO2
into sub-seabed for long-term
containment will also be required to
report data regarding greenhouse gases.
EPA is proposing a separate rule on
geologic sequestration and any
comments specific to that issue should
be directed to the Agency on that
rulemaking not this one. Finally, in
addition to the change to the definition
of United States, EPA is adding a
definition of ‘‘Outer Continental Shelf.’’
This definition is drawn from the
definition in the U.S. Code. Together,
these changes make clear that the
Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule applies
to facilities on land, in the territorial
seas, or on or under the Outer
Continental Shelf, of the United States,
and that otherwise meet the
applicability criteria of the rule.
For further information about EPA’s
legal authority, see the proposed and
final MRR.
D. Relationship to Other Federal, State
and Regional Programs
In developing the initial proposal for
mandatory reporting from petroleum
and natural gas systems that was
released in April 2009, as well as this
supplemental proposed rulemaking,
EPA reviewed monitoring methods
included in international guidance (e.g.,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change), as well as Federal voluntary
programs (e.g., EPA Natural Gas STAR
Program and the U.S. Department of
Energy Voluntary Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases Program (1605(b)),
corporate protocols (e.g., World
Resources Institute and World Business
Council for Sustainable Development
GHG Protocol) and industry guidance
(e.g., methodological guidance from the
American Petroleum Institute, the
Interstate Natural Gas Association of
America, and the American Gas
Association).
EPA also reviewed State reporting
programs (e.g., California and New
Mexico) and Regional partnerships (e.g.,
The Climate Registry, the Western
Regional Air Partnership). These are
important programs that not only led
the way in reporting of GHG emissions
before the Federal government acted but
also assist in quantifying the GHG
reductions achieved by various policies.
Many of these programs collect different
or additional data as compared to this
proposed rule. For example, State
programs may establish lower
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
18611
thresholds for reporting, request
information on areas not addressed in
EPA’s reporting rule, or include
different data elements to support other
programs (e.g., offsets). For further
discussion on the relationship of this
proposed rule to other programs, refer to
the preamble to the Final MRR.
II. Rationale for the Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Verification
Requirements
A. Overview of Proposal
The U.S. petroleum and natural gas
industry encompasses hundreds of
thousands of wells, hundreds of
processing facilities, and over a million
miles of transmission and distribution
pipelines. This proposed rule would
apply to the calculation and reporting of
vented, fugitive, and flare combustion
emissions from selected equipment at
the following facilities that emit equal to
or greater than 25,000 metric tons of
CO2 equivalent per year from source
categories covered by the mandatory
GHG reporting rule: offshore petroleum
and natural gas production facilities,
onshore petroleum and natural gas
production facilities (including
enhanced oil recovery (EOR)), onshore
natural gas processing facilities, onshore
natural gas transmission compression
facilities, onshore natural gas storage
facilities, LNG storage facilities, LNG
import and export facilities and natural
gas distribution facilities owned or
operated by local distribution
companies (LDCs). This proposal does
not address the production of gas from
landfills or manure management
systems. Methods and reporting
procedures for stationary combustion
emissions other than flares at petroleum
and natural gas industry facilities are
covered under Subpart C of the Final
MRR.
This proposed supplemental rule
incorporates a number of different
methodologies to provide improved
emissions coverage at a lower cost
burden to affected facilities, as
compared to the initial proposed rule. In
this supplemental proposal, EPA is
requiring the use of direct measurement
of emissions for only the most
significant emissions sources where
other options are not available, and
proposing the use of engineering
estimates, emissions modeling software,
and leak detection and publicly
available emission factors for most other
vented and fugitive sources. For smaller
fugitive and inaccessible to plain view
sources, component count and
population emissions factors are
proposed. In the case of offshore
platforms, EPA is recommending that
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
18612
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emissions sources identified under the
Minerals Management Services (MMS)
GOADS (Gulfwide Offshore Activities
Data System) be used for reporting, and
the GOADS process be extended to
platforms in other Federal regions (i.e.,
California and Alaska) and in State
waters. The alternative methodologies
proposed in this rule will provide
similar or better estimation of vented
and fugitive CH4 and CO2 emissions in
the petroleum and gas industry, while
significantly reducing industry burden.
Under this supplemental proposal,
facilities not already reporting but
required to report under subpart W
would begin data collection in 2011
following the methods outlined in the
proposed rule, and submit data to EPA
by March 31, 2012.
EPA would require reporting of
calendar year 2011 emissions in 2012
because the data are crucial to the
timely development of future GHG
policy and regulatory programs. In the
Appropriation Act, Congress requested
EPA to develop this reporting program
on an expedited schedule, and
Congressional inquiries along with
public comments reinforce that data
collection for calendar year 2011 is a
priority. Delaying data collection until
calendar year 2012 would mean the data
would not be received until 2013, which
would likely be too late for many
ongoing GHG policy and program
development needs.
EPA considered, but decided not to
propose, the use of best available
monitoring methods for part (e.g., the
first three months) or all of the first year
of data collection. EPA concluded that
the time period that would be allowed
under this schedule is sufficient to
allow facilities to implement the
monitoring methods that would be
required by the proposed rule. In
general, the proposed monitors are
widely available and are not time
consuming to install. Further, some of
the monitoring methods (e.g., use of
emission factors) may not require the
installation of any monitoring
equipment. Finally, the emissions
assessment may be done at any time
during the year, and measurements do
not necessarily need to be undertaken
during the first quarter.
EPA seeks comment on the proposal
not to allow use of best available
monitoring methods for part or all of the
first year of data collection. Further, if
commenters recommend that EPA allow
the use of best available monitoring
methods for a designated time period
(e.g., three months), EPA seeks
comments on whether requests for use
of best available monitoring methods
should only be approved for parameters
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
subject to direct measurement, or also in
cases where engineering calculations
and/or emission factors are used.
Amendments to the General
Provisions. In a separate rulemaking
package that was recently published
(March 16, 2010), EPA issued minor
harmonizing changes to the general
provisions for the GHG reporting rule
(40 CFR part 98, subpart A) to
accommodate the addition of source
categories not included in the 2009 final
rule (e.g., subparts proposed in April
2009 but not finalized in 2009, any new
subparts that may be proposed in the
future). The changes update 98.2(a) on
rule applicability and 98.3 regarding the
reporting schedule to accommodate any
additional subparts and the schedule for
their reporting obligations (e.g., source
categories finalized in 2010 would not
begin data collection until 2011 and
reporting in 2012).
In particular, we restructured 40 CFR
98.2(a) to move the lists of source
categories from the text into tables. A
table format improves clarity and
facilitates the addition of source
categories that were not included in
calendar year 2010 reporting and would
begin reporting in future years. A table,
versus list, approach allows other
sections of the rule to be updated
automatically when the table is
updated; a list approach requires
separate updates to the various list
references each time the list is changed.
In addition to reformatting the
98.2(a)(1)–(2) lists into tables, other
sections of subpart A were reworded to
refer to the source category tables
because the tables make it clear which
source categories are to be considered
for determining the applicability
threshold and reporting requirements
for calendar years 2010, 2011, and
future years.
Because facilities with petroleum and
natural gas systems (as defined in
proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart W)
would be subject to the rule if facility
emissions exceed 25,000 metric tons
CO2e per year, in today’s rule we are
proposing to add this source category to
those threshold categories referenced
from 40 CFR 98.2(a)(2) whether the
reference is to a list or a table.2
In today’s proposal, we also propose
to amend 40 CFR 98.6 to add definitions
for several terms used in proposed 40
CFR part 98, subpart W and to clarify
the meaning of certain terms for
purposes of subpart W. We also propose
to amend 40 CFR 98.7 (incorporation by
2 Since we are proposing to change the list of
covered subcategories to tables, we are not
providing regulatory text in this proposal because
the preamble is clear.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reference) to include standard methods
used in proposed subpart W. In
particular, we propose to incorporate by
reference the AAPG–CSD Geologic Code
Provinces Code Map available from The
American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, Volume 75, No. 10
(October 1991) pages 1644–1651. It
would be used to define the geographic
boundaries for reporting of onshore oil
and gas production systems. We also
proposed to incorporate by reference
models, including Glycalc and E&P
Tanks that would be used to calculate
emissions and were not developed by
the Federal government.
B. Summary of the Major Changes Since
Initial Proposal
Mandatory GHG reporting
requirements were proposed for
Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems
under Subpart W in April 2009 along
with a number of other sectors of the
economy. As noted in the Preamble to
the Final MRR, EPA received a number
of lengthy, detailed comments regarding
Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems. In
total, EPA received comments from over
80 organizations and over 1,200 pages of
formal comments on the Petroleum and
Gas Systems Initial Proposed Rule.
Some comments proposed simplified
alternatives to the proposed reporting
requirements based on the potential that
the proposed requirements would entail
significant burden and cost. Other
comments addressed whether to include
onshore production and the distribution
segment, which were excluded from the
initial proposal as EPA sought
comments on approaches for the level of
reporting of fugitive and vented GHG
emissions from these segments (e.g.,
facility or corporate).
EPA has reviewed the comments and
issues and suggestions raised by
stakeholders within and outside the
petroleum and natural gas industry
related to emissions coverage and the
level of cost burden in this sector. In
response, EPA is proposing a new
supplemental rule for Petroleum and
Natural Gas Systems. This proposed
supplemental rule now incorporates all
segments of the petroleum and gas
industry, adding onshore production
and distribution.
Total fugitive, vented and combustion
emissions estimated to be covered in
this supplemental proposed rulemaking
amount to 351 MMTCO2e; 272
MMTCO2e from fugitive and vented
emissions and 79 MMTCO2e from
combustion emissions.3 Fugitive and
3 Some petroleum and natural gas facilities will
already be required to report emissions from
stationary combustion under the MRR that was
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18613
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
vented emissions estimates included in
the supplemental proposed rulemaking
are significantly higher than the 131
MMTCO2e reported in the 2008 U.S.
Inventory of Greenhouse Gases, due to
the inclusion of items believed to be
under-reported in the inventory
(discussed further below).
Table W–1 summarizes the estimated
fugitive, vented and combustion
emissions for the segments included in
the initial proposal and the added
segments of onshore production and
distribution. Additional details can be
found in the Economic Impact Analysis
for the Mandatory Reporting of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions under
Subpart W Supplemental Rule (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2009–0923).
TABLE W–1—FUGITIVE/VENTED AND COMBUSTION EMISSIONS FROM PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS,
MMTCO2e
Fugitive and
vented emissions:
Initial proposed rule
Segment
Fugitive and
vented emissions: Supplemental proposed rulemaking
Combustion
emissions:
Supplemental
proposed rulemaking
Initial Proposed Rule Six Segments ............................................................................................
Onshore Production .....................................................................................................................
Natural Gas Distribution ..............................................................................................................
85
NA
NA
94.3
154.9
22.7
9.8
69.3
NA
Total Emissions ....................................................................................................................
85
271.9
1 79.1
1 This
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
estimate reflects only incremental combustion emissions (i.e., only those combustion emissions from facilities above and beyond what
will already be required to be reported under the Final MRR). For example, combustion-related emissions ftrom many natural gas processing
plants are already required to be reported under subpart C and are therefore not included here. The combustion estimate also includes combustion emissions from flares.
Inclusion of onshore production and
distribution results in estimated fugitive
and vented emissions that are more than
triple the estimated emissions in the
initial rule proposal for petroleum and
natural gas systems.
In addition to expanding emissions
coverage under the proposed
supplemental rule, EPA has assessed a
number of alternative methodologies
that were either recommended by
commenters or are known to provide
effective quantification of emissions at a
significantly lower cost burden. The
changes include the use of:
• Limited use of fugitive leak
detection.
• Leaker factors to quantify detected
fugitive emissions.
• Population factors and component
count for fugitive emissions that are
widely scattered or inaccessible to plain
view.
• Use of existing MMS GOADS
methods and calculated emissions for
offshore production facilities.
• Modeling software to quantify
glycol dehydrator and tank emissions.
• Engineering estimation for well
venting from liquids unloading.
• Engineering estimation for well
venting from completions and
workovers.
• Engineering estimation for well
testing and flaring.
• Engineering estimation for flaring
emissions.
• Limited sampling to determine gas
composition.
Another significant change in the
proposed supplemental rule is the use
of the term ‘‘fugitives’’. The initial rule
proposal from April 2009 included both
vented and fugitive emissions sources,
and collectively defined both sources as
‘‘fugitive’’. EPA received a large number
of comments from industry stakeholders
and others indicating that this definition
created confusion. Hence EPA is
defining vented emissions separately
from fugitives in the supplemental
proposed rulemaking. For this
supplemental rulemaking, emissions
from the petroleum and natural gas
industry are defined as (1) vented
emissions, which include intentional or
designed releases of CH4 and/or CO2
containing natural gas or hydrocarbon
gas (not including stationary
combustion flue gas) from emissions
sources including, but not limited to,
process designed flow to the atmosphere
through seals or vent pipes, equipment
blowdown for maintenance, and direct
venting of gas used to power equipment
(such as pneumatic devices). In
addition, this supplemental rule
includes (2) fugitive emissions, or
unintentional emissions, which are
defined to include those emissions
which could not reasonably pass
through a stack, chimney, vent, or other
functionally-equivalent opening. This
supplemental rule also includes (3) flare
combustion emissions, which include
CH4, CO2 and N2O emissions resulting
from combustion of gas in flares. EPA
seeks comment on the use of the term
‘‘equipment leak’’ versus ‘‘fugitive’’ and
‘‘vented’’ as defined in the proposed
supplemental rule.
signed in September 2009. This proposed
petroleum and natural gas subpart will require
additional facilities to report to the MRR that are
not currently required to report. These facilities will
have to report combustion, fugitive and vented
emissions. These incremental combustion
emissions are estimated at 79 MMTCO2e.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Definition of the Source Category
EPA discusses here the general
approach used in identifying the key
segments of the petroleum and natural
gas industry that would be required to
report under the proposal. This general
discussion is followed by a specific
discussion for each industry segment.
One factor EPA considered in
assessing the applicability of certain
petroleum and natural gas industry
emissions in the proposed rule is the
definition of a facility. In other words,
what physically constitutes a facility?
This definition is important to
determine the reporting entity, to ensure
that delineation is clear, and to
minimize double counting or omissions
of emissions. For some segments of the
industry (e.g., onshore natural gas
processing facilities, natural gas
transmission compression facilities, and
offshore petroleum and natural gas
facilities), identifying the facility is clear
since there are physical boundaries and
ownership structures that lend
themselves to identifying scope of
reporting and responsible reporting
entities. In other segments of the
industry (e.g., the pipelines between
compressor stations and onshore
petroleum and natural gas production)
such distinctions are not as
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
18614
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
straightforward. In defining a facility,
EPA reviewed current definitions used
in the Clean Air Act (CAA), ISO
definitions, comments provided under
the initial proposed rule, and current
regulations relevant to the industry. A
complete description of our assessment
can be found in Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from the Petroleum and
Natural Gas Industry: Background
Technical Support Document (TSD)
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0923).
At the same time, EPA also decided
that it was impractical to include each
of the over 160 different sources of
vented and fugitive CH4 and CO2
emissions in the petroleum and natural
gas industry. In response to comments
received on the initial proposed rule,
EPA undertook a systematic review of
each emissions source included in the
2008 U.S. GHG Inventory in order to
propose reporting of only the most
significant emissions sources (e.g.
emissions that account for the majority
of oil and gas fugitive and vented
emissions). In determining the most
relevant vented and fugitive emissions
sources for inclusion in this
supplemental proposed rulemaking,
EPA considered the following criteria:
The coverage of emissions for the source
category as a whole; the coverage of
emissions per unit of the source
category; the feasibility of a viable
monitoring method, including direct
measurement and engineering
estimations; and the number of facilities
that would be required to report.
Sources that contribute significantly
large emissions were considered for
inclusion in this supplemental proposed
rulemaking, since they increase the
coverage of emissions reporting.
Typically, at petroleum and gas
facilities, 80 percent or more of a
facility’s emissions come from
approximately 10 percent of the
emissions sources. EPA used this
benchmark to reduce the number of
emissions sources required for reporting
while keeping the reporting burden to a
minimum. Sources in each segment of
the petroleum and natural gas industry
were sorted into two main categories: (1)
The largest sources contributing to
approximately 80 percent of the
emissions from the segment, and (2) the
sources contributing to the remaining 20
percent of the emissions from that
particular segment. EPA assigned
sources into these two groups by
determining the emissions contribution
of each emissions source to its relevant
segment of the petroleum and gas
industry, listing the emissions sources
in a descending order, and identifying
all the sources at the top that contribute
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
to approximately 80 percent of the
emissions. Generally, those sources that
fell into approximately the top 80
percent were considered for inclusion.
Details of the analysis can be found in
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the
Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry:
Background TSD (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0923).
The following is a brief discussion of
the proposed emission sources to be
included and excluded based on our
analysis. Additional information can be
found in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from the Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industry: Background TSD (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0923. Note that this subpart
of the GHG reporting rule addresses
only vented, fugitive and flare
combustion emissions. As mentioned
previously, stationary combustion
emissions are included in Subpart C of
the Final MRR Preamble.
Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas
Production
The onshore petroleum and natural
gas production segment uses wells to
extract raw natural gas, condensate,
crude oil, and associated gas from
underground formations and inject CO2
for EOR. Extraction includes several
types of processes: Reservoir
management, primary recovery,
secondary recovery such as down-hole
pumps, water flood or natural gas/
nitrogen/immiscible CO2 injection, and
tertiary recovery such as using critical
phase miscible CO2 injection. The
largest sources of CH4 and CO2
emissions include, but are not limited
to, natural gas driven pneumatic devices
and pumps, field crude oil and
condensate storage tanks, glycol
dehydration units, releases and flaring
during well completions, well
workovers, and well blowdowns for
liquids unloading, releases and flaring
of associated gas, and blowdowns of
compressors and EOR pumps.
EPA is proposing to include the
onshore petroleum and natural gas
production segment due to the fact that
these operations represent a significant
emissions source, representing
approximately 66 percent of fugitive,
vented and incremental4 combustion
emissions from the petroleum and
natural gas segments covered by the
proposed rule.
EPA considered a range of possible
options for reporting emissions from
onshore petroleum and natural gas
4 The denominator includes total fugitive and
vented emissions, as well as any additional
combustion related emissions that will be required
to be reported by the petroleum and natural gas
industry and that wasn’t already covered in the
final MRR.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
facilities. Although several options for
defining the facility were considered
and described below, EPA has
determined that only two of the options
are feasible: Basin-level reporting and
field-level reporting. For this
supplemental proposed rulemaking,
EPA proposes that emissions from
onshore petroleum and natural gas
production be reported at the basin
level. The reporting entity for onshore
petroleum and natural gas production
would be the operating entity listed on
the state well drilling permit, or a state
operating permit for wells where no
drilling permit is issued by the state,
who operates onshore petroleum and
natural gas production wells and
controls by means of ownership
(including leased and rented) and
operation (including contracted)
stationary and portable (as defined in
this Subpart) equipment located on all
well pads within a single hydrocarbon
basin as defined by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists
(AAPG) three-digit Geological Province
Code. The equipment referenced above
includes all structures associated with
wells used in the production, extraction,
recovery, lifting, stabilization,
separation or treating of petroleum and/
or natural gas (including condensate)
including equipment that is leased,
rented or contracted. This includes
equipment such as compressors,
generators or storage facilities, piping
(such as flowlines or intra-facility
gathering lines), and portable non-selfpropelled equipment (such as well
drilling and completion equipment,
workover equipment, gravity separation
equipment, auxiliary nontransportation-related equipment). This
also includes associated storage or
measurement equipment and all
equipment engaged in gathering
produced gas from multiple wells, EOR
operations using CO2, and all petroleum
and natural gas production operations
located on islands, artificial islands or
structures connected by a causeway to
land, an island, or artificial island.
Where more than one entity may hold
the state well drilling permit, or well
operating permit where no drilling
permit is issued by the state, the
permitted entities for the facility would
be required to designate one entity to
report all emissions from the jointly
controlled facility. Where an operating
entity holds more than one permit to
operate wells in a basin, then all
onshore petroleum and natural gas
production well permits in their name
in the basin, including all equipment on
the well pads, would be considered one
onshore petroleum and natural gas
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
production facility for purposes of
reporting.
There are at least two industry
recognized definitions available that
identify hydrocarbon basins; one from
the United State Geological Survey
(USGS) and the other from the AAPG.
The AAPG geologic definition is
referenced to county boundaries and
hence likely to be familiar to the
industry, i.e. if the owner or operator
knows in which county their well is
located, then they know to which basin
they belong. Basins are mapped to
county boundaries only to give a surface
manifestation to the underground
geologic structures, thus making it
easier to relate surface facilities to basin
underground geologic boundaries. On
the other hand, the USGS definition is
based purely on the geology of the
hydrocarbon basin without
consideration of state and county
boundaries. Hence using the USGS
definition may make it more difficult to
map surface operations to a particular
basin. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
use the AAPG definition of a basin. EPA
seeks comments on the availability of
other appropriate standard basin level
definitions that could be applied for the
purposes of this rule and their merits
over the AAPG definition.
EPA is proposing a basin level
approach, because the boundaries for
reporting are clearly defined and the
approach covers approximately 81
percent of emissions from onshore
petroleum and natural gas production.
EPA evaluated and is taking comment
on one alternative option for reporting
from onshore petroleum and natural gas
production; field level. Field level
reporting would require aggregation of
emissions from all covered equipment at
onshore petroleum and natural gas
production facilities at the field level, as
opposed to the basin level as described
above. A typical field level definition is
available from the Energy Information
Administration Oil and Gas Field Code
Master. As outlined in the Economic
Impact Analysis for this proposed rule,
the field level option would result in a
significantly lower coverage in
emissions, estimated at 55 percent in
comparison to the basin level coverage
of 81 percent. In essence the two
reporting options are not different from
a methodological point of view because
both definitions rely on geographical
boundaries. Therefore, EPA has
proposed the use of a basin level
definition to increase coverage. EPA
seeks comments on our decision to
propose the basin level approach, and
whether there would be advantages to
requiring reporting at the field level
instead.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
In addition to basin and field level
reporting, EPA considered one other
alternative approach for defining a
facility for onshore petroleum and
natural gas production; individual well
pads. This well pad approach included
all stationary and portable equipment
operating in conjunction with that well,
including drilling rigs with their
ancillary equipment, gas/liquid
separators, compressors, gas
dehydrators, crude oil heater-treaters,
gas powered pneumatic instruments and
pumps, electrical generators, steam
boilers and crude oil and gas liquids
stock tanks. This definition was
analyzed with available data including
four cases to represent the full range of
petroleum and natural gas well pad
operations ranging from unconventional
well drilling and operation starting in
the beginning of the year with higher
emitting practices, to production at an
associated gas and oil well (no drilling)
with minimal equipment and a vapor
recovery unit.
EPA analyzed the average emissions
associated with each of the four well
pad facility cases and determined that
average emissions at these operations
were low (from about 370 metric tons of
CO2e per year to slightly less than 5,000
metric tons of CO2e per year). This
analysis shows that the threshold would
have to be set at less than 400 metric
tons CO2e per year to capture the largest
possible amount of onshore production
emissions (only 33 percent) which
would result in close to 170,000
reporters. Additional information can be
found in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from the Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industry: Background TSD (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0923). If the threshold was
set at approximately 5,000 metric tons,
EPA estimates that the number of
reporters would decrease significantly
to approximate 3,300 but the emission
coverage would be only 6 percent.
Based on the results above, EPA did not
consider the well pad definition further
in the Economic Impact Analysis.
Offshore Petroleum and Natural Gas
Production
Offshore petroleum and natural gas
production is any platform structure,
affixed temporarily or permanently to
offshore submerged lands, that houses
equipment to extract hydrocarbons from
the ocean or lake floor and that transfers
such hydrocarbons to storage, transport
vessels, or onshore. In addition, offshore
production includes secondary platform
structures and storage tanks associated
with the platform structure. GHG
emissions result from sources housed on
the platforms.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
18615
In 2006, offshore petroleum and
natural gas production CO2 and CH4
emissions accounted for 5.1 million
metric tons CO2e. The primary sources
of emissions from offshore petroleum
and natural gas production are from
valves, flanges, open-ended lines,
compressor seals, platform vent stacks,
and other source types. Flare stacks
account for the majority of combustion
CO2 emissions.
Offshore petroleum and natural gas
production facilities are proposed for
inclusion due to the fact that this
segment represents approximately 1.9
percent of fugitive, vented and
incremental 5 combustion emissions
from the petroleum and natural gas
industry, an existing activity data
collection system already exists that can
readily be used to calculate GHG
emissions (i.e., GOADS) and major
fugitive and vented emissions sources
can be characterized by an existing
reasonable methodology which will
minimize incremental burden for
reporters. This is consistent with
comments received on the initial
proposed rule.
Onshore Natural Gas Processing
Natural gas processing facilities
remove hydrocarbon and water liquids
and various other constituents (e.g.,
hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide,
helium, nitrogen, and hydrocarbons
heavier than methane) from the
produced natural gas. The resulting
‘‘pipeline quality’’ natural gas is
transported to transmission pipelines.
Natural gas processing facilities also
include gathering/boosting stations that
dehydrate and compress natural gas to
be sent to natural gas processing
facilities or directly to natural gas
transmission or distribution systems.
Compressors are used within gathering/
boosting stations to adequately
pressurize the natural gas so that it can
be transported to natural gas processing,
transmission, and distribution facilities
through gathering pipelines. In addition,
compressors at natural gas processing
facilities are used to boost natural gas
pressure so that it can pass through all
of the processes and into the highpressure transmission pipelines.
Vented and fugitive CH4 emissions
from reciprocating and centrifugal
compressors, including centrifugal
compressor wet and dry seals, wet seal
oil degassing vents, reciprocating
compressor rod packing vents, and all
5 The denominator includes total fugitive and
vented emissions, as well as any additional
combustion related emissions that will be required
to be reported by the petroleum and natural gas
industry and that wasn’t already covered in the
final MRR.
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18616
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
other compressor emissions, are the
primary CH4 emission sources from this
segment. The majority of vented CO2
emissions come from acid gas removal
vent stacks, which are designed to
remove CO2 and hydrogen sulfide, when
present, from natural gas. While these
are the major emissions sources in
natural gas processing facilities, other
potential sources such as dehydrator
vent stacks, piping connectors, openended vent and drain lines and
gathering pipelines associated with the
processing plant would also need to be
reported under the proposed
supplemental rule.
Onshore natural gas processing
facilities are proposed for inclusion due
to the fact that these operations
represent a significant emissions source,
approximately 8 percent of fugitive,
vented and incremental 6 combustion
emissions from the natural gas segment,
methods are available to estimate
emissions, and there are a reasonable
number of reporters. Most natural gas
processing facilities proposed for
inclusion in this supplemental proposed
rulemaking would already be required
to report under subpart C and/or subpart
NN of the Final MRR.
Dehydrators are also a significant source
of CH4 emissions from underground
natural gas storage facilities. While
these are the major emissions sources in
natural gas transmission, other potential
sources include, but are not limited to,
condensate (water and hydrocarbon)
tanks, open-ended lines and valve stem
seals. Condensate tank vents in
transmission can be a significant source
of emissions from malfunctioning
compressor scrubber dump valves and
will require detection of such leakage by
an optical imaging instrument and
direct measurement where found
present.
Onshore natural gas transmission
compression facilities and underground
natural gas storage facilities are
proposed for inclusion due to the fact
that these operations represent
significant sources of fugitive, vented
and incremental 7 combustion
emissions, 15 and 2 percent,
respectively, methods are available to
estimate emissions, and there are a
reasonable number of reporters. Further,
this segment was included in the initial
proposed rule and EPA has made
improvements to the proposal based on
comments received.
Onshore Natural Gas Transmission
Compression Facilities and
Underground Natural Gas Storage
Natural gas transmission compression
facilities move natural gas throughout
the U.S. natural gas transmission
system. Natural gas is also injected and
stored in underground formations
during periods of low demand (e.g.,
spring or fall) and withdrawn,
processed, and distributed during
periods of high demand (e.g., winter or
summer). Storage compressor stations
are dedicated to gas injection and
extraction at underground natural gas
storage facilities.
Vented and fugitive CH4 emissions
from reciprocating and centrifugal
compressors, including compressor and
station blowdowns, centrifugal
compressor wet and dry seals, wet seal
oil degassing vents, reciprocating
compressor rod packing vents, unit
isolation valves, blowdown valves,
compressor scrubber dump valves, gas
pneumatic continuous bleed devices
and all other compressor fugitive
emissions, are the primary CH4 emission
source from natural gas transmission
compression stations and underground
natural gas storage facilities.
LNG Import and Export and LNG
Storage
The U.S. imports and exports natural
gas in the form of LNG, which is
received, stored, and, when needed, regasified at LNG import and export
terminals. Import and export include
both LNG movements between U.S. and
foreign sources as well as transport
between U.S. sources. LNG storage
facilities liquefy and store natural gas
from processing plants and transmission
pipelines during periods of low demand
(e.g., spring or fall) and re-gasify for
send out during periods of high demand
(e.g., summer and winter)
Fugitive and vented CH4 and CO2
emissions from reciprocating and
centrifugal compressors, including
centrifugal compressor wet and dry
seals, wet seal degassing vents,
reciprocating compressor rod packing
vents, and all other compressor fugitive
emissions, are the primary CH4 and CO2
emission source from LNG storage
facilities and LNG import and export
facilities. Process units at these facilities
can include vapor recovery compressors
to re-liquefy natural gas tank boil-off (at
LNG storage facilities), re-condensers,
vaporization units, tanker unloading
6 The denominator includes total fugitive and
vented emissions, as well as any additional
combustion related emissions that will be required
to be reported by the petroleum and natural gas
industry and that wasn’t already covered in the
final MRR.
7 The denominator includes total fugitive and
vented emissions, as well as any additional
combustion related emissions that will be required
to be reported by the petroleum and natural gas
industry and that wasn’t already covered in the
final MRR.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
equipment (at LNG import terminals),
transportation pipelines, and/or LNG
pumps.
LNG storage ‘‘facilities’’ can be defined
as facilities that store liquefied natural
gas in above ground storage tanks. LNG
import terminal can be defined as
onshore or offshore facilities that
receive imported LNG via ocean
transport, store it in storage tanks, regasify it, and deliver re-gasified natural
gas to a natural gas transmission or
distribution system. LNG export
terminal (facility) can be defined as
onshore or offshore facilities that
receive natural gas, liquefy it, store it in
storage tanks, and send out the LNG via
ocean transportation, including to
import facilities in the United States.
EPA is proposing inclusion of these
facilities because the National Inventory
has very little data on methane
emissions in these segments which are
expected to grow substantially in
forward years.
Petroleum and Natural Gas Pipelines
Natural gas transmission involves
high pressure, large diameter pipelines
that transport gas long distances from
field production and natural gas
processing facilities to natural gas
distribution pipelines or large volume
customers such as power plants or
chemical plants. Crude oil
transportation involves pump stations
and bulk tank terminals to move crude
oil through pipelines and loading and
unloading crude oil tanks, marine
vessels, and railroad tank cars. The
majority of vented and fugitive
emissions from the transportation of
natural gas occur at the compressor
stations, which are proposed for
inclusion in the supplemental rule and
discussed above.
EPA is not proposing to include
reporting of fugitive emissions from
natural gas pipeline segments between
compressor stations, or crude oil
pipelines and tank terminals in the
supplemental rulemaking due to the
dispersed nature of the fugitive
emissions, and the fact that once
fugitives are found, the emissions are
generally addressed quickly. For natural
gas gathering pipelines, EPA is
proposing that producers who own or
operate gathering lines associated with
their production fields and natural gas
processors who own or operate
gathering lines associated with their
processing plants should include those
gathering lines in their field or
processing plant reported emissions.
Natural Gas Distribution
Natural gas distribution facilities are
local distribution companies (LDCs) that
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18617
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
include the above grade (above ground)
gas metering and pressure regulation
(M&R) equipment, M&R equipment
below grade in vaults, buried pipelines
and customer meters used to transport
natural gas primarily from high pressure
transmission pipelines to end users. In
the distribution segment, high-pressure
gas from natural gas transmission
pipelines enters a ‘‘city gate’’ station,
which reduces the pressure and
distributes the gas through primarily
underground mains and service lines to
individual end users. Distribution
system CH4 and CO2 emissions result
mainly from fugitive emissions from
above ground gate stations (metering
and regulating stations), below grade
vaults (regulator stations), and fugitive
emissions from buried pipelines. At gate
stations, fugitive and vented CH4
emissions primarily come from valves,
open-ended lines, connectors, pressure
safety valves, and natural gas driven
pneumatic devices. CH4 emissions in
vaults are entirely fugitive, primarily
from piping connectors to meters and
regulators.
Although emissions from a single
vault, gate station or segment of pipeline
in the natural gas distribution segment
may not be significant, collectively
these emissions sources contribute a
significant share of emissions from
natural gas systems.
EPA proposes to include natural gas
distribution facilities because these
operations represent a significant
emissions source, approximately 6
percent of fugitive, vented and
incremental 8 combustion emissions
from the petroleum and natural gas
industry. EPA proposes that LDC’s
would report for all of the distribution
facilities that they own or operate.
Crude Oil Transportation
Crude oil is commonly transported by
barge, tanker, rail, truck, and pipeline
from production operations and import
terminals to petroleum refineries or
export terminals. Typical equipment
associated with these operations is
storage tanks and pumping stations. The
major sources of CH4 and CO2 emissions
include releases from tanks and marine
vessel loading operations.
EPA is not proposing to include the
crude oil transportation segment of the
petroleum and natural gas industry in
this supplemental rulemaking due to its
small contribution to total petroleum
and natural gas CH4 and CO2 emissions,
accounting for much less than 1 percent.
D. Selection of Reporting Threshold
EPA proposes that owners or
operators of facilities with emissions
equal to or greater than 25,000 metric
tons CO2e per year be subject to these
reporting requirements. This threshold
is applicable to all petroleum and
natural gas system reporters covered by
this subpart: onshore petroleum and
natural gas production facilities,
offshore petroleum and natural gas
production facilities, onshore natural
gas processing facilities, including
gathering/boosting stations; natural gas
transmission compression facilities,
underground natural gas storage
facilities; LNG storage facilities; LNG
import and export facilities and natural
gas distribution facilities. As described
above, under the proposed rule, for
onshore petroleum and natural gas
production facilities an owner or
operator (as defined by the proposed
rule) would evaluate emissions from all
equipment covered by the proposed
rule, including vented, fugitive, flared
and stationary combustion, in a defined
basin against the threshold to determine
applicability.
Consistent with the rest of the Final
MRR, EPA is proposing that for the
purposes of determining whether a
facility emits equal to or greater than a
25,000 mtCO2e, a facility must include
emissions from all source categories for
which methods are provided in the rule.
EPA proposes that when a facility
determines emissions for the purposes
of the threshold determination under
subpart W, that the fuel combustion
emissions estimates include both
stationary and portable equipment (e.g.,
compressors, drilling rigs, and
dehydrators that are skid-mounted) that
are controlled by well operators through
ownership, direct operation, leased and
rented equipment, and contracted
operation. Fugitive, vented and
combustion emissions from portable
equipment are proposed for inclusion in
the threshold determination for this
source category due to the unique
nature of the petroleum and natural gas
industry. In addition to well drilling rigs
and their ancillary equipment for well
completions, it is common practice in
onshore production to use skid mounted
portable compressors, glycol
dehydrators and other equipment partly
for installation cost savings and partly
because well flow rates decline over
time and well-head equipment becomes
over sized, and is moved around to
match equipment capacity with wells of
the same production capacity.
Also due to the unique nature of the
industry, EPA believes that it may be
possible that onshore petroleum and
natural gas production equipment from
onshore petroleum and natural gas
production facilities may be co-located
with other manufacturing facilities
already covered under other subparts of
the rule (e.g., cement manufacturing
facilities or glass manufacturing
facilities). It is not EPA’s intent to have
these manufacturing facilities include
emissions from onshore petroleum and
natural gas production equipment in
their threshold determination. EPA
seeks comment on this approach.
To identify the most appropriate
threshold level for reporting of
emissions, EPA conducted analyses to
determine emissions reporting coverage
and facility reporting coverage at four
different threshold levels: 1,000 metric
tons CO2e per year, 10,000 metric tons
CO2e per year, 25,000 metric tons CO2e
per year, and 100,000 metric tons CO2e
per year. Table W–2 provides coverage
of emissions and number of facilities
reporting at each threshold level for all
the industry segments under
consideration for this proposed
supplemental rule.
TABLE W–2—THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR EMISSIONS FROM THE PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY
Total national
emissions
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Segment
(metric tons
CO2e per
year)
Onshore Petroleum & Gas Production
Total emissions covered by
threshold
Total number
of facilities
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
27,993
(metric tons
CO2e per
year)
Percent
Number
Percent
100,000
187,175,289
67
466
2
25,000
8 The denominator includes total fugitive and
vented emissions, as well as any additional
277,798,737
Threshold
level
Facilities covered
224,227,559
81
1,232
4
combustion related emissions that will be required
to be reported by the petroleum and natural gas
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
industry and that wasn’t already covered in the
final MRR.
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18618
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE W–2—THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR EMISSIONS FROM THE PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY—Continued
Total national
emissions
Segment
(metric tons
CO2e per
year)
Total emissions covered by
threshold
Total number
of facilities
Threshold
level
(metric tons
CO2e per
year)
Percent
Facilities covered
Number
Percent
10,000
24,874,783
73
130
23
31,229,071
92
289
51
32,982,975
97
396
70
33,984,015
100
566
100
34,518,927
54
433
22
57,683,144
90
1,145
59
62,672,905
98
1,443
74
64,051,661
100
1,695
87
3,548,988
37
36
9
7,846,609
81
133
34
8,968,994
92
200
50
9,696,532
100
347
87
695,459
33
4
3
1,900,793
90
33
21
2,030,842
96
41
26
2,096,974
99
54
34
314,803
99.7
4
80
314,803
99.7
4
80
10,000
314,803
99.7
4
80
1,000
315,888
100.00
5
100
100,000
18,470,457
73
66
5
25,000
22,741,042
90
143
10
10,000
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
37
100,000
23,733,488
94
203
14
1,000
1,427
1192
25,000
25,258,347
94
1,000
Natural Gas Distribution .......................
10,553,889
100,000
5
6
10,000
315,888
184
25,000
.....................
63
1,000
LNG Import and
7,111,563
10,000
Export 2
2
100,000
157
58
25,000
2,113,601
45
1,000
LNG Storage ........................................
5,119,405
100,000
397
0
10,000
9,713,029
4
25,000
Underground Natural Gas Storage ......
29
1,000
1,944
3,242,389
10,000
64,059,125
38
25,000
Natural Gas Transmission Compression ...................................................
10,604
100,000
566
97
1,000
33,984,015
268,848,529
10,000
Natural Gas Processing .......................
9
100,000
3,235
2,413
25,000
11,261,305
87
1,000
Offshore Petroleum & Gas Production
242,390,849
24,983,115
99
594
42
1 The
emissions include fugitive and vented CH4 and CO2 and combusted CO2, N2O, and CH4 gases. The emissions for each industry segment do not match the 2008 U.S. Inventory either because of added details in the estimation methodology or use of a different methodology than
the U.S. Inventory. For additional discussion, refer to Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry: Background
TSD (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0923).
2 The analysis included only import facilities. There is only one export facility, located in Kenai, Alaska.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
EPA is proposing a threshold of
25,000 metric tons CO2e applied to
those emissions sources listed in Table
W–2, which will cover approximately
83 percent of estimated vented and
fugitive emissions and incremental
combustion emissions from facilities
that did not meet the reporting
requirements under Subpart C alone,
from the entire petroleum and natural
gas industry, while requiring only a
small fraction of total facilities to report.
For additional information, please refer
to Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the
Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry:
Background TSD (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0923). For specific information on costs,
including unamortized first year capital
expenditures, please refer to section 4 of
the Economic Impact Analysis.
Although EPA is proposing an
emissions threshold of 25,000 mtCO2e
for all segments of the petroleum and
natural gas industry, EPA is taking
comment on whether a 10,000 mtCO2e
threshold for onshore petroleum and
natural gas production would be more
appropriate.
For onshore petroleum and natural
gas production, EPA is proposing that
portable and stationary fuel combustion
emissions be included in the threshold
determination due to the large
percentage of emissions from portable
equipment in the petroleum and natural
gas industry. EPA considered lowering
the threshold to 10,000 mtCO2e and
excluding portable equipment from the
threshold determination (and reporting),
however, data were not available to
distinguish portable and stationary
18619
combustion emissions in order to
evaluate the lower threshold
considering just stationary combustion
emissions.
Secondly, for onshore petroleum and
natural gas production, EPA is
proposing that owners or operators
report at the basin level. EPA is seeking
comment on owners or operators
reporting at the field level. Although
EPA believes that a 25,000 mtCO2e
threshold is appropriate for the basin
level approach, as described above, EPA
seeks comment on whether the
threshold should be lowered to 10,000
mtCO2e if reporting were to be at the
field level. Table W–3 presents the
emissions and facility coverage for a
field level definition for onshore
petroleum and natural gas production.
TABLE W–3—EMISSIONS COVERAGE AND ENTITIES REPORTING FOR FIELD LEVEL FACILITY DEFINITION
Emissions covered
Threshold level 2
Metric tons
CO2e/year
100,000 ............................................................................................................
25,000 ..............................................................................................................
10,000 ..............................................................................................................
1,000 ................................................................................................................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
In addition to seeking comment on
the proposed threshold for onshore
production, EPA more broadly is
seeking comment on the selection of the
threshold for all segments of the
petroleum and natural gas industry.
E. Selection of Proposed Monitoring
Methods
Many domestic and international
GHG monitoring guidelines and
protocols include methodologies for
estimating emissions from petroleum
and natural gas operations, including
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, U.S. GHG
Inventory, DOE 1605(b), and corporate
industry protocols developed by the
American Petroleum Institute, the
Interstate Natural Gas Association of
America, and the American Gas
Association. The methodologies
proposed vary by the emissions source
and the level of accuracy desired in the
estimation.
EPA has carefully considered possible
options to estimate emissions from
every emission source proposed for
reporting. EPA has proposed to use the
Percent
99,776,033
144,547,282
169,160,462
242,621,431
most appropriate method taking into
account both the cost to the reporter as
well as accuracy of emissions achieved
through the proposed method. Overall,
we propose the following types of
monitoring methods: (1) Direct
measurement to develop site and
source-specific emission factors; (2)
engineering estimation; (3) combination
of direct measurement and engineering
estimation; (4) leak detection and use of
leaker emission factor; and (5)
population count and population
emission factors. Table W–4 of this
preamble provides a list of the
emissions sources to be reported with
the corresponding monitoring methods.
A monitoring method proposed for a
specific source is to be used across all
reporting segments of the petroleum and
gas system. Two exceptions to this are:
(1) For tanks in onshore natural gas
transmission facilities that exhibit gas
bypass from scrubber dump valves, EPA
is proposing to require direct
measurement under the proposal,
whereas in other segments under the
proposal, the emissions from tanks
Facilities covered
Number
38
55
64
92
Percent
305
1,253
2,846
39,652
0
2
3
48
would be required to be estimated using
E&P Tank simulation software; and (2)
under the proposal, fugitive emissions
from onshore petroleum and natural gas
production and inaccessible to plain
view (buried or below grade in vaults)
emissions in gas distribution would
require estimation using population
emissions factors as opposed to other
segments’ fugitive emissions that
require leak detection and the use of
leaker emissions factors. Finally,
offshore petroleum and natural gas
production platforms would be required
under the proposal to use methods
provided by the most recent GOADS
reporting system. This means that
Federal Gulf of Mexico platforms would
report emissions already being
calculated and reported to MMS as a
part of the GOADS study and the
remaining platforms that are not a part
of the GOADS study (i.e., platforms in
all state waters and other Federal waters
outside the Gulf of Mexico) would be
required to adopt the GOADS
methodology.
TABLE W–4. SOURCE SPECIFIC MONITORING METHODS AND EMISSIONS QUANTIFICATION
Emission source
Monitoring methods
Emissions quantification methods
Natural Gas Pneumatic Bleed Devices (High or
Continuous).
Engineering Estimation ....................................
Manufacturer device model bleed rate and engineering calculation.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18620
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE W–4. SOURCE SPECIFIC MONITORING METHODS AND EMISSIONS QUANTIFICATION—Continued
Emission source
Monitoring methods
Emissions quantification methods
Natural Gas Pneumatic Bleed Devices (Low) ...
Natural Gas Driven Pneumatic Pump Venting ..
Component Count ............................................
Engineering Estimation ....................................
Acid Gas Removal Vent Stacks (CO2 only) ......
Dehydrator Vent Stacks ....................................
Well Venting for Liquids Unloading ...................
Engineering Estimation ....................................
Engineering Estimation ....................................
(1) Engineering Estimation or (2) Direct Measurement.
Gas Well Venting during Completions or
Workovers.
(1) Engineering Estimation, or (2) Direct
Measurement.
Blowdown Vent Stacks ......................................
Engineering Estimation ....................................
Storage Tanks (Onshore Production and Processing).
Storage Tanks (Transmission) ..........................
Engineering Estimation ....................................
Well Testing Venting and Flaring ......................
Associated Gas Venting and Flaring .................
Flare Stacks .......................................................
Engineering Estimation ....................................
Engineering Estimation ....................................
(1) Direct Measurement or (2) Engineering Estimation.
Direct Measurement .........................................
Population emissions factor.
Manufacturer model emissions per unit volume and volume pumped.
Engineering Calculation and flow meters.
GlyCalc simulation software.
(1) Field specific emission factor times events
or (2) Flow metered emission factor times
events.
(1) Field specific emission factor times events
or (2) Flow metered emission factor times
events.
Equipment specific emission factor and number of events.
E&P Tank equipment specific emission factor
times throughput.
Flow metered emission factor time operating
hours.
Gas to oil Ratio (GOR); flow rate.
Gas to oil Ratio (GOR); flow rate.
Engineering Calculation.
Centrifugal Compressor Wet Seal Oil
Degassing Vent.
Large Reciprocating Compressor Rod Packing
Vents.
Large Compressor Blowdown Valve Leak ........
Large Compressor Blowdown Vent (Unit Isolation Valve Leak).
Fugitive Sources (Processing, Transmission,
Underground Storage, LNG Storage, LNG
Import Export, LDC).
Fugitive Sources (Onshore Production, LDC) ...
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1. Direct Measurement
EPA is proposing to require five
sources in this supplemental proposal to
directly measure emissions: storage
tanks (transmission) when scrubber
dump valves are detected leaking,
centrifugal compressor wet seal oil
degassing vents, large reciprocating
compressor rod packing vents, large
compressor blowdown vent valve leaks,
and large compressor blowdown vent
(unit isolation valve leaks), the latter
two when leakage is detected. For
example, storage tanks in the onshore
natural gas transmission segment
typically store the condensate (water,
light hydrocarbons, seal oil) from the
scrubbing of pipeline quality gas. The
volume and composition of liquid is
typically low and variable, respectively,
in comparison to the volumes and
composition of hydrocarbon liquids
stored in the upstream segments of the
industry. Hence the emissions from
condensate itself in the transmission
segment are considered insignificant.
However, scrubber dump valves
malfunction or stick-open due to debris
in the condensate and can remain open
resulting in natural gas bypass via the
open dump valve to and through the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
Direct Measurement .........................................
Direct Measurement .........................................
Leak Detection with optical gas imaging instrument.
Leak Detection with optical gas imaging instrument.
Leak Detection with optical gas imaging instrument.
Flow metered equipment specific emission
factor times operating hours.
Flow metered equipment specific emission
factor times operating hours.
Flow metered equipment specific emission
factor times operating hours.
Flow metered equipment specific emission
factor times stand-by depressurized hours.
Leaker emission factors times detected leaks.
Component Count ............................................
Population Emission Factors times components.
condensate tank, and therefore the use
of E&P Tanks and other models are not
applicable to tanks in the transmission
segment. The only potential option for
measuring emissions from scrubber
dump valves is to monitor storage tank
emissions with a gas imaging camera to
determine if the emissions do not
subside and become negligible when
dump valves close. If the scrubber dump
valve is stuck and leaking natural gas
through the tank then the emissions will
be visibly significant and will not
subside to inconspicuous volumes. If
the scrubber dump valve functions
normally and shuts completely after the
condensate has been dumped then the
storage tank, emissions should subside
and taper off to insignificant quantities.
If emissions are detected to be
continuous for a duration of five
minutes then a one-time measurement
would be required using a temporary
meter to establish an equipment specific
emission factor.
This proposal is based on the fact that
the emissions magnitude from these five
sources are significant enough to
warrant reporting for the supplemental
proposed rule and that no credible
engineering estimation methods or
emissions factors exist that can
accurately characterize the emissions.
There are several public reference
studies and guidance documents that
provide emissions factors for these
sources. However, after close review,
EPA has determined that these
emissions factors cannot uniquely
characterize the emissions specifically
from individual equipment or a facility.
For example, the emissions from wet
seal degassing and rod packing are
directly correlated to the size of the
compressor, throughput, and the
operating time of the compressor in the
reporting year. Also, in the case of unit
isolation valves and compressor blow
down valves the emissions magnitude
varies depending on operational and
maintenance practices as valves can
have excessive leakage, especially when
a compressor is not in operation. These
factors do not get accounted for using an
emissions factor.
The proposed supplemental rule
would require that rod packing and
blowdown valves be measured for
emissions both in operating as well as
standby pressurized modes. In addition,
unit isolation valve leaks would be
required to be measured at the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
blowdown vent in the standby depressurized mode. To correctly quantify
emissions from centrifugal and large
reciprocating compressors the proposal
would require that, for each compressor,
one measurement be taken in each of
the operational modes that occurs
during a reporting period: (i) Operating,
(ii) standby pressurized, and (iii) not
operating, depressurized. Depending on
the operational practices each mode
could have significantly different
emissions and would need to be
separately quantified as a part of the
proposed rule.
For direct measurement, EPA
proposes that the following technologies
be used: high volume samplers, meters
(such as rotameters, turbine meters, hot
wire anemometers, and others), and/or
calibrated bags. EPA recognizes that
different measurement equipment
would be required for different source
emissions measurement depending on
the configuration of the system. Hence
the proposed rule provides these
options for multiple direct measurement
equipment, but the reporter must
calibrate and maintain the equipment
based on either consensus based
standards or an appropriate method
specified by the equipment
manufacturer, as specified in the
proposed rule. Where a vent emission
source cannot be accessed on the
ground or from a fixed platform, the
reporter has the choice of using a manlift or installing either a permanent or
temporary vent line access port through
which a meter can be inserted to
measure flow or velocity. If emissions
exceed the maximum range of one
measurement instrument, the reporter
would be required to use a different
instrument option that can measure
larger magnitude emissions levels. For
example, if a high volume sampler
maximum rate is exceeded by an
emissions source, then emissions would
be required to be directly measured
using either calibrated bagging or a
meter. CH4 and CO2 emissions from the
emissions stream would be required to
be calculated using the composition of
the gas in the process equipment
(compressor).
2. Engineering Estimation
This proposed rule would require two
main types of engineering calculation
methods for emissions; (1) volumetric
calculation method, and (2) engineering
first principle methods.
(1) Volumetric Calculation Method
The volumetric calculation method
has been proposed for calculating CH4
and CO2 vent emissions from sources
where the variable in the emissions
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
18621
magnitude on an annual basis is the
number of times the source releases CH4
and CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. In
addition, the estimation of the total
volume of emissions is a matter of
simple arithmetic calculation without
the need for complex calculations. For
example, when a compressor is taken
offline for maintenance, the volume of
CH4 and CO2 blowdown vent emissions
that are released is the same during each
release, is easily calculable, and the
only variable is the number of times the
compressor is taken offline and vented.
station condensate tanks where dump
valve are determined to be bypassing
gas. Therefore, EPA seeks comments on
how to quantify emissions from tanks
storing water without resulting in
additional reporting burden to the
facilities.
For further discussion of these
software programs and emissions
calculation methods, refer to
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the
Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry:
Background TSD (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0923).
(2) Engineering First Principle Methods
Emissions from sources such as tanks
and glycol dehydrators can be reliably
calculated using standard engineering
first principle methods such as those
available in E&P Tank and GlyCalc. The
use of such standard and readily
available software is a cost-effective way
to uniformly estimate emissions that are
representative for the two sources. To
maintain standardization across
reporters the proposed rule would
require the use of E&P Tank for
estimating the emissions from well-pad
separator conditions when flashed to
atmospheric pressure in any
downstream stock tank, and GlyCalc for
glycol dehydrators.
E&P Tank is available for free and
GlyCalc can be purchased at a small fee.
Also, these two software models are
widely used in the industry and the
operation of the software is well
understood. Using such software also
addresses safety concerns that are
associated with direct measurement
from the two sources. For example,
sometimes the temperature of the
emissions stream for glycol dehydrator
vent stacks is too high for operators to
safely measure emissions. EPA seeks
comment on whether there are
additional or alternative software
packages to E&P Tank and GlyCalc that
should be required to be used to
calculate emissions.
In cases where tank emissions do not
represent equilibrium conditions of the
liquid in a gas-liquid separator and no
publicly available data are available on
vapor bypass direct measurement would
be required under the proposal. For
pressurized liquids sent to atmospheric
storage tanks where tank emissions are
not expected to be represented by the
equilibrium conditions of the liquid in
a gas-liquid separator as calculated by
the E&P Tank Model, then emissions
calculated by E&P Tank would be
multiplied by an empirical factor.
The supplemental proposed
rulemaking does not include emissions
from tanks containing primarily water
with the exception of transmission
3. Combination of Direct Measurement
and Engineering Estimation
Several sources provide a choice
between engineering estimation based
on operating data and direct
measurement (if meters are already
installed). For continuous flaring, a onetime direct measurement or engineering
estimate may be performed in
conjunction with engineering estimation
based on operating data that relates to
the quantity of flared gas. For well
completion venting and well workover
venting (each during flowback after
hydraulic fracturing, the only significant
well completion emissions), EPA
explored the possibility of using a meter
for measuring hydrocarbon gas lost
during these venting events which may
last from one to ten days. Some
companies have reported directly
measuring these emissions under
certain circumstances. However, such
metering could be technically
challenging, if not impossible, and also
burdensome given the number of well
completions and workovers being
conducted on an annual basis.
It is important to note, however, that
no body of data has been identified that
can be summarized into generally
applicable emissions factors to
characterize emissions from these
sources in each unique field. In fact, the
emissions factor being used in the 2008
U.S. GHG Inventory is believed to
significantly underestimate emissions
based on industry experience as
included in the Natural Gas STAR
Program publicly available information
(https://www.epa.gov/gasstar/). In
addition, the 2008 U.S. GHG Inventory
emissions factor was developed prior to
the boom in unconventional well
drilling (1992) and in the absence of any
field data and does not capture the
diversity of well completion and
workover operations or the variance in
emissions that can be expected from
different hydrocarbon reservoirs in the
country.
As a result, EPA proposes the
development of a field-specific emission
factor either by direct measurement of
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18622
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
flow rate of hydrocarbons using a meter
or by an engineering estimation based
on well choke pressure drop. Given the
large number of well completions and
well workovers, EPA proposes that one
representative well completion and one
well workover per field horizon be
developed to characterize emissions per
day of venting from all other
completions and workovers in that field
horizon. The reporter would be required
to update this factor every two years.
This would alleviate burden but at the
same time achieve a reasonable
characterization of the emissions from
these two sources.
5. Use of Leak Detection and Leaking
Component Emission Factors
Each segment of the petroleum and
gas system has a variety of fugitive
emissions sources that at a source type
level have low emissions volume, but
combined together at a segment level
contribute significantly towards the
total emissions from petroleum and gas
systems. EPA considered several
options for estimating emissions from
fugitive emissions sources. One option
considered was to use a population
count of each fugitive emissions source
(e.g., source types such as valves,
connectors, etc.) and multiply it by a
population emissions factor. This option
would not account for differences in
operational and maintenance practices
among facilities. If population emissions
factors are used then the fugitive
emissions from a particular facility will
remain constant indefinitely until the
facilities are modified (i.e., change the
population of equipment) or new factors
are provided. This approach also will
not account for fugitive emissions
reduction measures the industry has
undertaken in the last few years since
the population emission factors were
developed. Facilities with good
maintenance practices may have
fugitive emissions lower than the
population emission factors. As
described further below, EPA requests
comment on the use of emission factors
and ways in which these shortcomings
may be overcome.
Another option considered was the
use of fugitive emissions detection (e.g.,
an infrared camera) and direct
measurement (e.g., calibrated bags or
high volume samplers) for fugitive
sources. This option may be more costeffective when the sources of fugitive
emissions are in a relatively small
geographic area such as at a processing
plant, gas compressor station, or
distribution gate station. This approach,
however, could be less cost effective for
widely dispersed sources (e.g., well
pads and gathering lines).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
Hence, to overcome these issues, EPA
proposes conducting fugitive emissions
detection and then applying leaking
component (or leak only) emissions
factors for processing, transmission,
underground storage, LNG storage, LNG
import and export terminals, and LDC
gate stations. The fugitive emissions
leak detection method does not require
corresponding direct measurement of
the fugitive emissions, which is
significantly more burdensome than
fugitive emissions detection using the
most modern optical gas imaging
instrument detection technology. This
method is an improvement over the use
of population emissions factors because
the factors were developed for leaking
components and applied only to leaking
components, leading to a more accurate
calculation of emissions from each piece
of equipment. Several commenters to
the initial proposed rule recommended
leak detection with an optical gas
imaging instrument and quantification
with emission factors. In addition,
leaking component emissions factors are
applied only to those emissions sources
that are determined to be emitting as a
result of the fugitive emissions detection
process.
EPA analyzed new fugitive leak
studies specifically performed on
natural gas facilities in processing
plants and transmission compressor
stations, as recommended by several
Subpart W initial proposed rule
commenters. Leaking component
emissions factors from these studies
were compared with other studies (see
below). EPA found that emission factors
generated from the Clearstone studies
related better to methane-rich stream
fugitives and were more appropriate
than other emission factors developed
for highly regulated refinery and
petrochemical plants on VOC emissions.
Therefore, EPA is using emissions data
from the Clearstone studies as the basis
for the leaker factors proposed in this
rule. EPA requests comments on the use
of emission factors from the Clearstone
studies. For further details see
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the
Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry:
Background TSD (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0923).
Emission References for Petroleum and
Natural Gas Systems
API. Compendium of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Methodologies for the Oil
and Gas Industry. American Petroleum
Institute. Table 4–7, page 4–30.
February 2004.
API. Emission Factors for Oil and Gas
Production Operations. Table 8, page
10. API Publication Number 4615.
January 1995.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
EPA. Identification and Evaluation of
Opportunities to Reduce Methane
Losses at Four Gas Processing Plants.
Clearstone Engineering Ltd. June 20,
2002. https://www.epa.gov/gasstar/
documents/four_plants.pdf.
EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007.
Annexes. Tables A–112–A–125. U.S.
EPA. April 2009. https://epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/downloads09/
Annexes.pdf.
EPA. Lessons Learned: Replacing Wet
Seals with Dry Seals in Centrifugal
Compressors. U.S. EPA 2006. https://
www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/
ll_wetseals.pdf.
EPA. Protocol for Equipment Leak
Emission Estimates. Emission Standards
Division. U.S. EPA. SOCMI Table 2–7.
November 1995. https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/chief/efdocs/equiplks.pdf.
GRI. Methane Emissions from the
Natural Gas Industry. Volume 6. Table
4–2 and Appendix A, page A–2. June
1996. https://www.epa.gov/gasstar/
documents/emissions_report/
6_vented.pdf.
GRI. Methane Emissions from the
Natural Gas Industry. Volume 8. Tables
4–3, 4–6 and 4–24. June 1996. https://
www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/
emissions_report/8_equipmentleaks.pdf.
GRI. Methane Emissions from the
Natural Gas Industry. Volume 9. Tables
8–9 and 9–4. June 1996. https://
www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/
emissions_report/9_underground.pdf.
GRI. Methane Emissions from the
Natural Gas Industry. Volume 10. Table
7–1. June 1996. https://epa.gov/gasstar/
documents/emissions_report/
10_metering.pdf.
ICF. Estimates of Methane Emissions
from the U.S. Oil Industry. Draft. Page
13. October 1999.
Clearstone. Handbook for Estimating
Methane Emissions from Canadian
Natural Gas Systems. Clearstone
Engineering Ltd., Enerco Engineering
Ltd., and Radian International. Pages
61–63. May 25, 1998.
National Gas Machinery Laboratory,
Kansas State University; Clearstone
Engineering, Ltd.; Innovative
Environmental Solutions, Inc. CostEffective Directed Inspection and
Maintenance Control Opportunities at
Five Gas Processing Plants and
Upstream Gathering Compressor
Stations and Well Sites. For EPA
Natural Gas STAR Program. March
2006.
Clearstone. Handbook for Estimating
Methane Emissions from Canadian
Natural Gas Systems. Clearstone
Engineering Ltd., Enerco Engineering
Ltd, and Radian International. 2007.
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
EPA considered the use of the three
major types of emissions detection
equipment: optical gas imaging
instruments, IR laser detector
instruments and Toxic Vapor Analyzers
(TVA) or Organic Vapor Analyzers
(OVA). Optical gas imaging instruments
are able to scan hundreds of source
types quickly, allowing for the most
efficient survey of emissions at a broad
range of facilities. In addition, EPA
recently adopted detailed performance
standards for the optical gas imaging
camera in the Alternative work practice
for monitoring equipment leaks (AWP)
(40 CFR part 60 subpart A § 60.18(i)(1)
and (2)). We recognize that the purchase
of optical gas imaging instruments can
be costly, especially for smaller
facilities. However, EPA believes that
most facilities will opt for contractors to
conduct emissions detection once per
year. As mentioned above, several
commenters to the initial proposed rule
recommended leak detection with an
optical gas imaging instrument in
accordance with the EPA AWP. Hence,
the supplemental proposed rule requires
the use of an optical gas imaging
instrument compliant with the
operational requirements of the EPA
AWP. In contrast to the EPA AWP,
however, the proposed rule does not
require multiple surveys per year and
does not require leak repair. As
discussed further below, for this
proposed rule, EPA requires
comprehensive annual leak detection of
the fugitive emissions sources specified
in the proposed rule. The proposed
supplemental rule does not allow for the
use of an OVA/TVA. The OVA/TVA
requires the operator to physically
access the emissions source with the
probe and thus is much more time
intensive than using the optical gas
imaging instrument. In addition, the
OVA/TVA range is limited to the reach
of an operator standing on the ground or
fixed platform, thus excluding all
emissions out of reach. However, EPA is
seeking comments on allowing the
OVA/TVA to be used as another option
to the optical imaging camera in this
proposed rule.
EPA is aware that the optical gas
imaging instrument’s ‘‘detection
sensitivity levels’’ as required by the
AWP were established from data on
volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from petroleum refineries and
chemical plants. The optical gas
imaging instrument has been used
extensively to successfully detect
methane emissions in the petroleum
and gas industry by petroleum and gas
companies. A 2006 independent study
funded through a grant by EPA and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
conducted by Clearstone Engineering,
was an extensive study of methane
emissions in gas processing plants and
upstream gathering compressor stations
and well sites. Method 21 was
employed to detect leaks and HiFlow
samplers were used to determine the
emissions from those leaks. This study
surveyed approximately 74,000
components finding 3,650 leaks (4.9
percent). Of these leaks, 497 (<1 percent
of total components) contributed 90
percent of the total fugitive emissions.
The smallest of the 497 leaks was 177
grams per hour, so an optical gas
imaging instrument should be able to
adequately image methane leaks since
the smallest leak was well above the 60
to 100 gram per hour detection
sensitivity in Table 1 of the AWP.
Therefore, for the purposes of this
reporting rule, EPA determined that an
optical gas imaging instrument that
meets the detection sensitivity
requirements of the AWP for any
monitoring frequency as specified in
Table 1 of the AWP, is acceptable for
use under this proposed rule. Leak
detection and leaker emission factors
only apply to emissions sources in
streams with gas content greater than 10
percent CH4 plus CO2 by weight.
Emissions sources in streams with gas
content less than 10 percent CH4 plus
CO2 by weight do not need to be
reported.
The proposed rule requires that the
survey for fugitive emissions detection
be comprehensive. This means that, on
an annual basis, the entire population of
fugitive emissions sources proposed for
reporting in this rule would be surveyed
at least once. EPA proposes that
emissions are quantified using leaker
emissions factors. Under the proposal, if
a component fugitive emission is
detected, emissions are assumed to
occur the entire 365 days in the year.
EPA is aware that the petroleum and
natural gas industry is already
implementing voluntary fugitive
emissions detection and repair
programs. Such voluntary programs are
useful, but pose an accounting challenge
with respect to emissions reporting for
this proposed rule. The proposed
approach does not preclude any owner
or operator from detecting and repairing
fugitive emissions prior to quantifying
emissions for the purposes of reporting
under this proposed rule.
To address this issue, EPA
considered, but did not propose,
requiring a facility to conduct multiple
surveys and to report emissions using
the appropriate leaker factors. Under
this approach, if a specific emission
source is found not leaking in the initial
survey but leaking in subsequent
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
18623
surveys, emissions would be quantified
from the date of the first survey where
a leak was detected forward through the
time when the leak is fixed, or the end
of the year, whichever is first. Similarly,
if an emissions source is found to be
leaking in the initial survey, emissions
would be quantified from the date of
that survey through to when the leak is
repaired, or the end of the year,
whichever is first. Under this approach,
emissions would reflect leak reductions
as determined by repairs and follow-up
detection surveys
EPA seeks comment on whether this
alternative approach better estimates
annual facility emissions without
resulting in additional reporting burden
to the facilities. Further, we seek
comment on whether, if implemented,
multiple surveys should be optional or
required for owners or operators.
6. Use of Population Count and
Population Emission Factor
Fugitive emissions detection and use
of leaking component emissions factors
are not always cost effective and can be
burdensome. This is particularly true of
onshore petroleum and natural gas
production where the fugitive sources
are spread out across large geographical
areas and fugitive emissions are a minor
contributor to total segment emissions.
In the distribution segment, pipeline
fugitive emissions are a large fraction of
total emissions, but the pipelines are
buried where leaks are difficult to
detect. Similarly, metering/regulator
stations, which are an important source
of fugitive emissions, are sometimes
located inside underground vaults that
are difficult to access. In such scenarios,
fugitive emissions detection can be
burdensome. Therefore, for onshore
petroleum and natural gas production,
gas gathering pipelines and LDC
pipelines and M&R stations below grade
in vaults, the proposed rule requires the
use of population count of emissions
sources and population emissions factor
to estimate fugitive emissions.
Population count and population
emission factors only apply to emissions
sources in streams with gas content
greater than 10 percent CH4 plus CO2 by
weight. Emissions sources in streams
with gas content less than 10 percent
CH4 plus CO2 by weight do not need to
be reported. EPA is using emissions data
from studies listed in the Emission
References (#2, #4, #5, #7, #8, #9 above)
as the basis for the population emissions
factors proposed in this rule. However,
the API compendium emissions factors
that we are proposing to use in the
upstream oil and gas production sector
may be underestimating emissions. EPA
seeks comment on how to improve these
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18624
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
factors and/or collect more accurate
data.
7. Alternative Monitoring Methods
Considered
Before selecting the monitoring
methods proposed above, we considered
additional measurement methods. The
use of Method 21 was considered for
fugitive emissions detection and
measurement. Although Toxic Vapor
Analyzers (TVA) and Organic Vapor
Analyzers (OVA) were considered they
were not proposed for fugitive
emissions detection and quantification.
Method 21. This is the reference
method for equipment leak detection
and repair regulations for volatile
organic compound (VOC) and
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions
under several 40 CFR part 60, 40 CFR
part 61, 40 CFR part 63, and 40 CFR part
65 emission standards. Petroleum
refineries, chemical plants and large gas
processing plants are required under
state and federal laws to perform LDAR
(Leak Detection and Repair) to control
VOC air pollution emissions. LDAR
programs require VOC and/or HAP leak
detection using instruments specified in
Method 21, and requires repair of leaks
if the rate is above the leak definitions
specified within the specific regulation
(typically between 500 parts per million
to 10,000 parts per million as read on
an OVA). Some states and air quality
districts have lower leak definitions
than the Federal standards. LDAR
programs require facilities to conduct
multiple surveys per year: either
following equipment-specific
frequencies using VOC monitoring
instruments, or bi-monthly, semiquarterly or monthly using an optical
gas imaging instrument, frequency
depending on the sensitivity detection
of the instrument. While LDAR
programs do not require quantification,
state inventories of air emissions use
this LDAR leak detection data with
‘‘leaker’’ factors developed by the
Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) to
estimate the quantity of VOC emissions.
These factors were developed from
petroleum refinery and petrochemical
plant data using Method 21. SOCMI
factors adjusted for methane content are
considerably lower than the methane
factors proposed in this rule, which
were developed from more recent
studies of gas processing plants and
compressor stations.
The Federal LDAR program recently
adopted an alternative work practice
that allows use of optical gas imaging
instruments in place of the VOC
monitoring instrument specified in
Method 21. In a similar vein, this rule
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
proposes the use of optical gas imaging
instruments to detect leaks once per
year, and has developed leaker factors
specific to methane from several recent
studies quantifying component leaks in
petroleum and gas facilities. While this
rule proposes a similar approach to
Method 21, given that this is a reporting
rule for collecting annual GHG
emissions, there are several key
differences: the proposed annual
reporting rule is focused on gathering
fugitive and vented CO2 and CH4
emissions, does not require multiple
surveys per year, and does not allow
measurement using an OVA/TVA for
the reasons cited above. Optical gas
imaging instruments were found to be
more appropriate for leak detection for
the proposed supplemental rule as these
instruments are able to scan hundreds of
source components quickly, including
components out of reach for an OVA/
TVA.
Mass Balance for Quantification.
Except in one case, EPA considered, but
decided not to propose, the use of a
mass balance approach for quantifying
emissions across an entire facility. This
approach would take into account the
volume of gas entering a facility and the
amount exiting the facility, with the
difference assumed to be emitted to the
atmosphere. This is most often
discussed for emissions estimation from
the transportation segment of the
industry. However, for pipeline
transportation, the mass balance is often
not recommended because of the
uncertainties surrounding meter
readings, the highly variable line pack
of high pressure gas and the large
volumes of throughput relative to
emissions.
EPA is proposing this approach in the
case of one emission source—acid gas
recovery units. Typically, the natural
gas volumes and compositions are
measured both at the inlet and outlet of
the acid gas recovery units as it is
required to ensure that natural gas meets
transmission system pipeline
specifications. Hence, it is considered
sufficiently feasible to use the mass
balance approach for this source. For all
other facilities and sources, the accuracy
required in volume measurements will
be a significant added burden in
addition to being unreliable in many
cases.
F. Selection of Procedures for Estimating
Missing Data
The proposal requires data collection
for a single source a minimum of once
a year. If data are lost or an error occurs
during emissions detection and/or
measurement or calculation, the
operator would be required to carry out
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the detection, direct measurement, and/
or calculation a second time to obtain
the relevant data point(s) as soon as the
missing data are discovered. If this falls
outside of the reporting year (e.g.
between the end of the reporting year
and the date when the emissions must
be reported) the operator would be
required to perform the necessary data
development and report the results for
the previous year. This prior year’s lost
data replacement could not be used as
the one-time data collection for the
current year. Where missing data
procedures are used for the previous
year, at least 30 days would be required
to separate emissions estimation and/or
measurements for the previous year and
emissions estimation and/or
measurements for the current year of
data collection in order to better
represent emissions estimates for
different years. Similarly, engineering
estimates would account for relevant
source counts and frequency from the
previous reporting period.
G. Selection of Data Reporting
Requirements
EPA proposes that emissions from the
petroleum and natural gas industry be
reported on an annual basis. The
reporting should be by the owner or
operator of the facility as defined in the
supplemental rule. Emissions from each
source type at the facility would be
required to be aggregated for reporting,
with a few exceptions for field level
reporting (e.g., well completions and
well workovers). For other equipment,
unit-level reporting would not be
required. For example, the owner or
operator with multiple reciprocating
compressors in an onshore production
basin would be required to report
emissions collectively from all rod
packings on all cylinders from all
compressors for all fields in that basin
as specified in this proposed
rulemaking. Generally, EPA has
proposed that onshore production be
reported at the basin level, as opposed
to the unit or field level, to minimize
reporting burden. EPA notes that in a
concurrent proposed rulemaking for
facilities that conduct CO2 injection or
geologic sequestration (subpart RR), the
term ‘‘facility’’ is defined at a more
disaggregated level, specifically as a
‘‘well or group of wells.’’ EPA seeks
comment on the use of more
disaggregated reporting options for
subpart W.
Emissions from all sources proposed
for monitoring, whether in operating
condition or on standby, would have to
be reported. Any emissions resulting
from standby compressor sources would
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18625
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
be separately identified from the
aggregate emissions.
The owner or operator would be
required to report the following
information to EPA as a part of the
annual emissions reporting: fugitive,
vented and flare combustion emissions
monitored at an aggregate source level
(unless specified otherwise), emissions
from standby sources; and activity data
for each aggregate source type level.
Owners or operators of natural gas
distribution facilities would report
emissions at the individual station level.
Additional data are proposed to be
reported to support verification:
Engineering estimate of total component
count; total number of compressors and
average operating hours per year in each
mode of operation for compressors, if
applicable; minimum, maximum and
average throughput per year; and
specification of the type of any control
device used, including flares. For
offshore petroleum and natural gas
production facilities, the number of
connected wells, and whether they are
producing oil, gas, or both is proposed
to be reported. For compressors
specifically, EPA proposes that the total
number of compressors of each type
(reciprocating, centrifugal with dry seals
and centrifugal with wet seals) and
average operating hours per year be
reported.
A full list of data proposed to be
reported is included in proposed 40
CFR part 98, subparts A and W.
H. Selection of Records That Must Be
Retained
The owner or operator shall retain
relevant information associated with the
monitoring and reporting of emissions
to EPA for three years as follows:
Throughput of the facility when the
emissions direct measurement was
conducted; date(s) of measurement,
detection and measurement instruments
used, if any; and results of the emissions
detection survey, including a video
record of the leak survey.
A full list of records proposed to be
retained is included in proposed 40 CFR
part 98, subparts A and W.
III. Economic Impacts of the Proposed
Rule
This section of the preamble examines
the costs and economic impacts of this
proposed supplemental rule, including
the estimated costs and benefits of the
rule, and the estimated economic
impacts of the rule on affected entities,
including estimated impacts on small
entities. Complete details of the
economic impacts of the final rule can
be found in the text of the Economic
Impact Analysis for the Mandatory
Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
under Subpart W Supplemental Rule
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0923). In brief,
all equipment and labor activities for
complying with each emissions estimate
in the rule were analyzed by technical
experts with relevant industry
experience. The estimated labor hours
and labor categories were applied to
each industry segment, in some cases
proportioned to small, medium and
large facilities where such variation
exists, to quantify the total labor hours,
multiplied by Government statistics on
labor rates, arriving at the total labor
and equipment costs for the estimated
numbers of sources. Administrative
costs for reviewing the reporting rules,
training personnel, documenting
emissions data and emissions estimates,
approving the submission to the EPA,
submitting reports and maintaining
records were included for each
reporting company. These total bottomup cost estimates were divided by the
emissions captured to arrive at the
dollar per metric ton, and divided by
the number of reporting entities to
arrive at average costs per entity. The
methods proposed by EPA are a balance
between minimizing these costs,
maximizing emissions coverage and
maximizing quality of emissions
estimates. The cost to affected parties on
a dollar per metric ton has been reduced
by greater than 50 percent when
compared to the initial petroleum and
natural gas proposal. To achieve this
cost reduction, EPA significantly
modified the rule to rely significantly
less on direct measurement and more on
engineering estimates, leaker factors and
emissions factors. Table W–5 and Table
W–6 compare the first year and
subsequent year costs, respectively, to
reporters for reporting fugitive and
vented emissions based on the reporting
requirements proposed under the initial
proposal as compared to the new
supplemental proposed rule.
TABLE W–5—ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR COST FOR REPORTING FUGITIVE AND VENTED EMISSIONS FOR PETROLEUM AND
NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS, MMTCO2E
Initial proposed rule1
Segment
Cost
($million)
New supplemental proposed
rulemaking
Cost per tonne
($/tonne)
Cost
($million)
Cost per tonne
($/tonne)
Original six segments ......................................................................................
Onshore Production .........................................................................................
Natural Gas Distribution ..................................................................................
$32.5
NA
NA
$0.38
NA
NA
$26.7
27.7
1.6
$0.28
0.18
0.07
Total Segments ........................................................................................
32.5
0.38
56.0
0.21
1 The
costs for the initial proposed rule, shown here, reflect the in-house monitoring option. Costs for the alternative contractor monitoring option can be found in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0508–0138.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE W–6—ESTIMATED SUBSEQUENT YEAR COST FOR REPORTING FUGITIVE AND VENTED EMISSIONS FOR PETROLEUM
AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS, MMTCO2E
Initial proposed rule
Segment
Cost
($million)
Original six segments ......................................................................................
Onshore Production .........................................................................................
Natural Gas Distribution ..................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
New supplemental proposed
rulemaking
Cost per tonne
($/tonne)
$28.1
NA
NA
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
$0.33
NA
NA
12APP3
Cost
($million)
11.8
8.6
1.0
Cost per tonne
($/tonne)
$0.13
0.06
0.04
18626
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE W–6—ESTIMATED SUBSEQUENT YEAR COST FOR REPORTING FUGITIVE AND VENTED EMISSIONS FOR PETROLEUM
AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS, MMTCO2E—Continued
Initial proposed rule
Segment
Cost
($million)
Total Segments ........................................................................................
New supplemental proposed
rulemaking
Cost per tonne
($/tonne)
$28.1
$0.33
Cost
($million)
21.4
Cost per tonne
($/tonne)
0.08
1 Subsequent
year in the initial proposed rule was defined as Year 2 whereas in the supplemental proposed rule it is defined as the average of
Years 2, 3, and 4.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
A. How were compliance costs
estimated?
1. Summary of EPA’s Consideration of
Comments Received on the Initial
Proposal
A majority of the comments received
on the compliance costs of the fugitive
emissions reporting rule focused on
facility level costs for detection and
measurement of emissions. Commenters
noted that costs estimated for certain
petroleum and gas industry segments
ignored available data on average leak
factors. Some who commented
specifically referred to government
programs that gather similar, or in the
case of offshore petroleum and gas
production in the Gulf of Mexico
Federal waters, some of the same data
as required under Subpart W. Others
who commented noted that Subpart W
had higher estimated compliance costs
than other sectors for much smaller
GHG emissions.
EPA recognizes that the costs
presented for some petroleum and gas
industry segments in the initial proposal
were relatively high for smaller
emissions quantified than other
industry sectors. EPA also recognizes
that for many fugitive and vented
emissions sources, new data exist on
component emission factors, and long
established data may be justified for
smaller, inaccessible to plain view or
more burdensome to identify emission
sources. Furthermore, EPA recognizes
that other government programs gather
similar or the same data as proposed by
this rule.
This proposed supplemental rule
incorporates a number of different
methodologies to provide improved
emissions coverage at a lower cost
burden to affected facilities. The
approach used in determining the
appropriate methodology for the
supplemental was to minimize the use
of direct measurement of emissions
(which results in a higher cost burden
to affected facilities) except for the most
significant emissions sources where
other options are not available, and to
use engineering estimates, emissions
modeling software, and leak detection
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
and publicly available emission factors
for most vented and fugitive sources.
For smaller fugitive and inaccessible to
plain view (i.e. buried or below grade in
vaults) sources, component count and
population emissions factors are
proposed. In the case of Offshore
platforms, EPA is recommending that
emissions identified under the Minerals
Management Services (MMS) GOADS
(Gulfwide Offshore Activities Data
System) be used for reporting, and the
GOADS process be extended to
platforms in other Federal regions (i.e.,
California and Alaska) and all State
waters. These alternative methodologies
will provide similar or better coverage
of vented and fugitive methane and
carbon dioxide emissions in the
petroleum and gas industry, while
significantly reducing industry burden.
As described in the next section, EPA
collected and evaluated cost data from
multiple sources, and weighed the
analysis prepared at initial proposal
against the input received through
public comments. In any analysis of this
type, there will be variations in costs
among facilities, and after thoroughly
reviewing the available information, we
have concluded that the costs developed
for this supplemental proposed rule in
each petroleum and gas industry
segment appropriately reflects a
‘‘representative facility’’ in those
segments.
2. Summary of Method Used To
Estimate Compliance Costs
EPA estimated costs of complying
with the rule for reporting fugitive and
vented GHG emissions in each affected
petroleum and gas industry facility, as
well as emissions from stationary
combustion sources at petroleum and
gas industry facilities (for threshold and
burden analysis only; stationary
combustion is reported under Subpart
C). This supplemental rulemaking
proposes methodologies for reporting
fugitive and vented emissions from oil
and gas facilities. Once triggering the
proposed rule, all of these facilities
would also have to report emissions
from stationary combustion. The costs
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of compliance for this proposed rule
includes the costs associated with
calculating and reporting fugitive and
vented emissions, as well as the costs of
any incremental combustion-related
emissions that would be required to be
reported by facilities (i.e., combustion
emissions that were not already
required to be reported under the final
MRR). The representative year of the
analysis is 2006 and all annual costs
were estimated using the 2006
population of emitting sources. EPA
used available industry and EPA data to
characterize conditions at affected
sources. Incremental monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting activities
were then identified for each type of
facility and the associated costs were
estimated.
The costs of complying with the rule
will vary from one petroleum and gas
industry segment and facility to another,
depending on the types of emissions,
the number of affected sources at the
facility, existing monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting activities
at the facility, etc. The costs include
labor costs for developing a plan, setting
up records, collecting field data,
performing monitoring, inputting field
data into engineering models,
recordkeeping, and reporting activities
necessary to comply with the rule. For
some facilities, costs include
expenditures related to monitoring,
recording, and reporting both process
emissions of GHGs and emissions from
stationary combustion. For other
facilities (e.g., LDCs), the only emissions
of GHGs are process emissions. EPA’s
estimated costs of compliance are
discussed in greater detail below:
Labor Costs. The costs of complying
with and administering this rule include
time of managers, technical, operational
and administrative staff in the private
sector. Staff hours are estimated for
activities, including:
• Developing a plan: reporting entity
management and technical staff hours to
applicability to the rule, organize
indoctrination of rule requirements,
identify staffing assignments, train staff,
schedule activities as required below.
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
• Setting up records: technical and
field staff hours to develop data
collection sheets and analytical model
equations or linkages to input data into
standardized models
• Collecting field data: technical and
field staff hours to collect necessary sitespecific data and input that data into the
analytical input tables.
• Monitoring: staff hours to procure,
install, operate and maintain emissions
monitoring equipment, instruments and
engineering analysis systems.
• Engineering models: technical staff
hours to link and execute engineering
emissions estimation models and
analytical procedures and to organize
output data as required for reporting
emissions.
• Record keeping: staff hours required
to organize, file and secure critical data
and emissions quantification results as
required for reporting and for
documenting determinations of facilities
exceeding and not exceeding reporting
thresholds.
• Reporting: management and staff
hours to organize data, perform quality
assurance/quality control, inform key
management personnel, and reporting it
to EPA through electronic systems.
Staff activities and associated labor
costs will vary from facility to facility
and potentially vary over time where
first year start-up costs are more
significant and where site-specific
emissions factors are developed every
two or three years. Thus, cost estimates
are developed for start-up and first-time
reporting, and subsequent reporting.
Wage rates to monetize staff time are
obtained from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS).
Equipment Costs. Equipment costs
include both the initial purchase price
of monitoring equipment and any
facility/process modification that may
be required for installation and/or use of
monitoring equipment. For example, the
cost estimation method for large
compressor seal emissions includes
both purchase of a flow measurement
instrument and installation of a
measurement port in the vent piping
where the end of the vent is
inaccessible. Based on expert judgment,
the engineering costs analyses
annualized capital equipment costs with
appropriate lifetime and interest rate
assumptions. Cost recovery periods and
interest rates vary by industry, but
typically, one-time capital costs are
amortized over a 10-year cost recovery
period at a rate of seven percent.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
B. What are the costs of the proposed
rule?
1. Summary of Costs
For the cost analysis, EPA gathered
existing data from EPA studies and
publications, industry trade associations
and publicly available data sources (e.g.,
labor rates from the BLS) to characterize
the processes, sources, sectors, facilities,
and companies/entities affected. EPA
also considered cost data submitted in
public comments on the proposed rule.
Costs were estimated on a per entity
basis and then weighted by the number
of entities affected at the 25,000 metric
tons CO2e threshold.
To develop the costs for the rule, EPA
estimated the number of affected
facilities in each source category, the
number and types of process equipment
at each facility, the number and types of
processes that emit GHGs, process
inputs and outputs (especially for
monitoring procedures that involve a
carbon mass balance), and the
measurements that are already being
made for reasons not associated with the
rule (to allow only the incremental costs
to be estimated). Many of the affected
source categories, especially those that
are the largest emitters of GHGs (e.g.,
glycol dehydrators, petroleum stock
tanks, gas processing plants) are subject
to national emission standards and we
use data generated in the development
of these standards to estimate the
number of sources affected by the
proposed reporting rule.
Other components of the cost analysis
included estimates of labor hours to
perform specific activities, cost of labor,
and cost of monitoring equipment.
Estimates of labor hours were based on
previous analyses of the costs of
monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping for other rules;
information from the industry
characterization on the number of units
or process inputs and outputs to be
monitored; and engineering judgment
by industry and EPA industry experts
and engineers. Labor costs were taken
from the BLS and adjusted to account
for overhead. Monitoring costs were
generally based on cost algorithms or
approaches that had been previously
developed, reviewed, accepted as
adequate, and used specifically to
estimate the costs associated with
various types of measurements and
monitoring.
A detailed engineering analysis was
conducted for each petroleum and gas
industry segment of this proposed rule
to develop unique unit costs. This
analysis is documented in the Economic
Impact Analysis for the Mandatory
Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
18627
under Subpart W Supplemental Rule
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0923). The
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the
Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry:
Background TSD (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0923) provides a discussion of the
applicable engineering estimating and
measurement technologies and any
existing programs and practices.
Incremental combustion-related
emissions that would be required to be
reported by facilities (as noted above)
were estimated using Tier 1 factors from
Subpart C of the Final MRR. Section 4
of the Economic Impact Analysis for the
proposed rule contains a description of
the engineering cost analysis.
Table W–7 of this preamble presents:
the emissions covered under this
proposed supplemental rule, the first
year total costs and the first year cost
per ton for process and combustion
emissions, and these values for the
subsequent years. EPA estimates that
the total cost for process emissions in
the first year is $56.0 million, and the
total national annualized cost for
subsequent years is $21.4 million
(2006$). Of these costs, roughly 49.5
percent fall upon the onshore
production segment in the first year,
while 34.5 percent fall upon the gas
transmission segment. Offshore
production, which is largely covered by
the MMS GOADS study data, is
estimated to incur approximately 0.5
percent of costs every three or four
years; other segments incurring
relatively large shares of costs are gas
processing (12.5 percent) and local
distribution companies (3 percent). The
reporting of incremental combustion
related emission for all segments of the
petroleum and natural gas industry are
estimated to cost $3.9 million in both
the first and subsequent years.
The threshold, in large part,
determines the number of entities
required to report GHG emissions and
hence the costs of the rule. The number
of entities excluded increases with
higher thresholds. Table W–8 of this
preamble provides the cost-effectiveness
analysis for various thresholds
examined. Two metrics are used to
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the
emissions threshold. The first is the
average cost per metric ton of emissions
reported ($/metric ton CO2e). The
second metric for evaluating the
threshold option is the incremental cost
of reporting emissions. The incremental
cost is calculated as the additional
(incremental) cost per metric ton
starting with the least stringent option
and moving successively from one
threshold option to the next. For more
information about the first year capital
costs (unamortized), project lifetime and
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18628
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the amortized (annualized) costs for
each petroleum and gas industry
segment please refer to section 4 of the
Economic Analysis for the proposed
rule. Not all segments require capital
expenditures but those that do are
clearly documented in the Economic
Impact Analysis for the proposed rule.
TABLE W–7—NATIONAL COST ESTIMATES FOR PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS
[2006$]
First year
Subpart W—petroleum and natural gas
systems
$million1
NAICS
2006
Subsequent years
$million
Million
MtCO2e
$/ton
2006
Million
MtCO2e
$/ton
Fugitive and Vented Emissions ...............
Combustion Emissions ............................
211, 486
....................
$56
3.9
272.0
79.1
$0.21
0.05
$21.4
3.9
272.0
79.1
$0.08
0.05
Total Private Sector Emissions ........
....................
59.9
351.1
0.17
25.3
351.1
0.07
TABLE W–8—THRESHOLD COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
[Subsequent year, 2006$]
Threshold
(metric tons CO2e)
Facilities required
to report
100,000
25,000
10,000
1,000
1,143
3,037
4,884
15,057
1 Cost
Total costs
(million $2006)
Downstream emissions reported
(MtCO2e/year)
Percentage of
total downstream
emissions reported
Average reporting
cost
($/ton)
273
351
380
415
64
83
90
98
$0.05
0.08
0.10
0.23
$13.66
25.30
38.62
97.18
Incremental cost
($/metric ton) 1
$0.05
0.13
0.23
0.46
per metric ton relative to the selected option.
C. What are the economic impacts of the
proposed rule?
1. Summary of Economic Impacts
EPA prepared an economic impact
analysis to evaluate the impacts of the
rule on affected small to large reporting
entities. In evaluating the various
reporting options considered, EPA
conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis,
comparing the cost per metric ton of
GHG emissions across reporting options.
EPA used this information to identify
the preferred options described in
today’s proposed rule.
To estimate the economic impacts of
the rule, EPA first conducted a
screening assessment, comparing the
estimated total annualized compliance
costs for the petroleum and gas
industry, where industry is defined in
terms of North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code,
with industry average revenues. Overall
national costs of the rule are significant
because there are a large number of
affected entities, but per-entity costs are
low due to large coverage of emissions
from these entities. Average cost-to-sales
ratios for establishments in the affected
NAICS codes for all segments is less
than 1 percent, except in the 1–20
employee range for the onshore
petroleum and natural gas segment.
These low average cost-to-sales ratios
indicate that the proposed rule is
unlikely to result in significant changes
in firms’ production decisions or other
behavioral changes, and thus unlikely to
result in significant changes in prices or
quantities in affected markets. Thus,
EPA followed its Guidelines for
Preparing Economic Analyses (EPA,
2002, p. 124–125) and used the
engineering cost estimates to measure
the social cost of the rule, rather than
modeling market responses and using
the resulting measures of social cost.
Table W–9 of this preamble summarizes
cost-to-sales ratios for affected
industries.
TABLE W–9—ESTIMATED COST-TO-SALES RATIOS FOR AFFECTED ENTITIES
[Year 1]
Average cost per
entity
($1,000/entity)
NAICS description
211 ....................
486210 ..............
221210 ..............
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
NAICS
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction ..................................................................
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ............................................................................
Natural Gas Distribution ...................................................................................................
1 This
Average entity
cost-to-sales
ratio1
$24
18
11
ratio reflects first year costs. Subsequent year costs will be slightly lower because they do not include initial start-up activities.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
0.11%
0.10%
0.05%
18629
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
D. What are the impacts of the proposed
rule on small businesses?
1. Summary of Impacts on Small
Businesses
As required by the RFA and Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement and
Fairness ACT (SBREFA), EPA assessed
the potential impacts of the rule on
small entities (small businesses,
governments, and non-profit
organizations). (See Section IV.C of this
preamble for definitions of small
entities.)
EPA has determined the selected
threshold maximizes the rule coverage
with 83 percent of U.S. GHG emissions
from the industry segments reported by
approximately 3,037 reporters, while
keeping reporting burden to a
minimum. Furthermore, many industry
stakeholders that EPA met with
expressed support for a 25,000 metric
ton CO2e threshold because it
sufficiently captures the majority of
GHG emissions in the U.S., while
excluding most of the smaller facilities
and sources. We received many
comments related to monitoring and
reporting requirements in specific
source categories, and made many
changes in response to reduce burden
on reporters. For information on these
issues, refer to the discussion of each
segment in this preamble.
EPA conducted a screening
assessment comparing compliance costs
to onshore petroleum and natural gas
production specific receipts data for
establishments owned by small
businesses. This ratio constitutes a
‘‘sales’’ test that computes the
annualized compliance costs of this rule
as a percentage of sales and determines
whether the ratio exceeds one percent.9
The cost-to-sales ratios were constructed
at the establishment level (average
reporting program costs per
establishment/average establishment
receipts) for several business size
ranges. This allowed EPA to account for
receipt differences between
establishments owned by large and
small businesses and differences in
small business definitions across
affected industries. The results of the
screening assessment are shown in
Table W–10 of this preamble.
TABLE W–10.—ESTIMATED COST-TO-SALES RATIOS FOR FIRST YEAR COSTS BY INDUSTRY AND ENTERPRISE SIZEA
Industry
Average
cost per
entity
($1,000/
entity)
All enterprises
<20 employeesf
20 to 99
employees
100 to
499 employees
500 to
749 employees
<500 employees
750 to
999 employees
1,000 to
1,499
employees
500 employees.
$24
0.11%
1.83%
0.16%
0.07%
0.03%
0.65%
0.04%
0.03%
486210
Pipeline
7.5 million
Transdollars.
portation
of Natural Gas.
18
0.10
0.14
0.47 b
0.28 b
................
0.12
................
................
221210
Natural
Gas
Distribution.
11
0.05
0.22
0.02
0.05
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.02
NAICS
Onshore petroleum
and natural gas
production; offshore
petroleum and natural gas production;
LNG storage; LNG
import and export.
Onshore natural gas
processing; onshore natural gas
transmission; underground natural
gas storage.
Natural gas distribution.
Owned by enterprises with:
SBA Size
Standard
(effective
March 11,
2008)
NAICS
Description
211
Crude Petroleum
and Natural Gas
Extraction.
7.5 million
dollars.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1 The Census Bureau defines an enterprise as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified under common ownership or control. The enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each multi-establishment company forms one enterprise—the enterprise employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size designations are determined by the summed employment of
all associated establishments.
Since the SBA’s business size definitions (https://www.sba.gov/size) apply to an establishment’s ultimate parent company, we assume in this analysis that the enterprise definition above is consistent with the concept of ultimate parent company that is typically used for SBREFA screening analyses.
2 The Census Bureau has missing data ranges for this employee range. Hence the receipts are an underestimate of the true value. Therefore, the cost-to-sales
ratio is a conservative estimate.
As shown, the cost-to-sales ratios are
less than one percent for establishments
owned by small businesses that EPA
considers most likely to be covered by
the reporting program, except the ratio
for 1–20 employee range for crude
petroleum and natural gas extraction,
which is greater than 1 percent but less
than 2 percent. The petroleum and
natural gas industry has a large number
of enterprises, the majority of them in
the 1–20 employee range. However, a
large fraction of production comes from
large corporations and not those with
less than 20 employee enterprises. The
smaller enterprises in most cases deal
with very small operations (such as a
single family owning a few production
wells) that are unlikely to cross even the
25,000 metric tons CO2e threshold
considered for the rule. An exception to
such a scenario is a small (less than 20
employee) enterprise owning large
operations but conducting nearly all of
its operations through contractors. This
is not an uncommon practice in the
onshore petroleum and natural gas
production segment. Such enterprises,
however, are a very small group among
the over 19,000 enterprises in the less
than 20 employee category and EPA
proposes to cover them in the rule.
9 EPA’s RFA guidance for rule writers suggests
the ‘‘sales’’ test continues to be the preferred
quantitative metric for economic impact screening
analysis.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
EPA took a conservative approach
with the model entity analysis.
Although the appropriate SBA size
definition should be applied at the
parent company (enterprise) level, data
limitations allowed us only to compute
and compare ratios for a model
establishment within several enterprise
size ranges.
Although this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
Agency nonetheless tried to reduce the
impact of this rule on small entities,
including seeking input from a wide
range of private- and public-sector
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18630
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
stakeholders. When developing the rule,
the Agency took special steps to ensure
that the burdens imposed on small
entities were minimal. The Agency
conducted several meetings with
industry trade associations to discuss
regulatory options and the
corresponding burden on industry, such
as recordkeeping and reporting. The
Agency investigated alternative
thresholds and analyzed the marginal
costs associated with requiring smaller
entities with lower emissions to report.
The Agency also recommended a hybrid
method for reporting, which provides
flexibility to entities and helps
minimize reporting costs.
E. What are the benefits of the proposed
rule for society?
EPA examined the potential benefits
of the proposed GHG reporting rule for
petroleum and natural gas systems. The
benefits of a reporting system are based
on their relevance to policy making,
transparency issues, and market
efficiency. Benefits are very difficult to
quantify and monetize. Instead of a
quantitative analysis of the benefits,
EPA conducted a systematic literature
review of existing studies including
government, consulting, and scholarly
reports.
A mandatory reporting system for
petroleum and natural gas systems will
benefit the public by increased
transparency of facility emissions data.
Transparent, public data on emissions
allows for accountability of polluters to
the public stakeholders who bear the
cost of the pollution. Citizens,
community groups, and labor unions
have made use of data from Pollutant
Release and Transfer Registers to
negotiate directly with polluters to
lower emissions, circumventing greater
government regulation. Publicly
available emissions data also will allow
individuals to alter their consumption
habits based on the GHG emissions of
producers.
The greatest benefit of mandatory
reporting of petroleum and natural gas
systems GHG emissions to government
will be realized in developing future
GHG policies. For example, in the
European Union’s Emissions Trading
System, a lack of accurate monitoring at
the facility level before establishing CO2
allowance permits resulted in allocation
of permits for emissions levels an
average of 15 percent above actual levels
in every country except the United
Kingdom.
As the primary constituent of natural
gas, methane is also an important energy
source. As a result, methane emissions
reductions can provide significant
economic and environmental benefits.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
EPA has been working in collaboration
with oil and natural companies in the
U.S. as part of the Natural Gas STAR
Program since 1993. Through this
collaborative partnership program, EPA
has identified over 120 proven, cost
effective technologies and practices to
reduce methane emissions across
operations in all of the major industry
sectors—production, gathering and
processing, transmission, and
distribution. The proposed reporting
rule will increase knowledge of the
location and magnitude of significant
methane emissions sources in the oil
and gas industry which can result in
cross-cutting benefits on domestic
energy supply, industrial efficiency and
safety, and revenue generation.
Benefits to industry of GHG emissions
monitoring include the value of having
independent, verifiable data to present
to the public to demonstrate appropriate
environmental stewardship, and a better
understanding of their emission levels
and sources to identify opportunities to
reduce emissions. Such monitoring
allows for inclusion of standardized
GHG data into environmental
management systems, providing the
necessary information to achieve and
disseminate their environmental
achievements.
Standardization will also be a benefit
to industry, once facilities invest in the
institutional knowledge and systems to
report emissions, the cost of monitoring
should fall and the accuracy of the
accounting should improve. A
standardized reporting program will
also allow for facilities to benchmark
themselves against similar facilities to
understand better their relative standing
within their industry.
Section VI of the RIA for the Final
MRR summarizes the anticipated
benefits of the finalized rule, which
include providing the government with
sound data on which to base future
policies and providing industry and the
public independently verified
information documenting firms’
environmental performance. While EPA
has not quantified the benefits of the
mandatory reporting rule, EPA believes
that they are substantial and outweigh
the estimated costs.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
because it raises novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
set forth in the EO. Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under EO 12866.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2376.01.
EPA plans to collect complete and
accurate facility-level GHG emissions
from the petroleum and natural gas
industry. Accurate and timely
information on GHG emissions is
essential for informing future climate
change policy decisions. Through data
collected under this proposed rule, EPA
will gain a better understanding of the
relative emissions of different segments
of the petroleum and natural gas
industry and the distribution of
emissions from individual facilities
within those industries. The facilityspecific data will also improve our
understanding of the factors that
influence GHG emission rates and
actions that facilities are already taking
to reduce emissions. Additionally, EPA
will be able to track the trend of
emissions from facilities within the
petroleum and natural gas industry over
time, particularly in response to policies
and potential regulations. The data
collected by this proposed rule will
improve EPA’s ability to formulate
climate change policy options and to
assess which segments of the petroleum
and gas industry would be affected, and
how these segments would be affected
by the options.
This information collection is
mandatory and will be carried out under
CAA section 114. Information identified
and marked as CBI will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures
set forth in 40 CFR part 2. However,
emissions data collected under CAA
section 114 cannot generally be claimed
as CBI and will be made public.10
The projected cost and hour burden
for non-federal respondents is $37.8
million and 478,774 hours per year. The
10 Although CBI determinations are usually made
on a case-by-case basis, EPA has issued guidance
in an earlier Federal Register notice on what
constitutes emissions data that cannot be
considered CBI (956 FR 7042–7043, February 21,
1991). As discussed in Section II.R of the Final
MRR preamble, EPA is initiating a separate notice
and comment process to make CBI determinations
for the data collected under this rulemaking. EPA
intends to issue this notice in early 2010, and will
include in the notice the data proposed for
collection in this rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
estimated average burden per response
is 98.2 hours; the frequency of response
is annual for all respondents that must
comply with the proposed rule’s
reporting requirements; and the
estimated average number of likely
respondents per year is 3,038. The cost
burden to respondents resulting from
the collection of information includes
the total capital cost annualized over the
equipment’s expected useful life
(averaging $5.3 million), a total
operation and maintenance component
(averaging $1.6 million per year), and a
labor cost component (averaging $30.9
million per year).11 Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency’s need for
this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, EPA has established
a public docket for this rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID
number (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0923).
Submit any comments related to the ICR
to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this notice
for where to submit comments to EPA.
Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after April 12, 2010, a
comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
by May 12, 2010. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
11 Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). These
cost numbers differ from those shown elsewhere in
the Economic Analysis because the ICR costs
represent the average cost over the first three years
of the proposed rule, but costs are reported
elsewhere in the Economic Analysis for the first
year of the proposed rule and for subsequent years
of the proposed rule. In addition, the ICR focuses
on respondent burden, while the Economic
Analysis includes EPA Agency costs.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this proposed rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s regulations at
13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities directly
regulated by this proposed rule include
small businesses in the petroleum and
natural gas industry, small
governmental jurisdictions and small
non-profits. We have determined that
some small businesses will be affected
because their production processes emit
GHGs that must be reported.
The small entities directly regulated
by this proposed rule include small
businesses in the petroleum and gas
industry, small governmental
jurisdictions and small non-profits. We
have determined that some small
businesses will be affected because their
production processes emit GHGs that
must be reported.
For affected small entities, EPA
conducted a screening assessment
comparing compliance costs for affected
industry segments to petroleum and gasspecific data on revenues for small
businesses. This ratio constitutes a
‘‘sales’’ test that computes the
annualized compliance costs of this
proposed rule as a percentage of sales
and determines whether the ratio
exceeds some level (e.g., 1 percent or 3
percent). The cost-to-sales ratios were
constructed at the establishment level
(average compliance cost for the
establishment/average establishment
revenues).
As shown in Table W–10, the average
ratio of annualized reporting program
costs to receipts of establishments
owned by model small enterprises was
less than 1 percent for industries
presumed likely to have small
businesses covered by the reporting
program. Although the costs to receipts
for entities with 1–20 employees is over
1 percent, these facilities would likely
not exceed the proposed 25,000 mtCO2e
threshold, a threshold supported by
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
18631
many stakeholders as one that
sufficiently captures the majority of
GHG emissions while excluding small
facilities. Further, these sales tests
examine the average establishment’s
total annualized mandatory reporting
costs to the average establishment
receipts for enterprises within several
employment categories. The average
entity costs used to compute the sales
test are the same across all of these
enterprise size categories. As a result,
the sales-test will overstate the cost-toreceipt ratio for establishments owned
by small businesses, because the
reporting costs are likely lower than
average entity estimates provided by the
engineering cost analysis.
The screening analysis thus indicates
that the proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The screening assessment for small
governments for the Final MRR
compared the sum of average costs of
compliance for combustion, local
distribution companies, and landfills to
average revenues for small governments.
Even for a small government owning all
three source types, the costs constitute
less than 1 percent of average revenues
for the smallest category of governments
(those with fewer than 10,000 people).
Although this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless took several steps to
reduce the impact of this proposed rule
on small entities. For example, EPA
determined appropriate thresholds that
reduce the number of small businesses
reporting. In addition, EPA is proposing
different monitoring methods for
different emissions sources, requiring
direct measurement only for selected
sources. Also, EPA is proposing annual
instead of more frequent reporting.
Through comprehensive outreach
activities prior to proposal of the initial
rule, EPA held approximately 100
meetings and/or conference calls with
representatives of the primary audience
groups, including numerous trade
associations and industries in the
petroleum and gas industry that include
small business members. EPA’s
outreach activities prior to proposal of
the initial rule are documented in the
memorandum, ‘‘Summary of EPA
Outreach Activities for Developing the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,’’
located in Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2008–0508–053. After the initial
proposal, EPA posted a guide for small
businesses on the EPA GHG reporting
rule Web site, along with a general fact
sheet for the rule, information sheets for
every source category, and an FAQ
document. EPA also operated a hotline
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18632
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
to answer questions about the proposed
rule. We continued to meet with
stakeholders and entered
documentation of all meetings into the
docket.
During rule implementation, EPA
would maintain an ‘‘open door’’ policy
for stakeholders to ask questions about
the proposed rule or provide
suggestions to EPA about the types of
compliance assistance that would be
useful to small businesses. EPA intends
to develop a range of compliance
assistance tools and materials and
conduct extensive outreach for the
proposed rule.
We have therefore concluded that
today’s proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We
continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
The UMRA seeks to protect State,
local, and Tribal governments from the
imposition of unfunded Federal
mandates. In addition, the Act seeks to
strengthen the partnership between the
Federal government and State, local,
and Tribal governments and ensure that
the Federal government covers the costs
incurred during compliance with
Federal mandates.
Title II of the UMRA of 1995, Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
segment. Under section 202 of UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with Federal mandates that may result
in expenditures to State, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
to the private segment, of $100 million
or more in any one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of UMRA generally requires
EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including Tribal governments, it must
have developed under section 203 of
UMRA a small government agency plan.
The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA
regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates,
and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that the Subpart
W rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private segment in any
one year. Expenditures associated with
compliance, defined as the incremental
costs beyond the existing regulations
will not surpass $100 million in the
aggregate in any year. Thus, today’s rule
is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
regulation applies to facilities that
directly emit greenhouse gases. It does
not apply to governmental entities
unless the government entity owns a
facility in the petroleum and gas
industry that directly emits greenhouse
gases above threshold levels. In
addition, this proposed rule does not
impose any implementation
responsibilities on State, local, or Tribal
governments and it is not expected to
increase the cost of existing regulatory
programs managed by those
governments. Thus, the impact on
governments affected by the proposed
rule is expected to be minimal.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This regulation
applies directly to petroleum and
natural gas facilities that emit
greenhouse gases. Few, if any, state or
local government facilities would be
affected. This regulation also does not
limit the power of States or localities to
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG
emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
proposed action from State and local
officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
EPA has concluded that this action
may have tribal implications. However,
it will neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments,
nor preempt Tribal law. This regulation
would apply directly to petroleum and
natural gas facilities that emit
greenhouses gases. Although few
facilities that would be subject to the
rule are likely to be owned by tribal
governments, EPA has sought
opportunities to provide information to
tribal governments and representatives
during rule development. EPA
consulted with tribal officials early in
the process of developing this regulation
to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. EPA
sought opportunities to provide
information to Tribal governments and
representatives during development of
the mandatory GHG reporting rule that
was proposed in April 2009 and
finalized in September 2009. Today’s
action is a supplemental proposal to
that rule. In consultation with EPA’s
American Indian Environment Office,
EPA’s outreach plan included tribes.
EPA conducted several conference calls
with Tribal organizations during the
proposal phase. For example, EPA staff
provided information to tribes through
conference calls with multiple Indian
working groups and organizations at
EPA that interact with tribes and
through individual calls with two Tribal
board members of TCR. In addition,
EPA prepared a short article on the GHG
reporting rule that appeared on the front
page of a Tribal newsletter—Tribal Air
News—that was distributed to EPA/
OAQPS’s network of Tribal
organizations. EPA gave a presentation
on various climate efforts, including the
mandatory reporting rule, at the
National Tribal Conference on
Environmental Management on June
24–26, 2008. In addition, EPA had
copies of a short information sheet
distributed at a meeting of the National
Tribal Caucus. See the ‘‘Summary of
EPA Outreach Activities for Developing
the GHG reporting rule,’’ in Docket No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0508–055 for a
complete list of Tribal contacts. EPA
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
participated in a conference call with
Tribal air coordinators in April 2009
and prepared a guidance sheet for Tribal
governments on the proposed rule. It
was posted on the MRR Web site and
published in the Tribal Air Newsletter.
EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed rule from
Tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5–501 of
the EO has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
EO 13045 because it does not establish
an environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in
EO 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further,
we have concluded that this proposed
rule is not likely to have any adverse
energy effects. This proposed rule
relates to monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping at petroleum and gas
facilities that emit over 25,000 mtCO2e
and does not impact energy supply,
distribution or use. Therefore, we
conclude that this proposed rule is not
likely to have any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to
use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical
standards. EPA provides the flexibility
to use any one of the voluntary
consensus standards from at least seven
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
different voluntary consensus standards
bodies, including the following: ASTM,
ASME, ISO, Gas Processors Association,
and American Gas Association. These
voluntary consensus standards will help
facilities monitor, report, and keep
records of greenhouse gas emissions. No
new test methods were developed for
this proposed rule. Instead, from
existing rules for source categories and
voluntary greenhouse gas programs,
EPA identified existing means of
monitoring, reporting, and keeping
records of greenhouse gas emissions.
The existing methods (voluntary
consensus standards) include a broad
range of measurement techniques,
including many for combustion sources
such as methods to analyze fuel and
measure its heating value; methods to
measure gas or liquid flow; and methods
to gauge and measure petroleum and
petroleum products.
By incorporating voluntary consensus
standards into this proposed rule, EPA
is both meeting the requirements of the
NTTAA and presenting multiple
options and flexibility for measuring
greenhouse gas emissions.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment because it is a rule
addressing information collection and
reporting procedures.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by
reference, Suppliers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
18633
Dated: March 22, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part
98 as follows:
PART 98—MANDATORY
GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING
1. The authority citation for part 98
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A—[Amended]
2. Section 98.2 is amended by revising
paragraph (a) introductory text to read
as follows:
§ 98.2
Who must report?
(a) The GHG reporting requirements
and related monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements of this part
apply to the owners and operators of
any facility that is located in the United
States or under or attached to the Outer
Continental Shelf (as defined in 43
U.S.C. 1331) and that meets the
requirements of either paragraph (a)(1),
(a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section; and any
supplier that meets the requirements of
paragraph (a)(4) of this section:
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 98.6 is amended by adding
the following definitions in alphabetical
order and revising the definition of
‘‘United States’’ to read as follows:
§ 98.6
Definitions.
Absorbent circulation pump means a
pump commonly powered by natural
gas pressure that circulates the
absorbent liquid between the absorbent
regenerator and natural gas contactor.
*
*
*
*
*
Acid Gas means hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO2)
contaminants that are separated from
sour natural gas by an acid gas removal.
Acid Gas Removal unit (AGR) means
a process unit that separates hydrogen
sulfide and/or carbon dioxide from sour
natural gas using liquid or solid
absorbents or membrane separators.
Acid gas removal vent stack emissions
mean the acid gas separated from the
acid gas absorbing medium (e.g., an
amine solution) and released with
methane and other light hydrocarbons
to the atmosphere or a flare.
*
*
*
*
*
Air injected flare means a flare in
which air is blown into the base of a
flare stack to induce complete
combustion of low Btu natural gas (i.e.,
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
18634
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
high non-combustible component
content).
*
*
*
*
*
Blowdown vent stack emissions mean
natural gas released due to maintenance
and/or blowdown operations including
but not limited to compressor
blowdown and emergency shut-down
(ESD) system testing.
*
*
*
*
*
Calibrated bag means a flexible, nonelastic, anti-static bag of a calibrated
volume that can be affixed to a emitting
source such that the emissions inflate
the bag to its calibrated volume.
*
*
*
*
*
Centrifugal compressor means any
equipment that increases the pressure of
a process natural gas by centrifugal
action, employing rotating movement of
the driven shaft.
Centrifugal compressor dry seals
mean a series of rings around the
compressor shaft where it exits the
compressor case that operates
mechanically under the opposing forces
to prevent natural gas from escaping to
the atmosphere.
Centrifugal compressor dry seals
emissions mean natural gas released
from a dry seal vent pipe and/or the seal
face around the rotating shaft where it
exits one or both ends of the compressor
case.
Centrifugal compressor wet seal
degassing venting emissions means
emissions that occur when the highpressure oil barriers for centrifugal
compressors are depressurized to
release absorbed natural gas. Highpressure oil is used as a barrier against
escaping gas in centrifugal compressor
shafts. Very little gas escapes through
the oil barrier, but under high pressure,
considerably more gas is absorbed by
the oil. The seal oil is purged of the
absorbed gas (using heaters, flash tanks,
and degassing techniques) and
recirculated. The separated gas is
commonly vented to the atmosphere.
*
*
*
*
*
Coal Bed Methane (CBM) means
natural gas which is extracted from
underground coal deposits or ‘‘beds.’’
*
*
*
*
*
Component, for the purposes of
subpart W only, means but is not
limited to each metal to metal joint or
seal of non-welded connection
separated by a compression gasket,
screwed thread (with or without thread
sealing compound), metal to metal
compression, or fluid barrier through
which natural gas or liquid can escape
to the atmosphere.
Compressor means any machine for
raising the pressure of a natural gas by
drawing in low pressure natural gas and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
discharging significantly higher
pressure natural gas.
*
*
*
*
*
Condensate means hydrocarbon and
other liquid separated from natural gas
that condenses due to changes in the
temperature, pressure, or both, and
remains liquid at storage conditions,
includes both water and hydrocarbon
liquids.
*
*
*
*
*
Conventional wells mean gas wells in
producing fields that do not employ
hydraulic fracturing to produce
commercially viable quantities of
natural gas.
*
*
*
*
*
Dehydrator means a device in which
a liquid absorbent (including but not
limited to desiccant, ethylene glycol,
diethylene glycol, or triethylene glycol)
directly contacts a natural gas stream to
absorb water vapor.
Dehydrator vent stack emissions
means natural gas released from a
natural gas dehydrator system absorbent
(typically glycol) reboiler or regenerator,
including stripping natural gas and
motive natural gas used in absorbent
circulation pumps.
*
*
*
*
*
De-methanizer means the natural gas
processing unit that separates methane
rich residue gas from the heavier
hydrocarbons (e.g., ethane, propane,
butane, pentane-plus) in feed natural
gas stream).
*
*
*
*
*
Desiccant means a material used in
solid-bed dehydrators to remove water
from raw natural gas by adsorption.
Desiccants include activated alumina,
palletized calcium chloride, lithium
chloride and granular silica gel material.
Wet natural gas is passed through a bed
of the granular or pelletized solid
adsorbent in these dehydrators. As the
wet gas contacts the surface of the
particles of desiccant material, water is
adsorbed on the surface of these
desiccant particles. Passing through the
entire desiccant bed, almost all of the
water is adsorbed onto the desiccant
material, leaving the dry gas to exit the
contactor.
*
*
*
*
*
E&P Tank means the most current
version of an exploration and
production field tank emissions
equilibrium program that estimates
flashing, working and standing losses of
hydrocarbons, including methane, from
produced crude oil and gas condensate.
Equal or successors to E&P Tank
Version 2.0 for Windows Software.
Copyright (C) 1996–1999 by The
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
American Petroleum Institute and The
Gas Research Institute.
*
*
*
*
*
Engineering estimation, for purposes
of subpart W, means an estimate of
emissions based on engineering
principles applied to measured and/or
approximated physical parameters such
as dimensions of containment, actual
pressures, actual temperatures, and
compositions.
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) means
the use of certain methods such as water
flooding or gas injection into existing
wells to increase the recovery of crude
oil from a reservoir. In the context of
this rule, EOR applies to injection of
critical phase carbon dioxide into a
crude oil reservoir to enhance the
recovery of oil.
*
*
*
*
*
Field means standardized field names
and codes of all oil and gas fields
identified in the United States as
defined by the Energy Information
Administration Oil and Gas Field Code
Master List.
*
*
*
*
*
Flare combustion means unburned
hydrocarbons including CH4, CO2, N2O
emissions resulting from the incomplete
combustion of gas in flares.
Flare combustion efficiency means the
fraction of natural gas, on a volume or
mole basis, that is combusted at the flare
burner tip.
*
*
*
*
*
Fugitive emissions means those
emissions which are unintentional and
could not reasonably pass through a
stack, chimney, vent, or other
functionally-equivalent opening.
Fugitive emissions detection means
the process of identifying emissions
from equipment, components, and other
point sources.
Gas conditions mean the actual
temperature, volume, and pressure of a
gas sample.
*
*
*
*
*
Gas gathering/booster stations mean
centralized stations where produced
natural gas from individual wells is comingled, compressed for transport to
processing plants, transmission and
distribution systems, and other
gathering/booster stations which comingle gas from multiple production
gathering/booster stations. Such stations
may include gas dehydration, gravity
separation of liquids (both hydrocarbon
and water), pipeline pig launchers and
receivers, and gas powered pneumatic
devices.
*
*
*
*
*
Gas to oil ratio (GOR) means the ratio
of the volume of gas at standard
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
temperature and pressure that is
produced from a volume of oil when
depressurized to standard temperature
and pressure.
*
*
*
*
*
High-Bleed Pneumatic Devices are
automated flow control devices
powered by pressurized natural gas and
used for maintaining a process
condition such as liquid level, pressure,
delta-pressure and temperature. Part of
the gas power stream which is regulated
by the process condition flows to a
valve actuator controller where it vents
(bleeds) to the atmosphere at a rate in
excess of six standard cubic feet per
hour.
*
*
*
*
*
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) means
natural gas (primarily methane) that has
been liquefied by reducing its
temperature to ¥260 degrees Fahrenheit
at atmospheric pressure.
LNG boiloff gas means natural gas in
the gaseous phase that vents from LNG
storage tanks due to ambient heat
leakage through the tank insulation and
heat energy dissipated in the LNG by
internal pumps.
Low-Bleed Pneumatic Devices mean
automated flow control devices
powered by pressurized natural gas and
used for maintaining a process
condition such as liquid level, pressure,
delta-pressure and temperature. Part of
the gas power stream which is regulated
by the process condition flows to a
valve actuator controller where it vents
(bleeds) to the atmosphere at a rate
equal to or less than six standard cubic
feet per hour.
*
*
*
*
*
Natural gas driven pneumatic pump
means a pump that uses pressurized
natural gas to move a piston or
diaphragm, which pumps liquids on the
opposite side of the piston or
diaphragm.
*
*
*
*
*
Offshore means seaward of the
terrestrial borders of the United States,
including waters subject to the ebb and
flow of the tide, as well as adjacent
bays, lakes or other normally standing
waters, and extending to the outer
boundaries of the jurisdiction and
control of the United States under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
*
*
*
*
*
Onshore petroleum and natural gas
production owner or operator means the
entity who is the permitee to operate
petroleum and natural gas wells on the
state drilling permit or a state operating
permit where no drilling permit is
issued by the state, which operates an
onshore petroleum and/or natural gas
production facility (as described in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 98.230(b)(2). Where more than one
entity are permitees on the state drilling
permit, or operating permit where no
drilling permit is issued by the state, the
permitted entities for the joint facility
must designate one entity to report all
emissions from the joint facility.
*
*
*
*
*
Operating pressure means the
containment pressure that characterizes
the normal state of gas or liquid inside
a particular process, pipeline, vessel or
tank.
*
*
*
*
*
Outer Continental Shelf means all
submerged lands lying seaward and
outside of the area of lands beneath
navigable waters as defined in 43 U.S.C.
§ 1301, and of which the subsoil and
seabed appertain to the United States
and are subject to its jurisdiction and
control.
*
*
*
*
*
Pump means a device used to raise
pressure, drive, or increase flow of
liquid streams in closed or open
conduits.
Pump seals means any seal on a pump
drive shaft used to keep methane and/
or carbon dioxide containing light
liquids from escaping the inside of a
pump case to the atmosphere.
Pump seal emissions means
hydrocarbon gas released from the seal
face between the pump internal
chamber and the atmosphere.
*
*
*
*
*
Reciprocating compressor means a
piece of equipment that increases the
pressure of a process natural gas by
positive displacement, employing linear
movement of a shaft driving a piston in
a cylinder.
Reciprocating compressor rod packing
means a series of flexible rings in
machined metal cups that fit around the
reciprocating compressor piston rod to
create a seal limiting the amount of
compressed natural gas that escapes to
the atmosphere.
Re-condenser means heat exchangers
that cool compressed boil-off gas to a
temperature that will condense natural
gas to a liquid.
*
*
*
*
*
Reservoir means a porous and
permeable underground natural
formation containing significant
quantities of hydrocarbon liquids and/or
gases. A reservoir is characterized by a
single natural pressure system.
*
*
*
*
*
Sales oil means produced crude oil or
condensate measured at the production
lease automatic custody transfer (LACT)
meter or custody transfer meter tank
gauge.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
18635
Sour natural gas means natural gas
that contains significant concentrations
of hydrogen sulfide and/or carbon
dioxide that exceed the concentrations
specified for commercially saleable
natural gas delivered from transmission
and distribution pipelines.
*
*
*
*
*
Sweet Gas is natural gas with low
concentrations of hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) and/or carbon dioxide (CO2) that
does not require (or has already had)
acid gas treatment to meet pipeline
corrosion-prevention specifications for
transmission and distribution.
*
*
*
*
*
Transmission pipeline means high
pressure cross country pipeline
transporting sellable quality natural gas
from production or natural gas
processing to natural gas distribution
pressure let-down, metering, regulating
stations where the natural gas is
typically odorized before delivery to
customers.
*
*
*
*
*
Turbine meter means a flow meter in
which a gas or liquid flow rate through
the calibrated tube spins a turbine from
which the spin rate is detected and
calibrated to measure the fluid flow rate.
*
*
*
*
*
Unconventional wells means gas well
in producing fields that employ
hydraulic fracturing to enhance gas
production volumes.
*
*
*
*
*
United States means the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
American Samoa, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, and any other Commonwealth,
territory or possession of the United
States, as well as the territorial sea as
defined by Presidential Proclamation
No. 5928.
*
*
*
*
*
Vapor recovery system means any
equipment located at the source of
potential gas emissions to the
atmosphere or to a flare, that is
composed of piping, connections, and,
if necessary, flow-inducing devices, and
that is used for routing the gas back into
the process as a product and/or fuel.
Vaporization unit means a process
unit that performs controlled heat input
to vaporize LNG to supply transmission
and distribution pipelines or consumers
with natural gas.
*
*
*
*
*
Vented emissions means intentional
or designed releases of CH4 or CO2
containing natural gas or hydrocarbon
gas (not including stationary
combustion flue gas), including but not
limited to process designed flow to the
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18636
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
atmosphere through seals or vent pipes,
equipment blowdown for maintenance,
and direct venting of gas used to power
equipment (such as pneumatic devices).
*
*
*
*
*
Well completions means a process
that allows for the flow of petroleum or
natural gas from newly drilled wells to
expel drilling and reservoir fluids and
test the reservoir flow characteristics.
This process includes high-rate backflow of injected water and sand used to
fracture and prop-open fractures in low
permeability gas reservoirs.
Well workover means the performance
of one or more of a variety of remedial
operations on producing oil and gas
wells to try to increase production. This
process also includes high-rate backflow of injected water and sand used to
re-fracture and prop-open new fractures
in existing low permeability gas
reservoirs.
Wellhead means the piping, casing,
tubing and connected valves protruding
above the Earth’s surface for an oil and/
or natural gas well. The wellhead ends
where the flow line connects to a
wellhead valve.
Wet natural gas means natural gas in
which water vapor exceeds the
concentration specified for
commercially saleable natural gas
delivered from transmission and
distribution pipelines. This input
stream to a natural gas dehydrator is
referred to as ‘‘wet gas’’.
4. Section 98.7 is amended by adding
paragraphs (k), (l), and (m) to read as
follows:
§ 98.7 What standardized methods are
incorporated by reference into this part?
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
*
*
*
*
*
(k) The following material is available
for purchase from the Gas Technology
Institute, 1700 South Mount Prospect
Road, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018,
https://www.gastechnology.org.
(1) GRI–GLYCalc Version 4.0, IBR
approved for § 98.233(e).
(2) [Reserved]
(l) The following material is available
for purchase from IHS Standards Store,
Jane’s Information Group, Inc., 110
North Royal Street, Suite 200,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314, https://
www.ihs.com.
(1) E&P Tank Version 2.0, IBR
approved for § 98.233(j) and § 98.236(c).
(2) [Reserved]
(m) The following material is
available for purchase from the
American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, 1444 South Boulder Avenue,
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119, www.aapg.org.
(1) AAPG–CSD Geologic Provinces
Code Map: AAPG Bulletin, Volume 75,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
Number 10 (October 1991), pages 1644–
1651, IBR approved for § 98.230(b).
(2) [Reserved]
5. Add subpart W to read as follows:
Subpart W—Petroleum and Natural Gas
Systems
Sec.
98.230 Definition of the source category.
98.231 Reporting threshold.
98.232 GHGs to report.
98.233 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.234 Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements.
98.235 Procedures for estimating missing
data.
98.236 Data reporting requirements.
98.237 Records that must be retained.
98.238 Definitions.
Subpart W—Petroleum and Natural
Gas Systems
§ 98.230
Definition of the source category.
(a) This source category consists of
the following:
(1) Offshore petroleum and natural
gas production. Offshore petroleum and
natural gas production is any platform
structure, affixed temporarily or
permanently to offshore submerged
lands, that houses equipment to extract
hydrocarbons from the ocean or lake
floor and that transfers such
hydrocarbons to storage, transport
vessels, or onshore. In addition, offshore
production includes secondary platform
structures and storage tanks associated
with the platform structure.
(2) Onshore petroleum and natural
gas production. Onshore petroleum and
natural gas production equipment
means all structures associated with
wells (including but not limited to
compressors, generators, or storage
facilities), piping (including but not
limited to flowlines or intra-facility
gathering lines), and portable non-selfpropelled equipment (including but not
limited to well drilling and completion
equipment, workover equipment,
gravity separation equipment, auxiliary
non-transportation-related equipment,
and leased, rented or contracted
equipment) used in the production,
extraction, recovery, lifting,
stabilization, separation or treating of
petroleum and/or natural gas (including
condensate). This also includes
associated storage or measurement and
all systems engaged in gathering
produced gas from multiple wells, all
EOR operations using CO2, and all
petroleum and natural gas production
located on islands, artificial islands or
structures connected by a causeway to
land, an island, or artificial island.
(3) Onshore natural gas processing
plants. Natural gas processing plants are
designed to separate and recover natural
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
gas liquids (NGLs) or other non-methane
gases and liquids from a stream of
produced natural gas to meet onshore
natural gas transmission pipeline
quality specifications through
equipment performing one or more of
the following processes: oil and
condensate removal, water removal,
separation of natural gas liquids, sulfur
and carbon dioxide removal,
fractionation of NGLs, or other
processes, and also the capture of CO2
separated from natural gas streams for
delivery outside the facility. In addition,
field gathering and/or boosting stations
that gather and process natural gas from
multiple wellheads, and compress and
transport natural gas (including but not
limited to flowlines or intra-facility
gathering lines or compressors) as feed
to the natural gas processing plants are
considered a part of the processing
plant. Gathering and boosting stations
that send the natural gas to an onshore
natural gas transmission compression
facility, or natural gas distribution
facility, or to an end user are considered
stand alone natural gas processing
facilities. All residue gas compression
equipment operated by a processing
plant, whether inside or outside the
processing plant fence, are considered
part of natural gas processing plant.
(4) Onshore natural gas transmission
compression. Onshore natural gas
transmission compression means any
fixed combination of compressors that
move natural gas at elevated pressure
from production fields or natural gas
processing facilities, in transmission
pipelines, to natural gas distribution
pipelines, or into storage. In addition,
transmission compressor station
includes equipment for liquids
separation, natural gas dehydration, and
tanks for the storage of water and
hydrocarbon liquids.
(5) Underground natural gas storage.
Underground natural gas storage means
subsurface storage, including but not
limited to, depleted gas or oil reservoirs
and salt dome caverns utilized for
storing natural gas that has been
transferred from its original location for
the primary purpose of load balancing
(the process of equalizing the receipt
and delivery of natural gas); natural gas
underground storage processes and
operations (including, but not limited
to, compression, dehydration and flow
measurement); and all the wellheads
connected to the compression units
located at the facility.
(6) Liquefied natural gas (LNG)
storage. LNG storage means onshore
LNG storage vessels located above
ground, equipment for liquefying
natural gas, compressors to capture and
re-liquefy boil-off-gas, re-condensers,
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
and vaporization units for regasification of the liquefied natural gas.
(7) LNG import and export equipment.
LNG import equipment means all
onshore or offshore equipment that
receives imported LNG via ocean
transport, stores LNG, re-gasifies LNG,
and delivers re-gasified natural gas to a
natural gas transmission or distribution
system. LNG export equipment means
all onshore or offshore equipment that
receives natural gas, liquefies natural
gas, stores LNG, and transfers the LNG
via ocean transportation to any location,
including locations in the United States.
(8) Natural Gas Distribution. Natural
gas distribution means distribution
pipelines (not interstate pipelines or
intrastate pipelines) and metering and
regulating stations, that physically
deliver natural gas to end users.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 98.231
Reporting threshold.
(a) You must report GHG emissions
from petroleum and natural gas systems
if your facility as defined in § 98.230
meets the requirements of § 98.2(a)(2).
(b) For applying the threshold defined
in § 98.2(a)(2), you must include
combustion emissions from portable
equipment that cannot move on
roadways under its own power and
drive train and that is stationed at a
wellhead for more than 30 days in a
reporting year, including drilling rigs,
dehydrators, compressors, electrical
generators, steam boilers, and heaters.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 98.232
GHGs to report.
(a) You must report CO2 and CH4
emissions from each industry segment
specified in paragraph (b) through (i) of
this section.
(b) For offshore petroleum and natural
gas production, report emissions from
all ‘‘stationary fugitive’’ and ‘‘stationary
vented’’ sources as identified in the
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
Gulfwide Offshore Activity Data System
(GOADS) study (2005 Gulfwide
Emission Inventory Study MMS 2007–
067).
(c) For onshore petroleum and natural
gas production, report emissions from
the following source types:
(1) Natural gas pneumatic high bleed
device venting.
(2) Natural gas pneumatic low bleed
device venting.
(3) Natural gas driven pneumatic
pump venting.
(4) Well venting for liquids unloading.
(5) Gas well venting during
conventional well completions.
(6) Gas well venting during
unconventional well completions.
(7) Gas well venting during
conventional well workovers.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
(8) Gas well venting during
unconventional well workovers.
(9) Gathering pipeline fugitives.
(10) Storage tanks.
(11) Reciprocating compressor rod
packing venting.
(12) Well testing venting and flaring.
(13) Associated gas venting and
flaring.
(14) Dehydrator vent stacks.
(15) Coal bed methane produced
water emissions.
(16) EOR injection pump blowdown.
(17) Acid gas removal vent stack.
(18) Hydrocarbon liquids dissolved
CO2.
(19) Centrifugal compressor wet seal
degassing venting.
(20) Produced water dissolved CO2.
(21) Fugitive emissions from valves,
connectors, open ended lines, pressure
relief valves, compressor starter gas
vents, pumps, flanges, and other fugitive
sources (such as instruments, loading
arms, pressure relief valves, stuffing
boxes, compressor seals, dump lever
arms, and breather caps for crude
services).
(d) For onshore natural gas
processing, report emissions from the
following sources:
(1) Reciprocating compressor rod
packing venting.
(2) Centrifugal compressor wet seal
degassing venting.
(3) Storage tanks.
(4) Blowdown vent stacks.
(5) Dehydrator vent stacks.
(6) Acid gas removal vent stack.
(7) Flare stacks.
(8) Gathering pipeline fugitives.
(9) Fugitive emissions from: valves,
connectors, open ended lines, pressure
relief valves, meters, and centrifugal
compressor dry seals.
(e) For onshore natural gas
transmission compression, report
emissions from the following sources:
(1) Reciprocating compressor rod
packing venting.
(2) Centrifugal compressor wet seal
degassing venting.
(3) Transmission storage tanks.
(4) Blowdown vent stacks.
(5) Natural gas pneumatic high bleed
device venting.
(6) Natural gas pneumatic low bleed
device venting.
(7) Fugitive emissions from
connectors, block valves, control valves,
compressor blowdown valves, pressure
relief valves, orifice meters, other
meters, regulators, and open ended
lines.
(f) For underground natural gas
storage, report emissions from the
following sources:
(1) Reciprocating compressor rod
packing venting.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
18637
(2) Centrifugal compressor wet seal
degassing venting.
(3) Natural gas pneumatic high bleed
device venting.
(4) Natural gas pneumatic low bleed
device venting.
(5) Fugitive emissions from
connectors, block valves, control valves,
compressor blowdown valves, pressure
relief valves, orifice meters, other
meters, regulators, and open ended
lines.
(g) For LNG storage, report emissions
from the following sources:
(1) Reciprocating compressor rod
packing venting.
(2) Centrifugal compressor wet seal
degassing venting.
(3) Fugitive emissions from valves;
pump seals; connectors; vapor recovery
compressors, and other fugitive sources.
(h) LNG import and export
equipment, report emissions from the
following sources:
(1) Reciprocating compressor rod
packing venting.
(2) Centrifugal compressor wet seal
degassing venting.
(3) Blowdown vent stacks.
(4) Fugitive emissions from valves,
pump seals, connectors, vapor recovery
compressors, and other fugitive sources.
(i) For natural gas distribution, report
emissions from the following sources:
(1) Above ground meter regulators
and gate station fugitive emissions from
connectors, block valves, control valves,
pressure relief valves, orifice meters,
other meters, regulators, and open
ended lines.
(2) Below ground meter regulators and
vault fugitives.
(3) Pipeline main fugitives.
(4) Service line fugitives.
(j) You must report the CO2, CH4, and
N2O emissions from each flare.
(k) You must report under subpart C
of this part (General Stationary Fuel
Combustion Sources) the emissions of
CO2, CH4, and N2O from each stationary
fuel combustion unit by following the
requirements of subpart C.
(l) You must report under subpart PP
of this part (Suppliers of Carbon
Dioxide), CO2 emissions captured and
transferred off site by following the
requirements of subpart PP.
§ 98.233
Calculating GHG emissions.
(a) Natural gas pneumatic high bleed
device venting. Calculate emissions
from a natural gas pneumatic high bleed
flow control device venting as follows:
(1) Calculate vented emissions using
manufacturer data.
(i) Obtain from the manufacturer
specific pneumatic device model
natural gas bleed rate during normal
operation.
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18638
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Bs = Natural gas driven pneumatic device
bleed rate volume at standard conditions
in cubic feet per minute, as provided by
the manufacturer.
T = Amount of time in minutes that the
pneumatic device has been operational
through the reporting period.
(iii) Both CH4 and CO2 volumetric and
mass emissions shall be calculated from
volumetric natural gas emissions using
calculations in paragraphs (u) and (v) of
this section.
Masss,i = Count ∗ EF ∗ GHGi ∗ Convi ∗ 24 ∗ 365
Where:
Masss,i = Annual total mass GHG emissions
in metric tons per year at standard
conditions from all natural gas
pneumatic low bleed device venting, for
GHG i.
Count = Total number of natural gas
pneumatic low bleed devices.
EF = Population emission factors for natural
gas pneumatic low bleed device venting
listed in Tables W–1, W–3, and W–4 of
this subpart for onshore petroleum and
natural gas production, onshore natural
gas transmission, and underground
natural gas storage facilities,
respectively.
GHG i = For onshore petroleum and natural
gas production facilities, concentration
of GHG i, CH4 or CO2, in produced
natural gas; for facilities listed in
§ 98.230(a)(3) through (a)(8), GHGi
equals 1.
Convi = Conversion from standard cubic feet
to metric tons CO2e; 0.000404 for CH4,
and 0.00005189 for CO2.
24 * 365 = Conversion to yearly emissions
estimate.
(c) Natural gas driven pneumatic
pump venting. Calculate emissions from
natural gas driven pneumatic pump
venting as follows:
(1) Calculate emissions using
manufacturer data.
(i) Obtain from the manufacturer
specific pump model natural gas
emission (or manufacturer ‘‘gas
consumption’’) per unit volume of liquid
circulation rate at pump speeds and
operating pressures.
(ii) Maintain a log of the amount of
liquid pumped annually from
individual pumps.
(iii) Calculate the natural gas
emissions for each pump using Equation
W–3 of this section.
Es,n = Fs ∗ V
(Eq. W-3)
Where:
Es,n = Annual natural gas emissions at
standard conditions in cubic feet per year.
Ea ,CO 2 = ( V ∗ %Vol1 ) − ( V2 ∗ %Vol2 )
1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Where:
Ea,CO2 = Annual volumetric CO2 emissions at
ambient condition, in cubic feet per year.
V1 = Metered total annual volume of natural
gas flow into AGR unit in cubic feet per
year at ambient condition.
%Vol1 = Volume weighted CO2 content of
natural gas into the AGR unit.
V2 = Metered total annual volume of natural
gas flow out of the AGR unit in cubic feet
per year at ambient condition.
%Vol2 = Volume weighted CO2 content of
natural gas out of the AGR unit.
(1) If a continuous gas analyzer is
installed, then the continuous gas
analyzer results must be used. If
continuous gas analyzer is not available,
quarterly gas samples must be taken to
determine %Vol1 and %Vol2 according
to methods set forth in § 98.234(b).
(2) Calculate CO2 volumetric
emissions at standard conditions using
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Fs = Natural gas driven pneumatic pump
gas emission in ‘‘emission per volume of
liquid pumped at operating pressure’’ in scf/
gallon at standard conditions, as provided by
the manufacturer.
V = Volume of liquid pumped annually in
gallons/year.
(iv) Both CH4 and CO2 volumetric and
mass emissions shall be calculated from
volumetric natural gas emissions using
calculations in paragraphs (u) and (v) of
this section.
(2) If manufacturer data for a specific
pump in Equation W–3 is not available,
then use data for a similar pump model,
size and operational characteristics to
estimate emissions.
(d) Acid gas removal (AGR) vent
stacks. For AGR (including but not
limited to processes such as amine,
membrane, molecular sieve or other
absorbents and adsorbents), calculate
emissions for CO2 only (not CH4) using
Equation W–4 of this section.
(Eq. W-4)
calculations in paragraph (t) of this
section.
(3) Mass CO2 emissions shall be
calculated from volumetric CO2
emissions using calculations in
paragraphs (u) and (v) of this section.
(e) Dehydrator vent stacks. For
dehydrator vent stacks without vapor
recovery or thermal control devices,
calculate annual mass CH4 and CO2
emissions at standard temperature and
pressure (STP) conditions using the
simulation software package GRI–
GLYCalc Version 4.0 (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7).
(1) A minimum of the following
parameters must be used for
characterizing emissions from
dehydrators:
(i) Feed natural gas flow rate.
(ii) Feed natural gas water content.
(iii) Outlet natural gas water content.
PO 00000
(Eq. W-2)
(iv) Absorbent circulation pump type
(natural gas pneumatic/air pneumatic/
electric).
(v) Absorbent circulation rate.
(vi) Absorbent type: Including, but not
limited to, triethylene glycol (TEG),
diethylene glycol (DEG) or ethylene
glycol (EG).
(vii) Use of stripping natural gas.
(viii) Use of flash tank separator (and
disposition of recovered gas).
(ix) Hours operated.
(x) Wet natural gas temperature,
pressure, and composition.
(2) Calculate annual emissions from
dehydrator vent stacks to flares or
regenerator fire-box/fire tubes as
follows:
(i) Use the dehydrator vent stack
volume and gas composition as
determined in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section.
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
EP12AP10.002
Where:
Es,n = Annual natural gas emissions at
standard conditions, in cubic feet.
EP12AP10.001
(Eq. W-1)
EP12AP10.000
Es,n = Bs ∗ T
(2) If manufacturer data for a specific
device is not available, then use data for
a similar device model, size and
operational characteristics to estimate
emissions.
(b) Natural gas pneumatic low bleed
device venting. Calculate emissions
from natural gas pneumatic low
continuous bleed device venting using
Equation W–2 of this section.
EP12AP10.082
(ii) Calculate the natural gas
emissions for each continuous bleed
device using Equation W–1 of this
section.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
stack emissions from the flare or
regenerator combustion gas vent.
(3) Dehydrators that use desiccant
shall calculate emissions from the
Es,n =
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Ea ,n = T ∗ FR
Jkt 220001
(Eq. W-6)
Where:
Ea,n = Annual natural gas emissions at
ambient conditions in cubic feet.
T = Cumulative amount of time in hours of
well venting during the year.
FR = Flow Rate in cubic feet per hour, under
ambient conditions as required in
paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A), (f)(1)(i)(B) and
(f)(1)(i)(C) of this section.
Calculate natural gas volumetric
emissions at standard conditions using
−3
(A) Both CH4 and CO2 volumetric and
mass emissions shall be calculated from
volumetric natural gas emissions using
calculations in paragraphs (u) and (v) of
this section.
(B) [Reserved]
(g) Gas well venting during
unconventional well completions and
workovers. Calculate emissions from gas
unconventional well venting during
well completions and workovers from
hydraulic fracturing using Equation
VerDate Nov<24>2008
producing horizon/formation
combination in each gas producing field
where gas wells are vented to the
atmosphere to expel liquids
accumulated in the tubing, a recording
flow meter shall be installed on the vent
line used to vent gas from the well (e.g.,
on the vent line off the wellhead
separator or atmospheric storage tank)
according to methods set forth in
§ 98.234(b). Calculate emissions from
well venting for liquids unloading using
Equation W–6 of this section.
{( 0.37 ×10 ) ∗ CD
Where:
Es,n = Annual natural gas emissions at
standard conditions, in cubic feet/year.
0.37 × 10¥3 = {pi(3.14)/4}/{(14.7*144) psia
converted to pounds per square feet}
CD = Casing diameter (inches).
WD = Well depth (feet).
SP = Shut-in pressure (psig).
V = Number of vents per year.
SFR = Sales flow rate of gas well in cubic feet
per hour.
HR = Hours that the well was left open to the
atmosphere during unloading.
(Eq. W-5)
)
2
}
∗ WD ∗ SP ∗ V + {SFR ∗ HR}
W–8 of this section. Calculate natural
gas volumetric emissions at standard
conditions using calculations in
paragraph (t) of this section. Both CH4
and CO2 volumetric and mass emissions
shall be calculated from volumetric
natural gas emissions using calculations
in paragraphs (u) and (v) of this section.
Ea ,n = T ∗ FR
(Eq. W-8)
Where:
Ea,n = Annual natural gas vented emissions at
ambient conditions in cubic feet.
T = Cumulative amount of time in hours of
well venting during the year.
FR = Flow Rate in cubic feet per hour, under
ambient conditions, as required in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(1) The flow rate for gas well venting
during well completions and workovers
from hydraulic fracturing shall be
determined using either of the
calculation methodologies described in
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
calculations in paragraph (t) of this
section. Both CH4 and CO2 volumetric
and mass emissions shall be calculated
from volumetric natural gas emissions
using calculations in paragraphs (u) and
(v) of this section.
(A) The average flow rate per minute
of venting is calculated for each unique
tubing diameter and producing horizon/
formation combination in each
producing field.
(B) This factor is applied to all wells
in the field that have the same tubing
diameter and producing horizon/
formation combination, multiplied by
the number of minutes of venting from
all wells of the same tubing diameter
and producing horizon/formation
combination in that field.
(C) A new emission factor is
calculated every other year for each
reporting field and horizon.
(ii) Calculation Methodology 2.
Calculate emissions from each well
venting for liquids unloading using
Equation W–7 of this section.
(Eq. W-7)
this paragraph (g)(1). The same
calculation methodology must be used
for the entire volume for the reporting
year.
(i) Calculation methodology 1. For
one well completion in each gas
producing field and for one well
workover in each gas producing field, a
recording flow meter shall be installed
on the vent line during each well
unloading event according to methods
set forth in § 98.234(b).
(A) The average flow rate in cubic feet
per minute of venting is calculated for
one well completion in each field and
for one well workover in each field.
(B) The respective flow rates are
applied to all well completions in the
field and to all well workovers in the
field, multiplied by the number of
minutes of venting of all well
completions and workovers,
respectively, in that field.
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
EP12AP10.006
(i) Both CH4 and CO2 volumetric and
mass emissions shall be calculated from
volumetric natural gas emissions using
calculations in paragraphs (u) and (v) of
this section.
(f) Well venting for liquids
unloadings.
(1) The emissions for well venting for
liquids unloading shall be determined
using either of the calculation
methodologies described in paragraph
(f)(1) of this section. The same
calculation methodology must be used
for the entire volume for the reporting
year.
(i) Calculation Methodology 1. For
each unique well tubing diameter and
( 4 ∗ P1 ∗ T ∗ 1, 000cf /Mcf )
)
EP12AP10.005
Where:
Es,n = Annual natural gas emissions at
standard conditions.
H = Height of the dehydrator vessel (ft).
D = Inside diameter of the vessel (ft).
P1 = Atmospheric pressure (psia).
P2 = Pressure of the gas (psia).
P = pi (3.14).
%G = Percent of packed vessel volume that
is gas.
T = Time between refilling (days).
∗ P ∗ P2 ∗ %G ∗ 365days/yr
EP12AP10.004
(H ∗ D
2
Es,n =
amount of gas vented from the vessel
every time it is depressurized for the
desiccant refilling process using
Equation W–5 of this section.
EP12AP10.003
(ii) Use the calculation methodology
of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this
section to determine dehydrator vent
18639
18640
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(Eq. W-9)
Where:
Ea,n = Annual emissions in cubic feet at
ambient conditions from gas well
venting during conventional well
completions or workovers.
V = Daily gas production rate in cubic feet
per minute.
T = Cumulative amount of time of well
venting in minutes during the year.
(i) Calculate natural gas volumetric
emissions at standard conditions using
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
EP12AP10.008
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Ea,n = V ∗ T
(i) Adjust the emissions estimated
using E&P Tank (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7) downward by the
magnitude of emissions captured using
a vapor recovery system for beneficial
use.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) Calculate emissions from liquids
sent to atmospheric storage tanks vented
to flares as follows:
(i) Use the storage tank emissions
volume and gas composition as
determined in this section.
(ii) Use the calculation methodology
of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this
section to determine storage tank
emissions from the flare.
(4) If liquids are sent to atmospheric
storage tanks where the tank emissions
are not represented by the equilibrium
conditions of the liquid in a gas-liquid
Ea,n = N ∗ Vv
(Eq. W-10)
separator and calculated by E&P Tank
(incorporate by reference, see § 98.7),
Where:
then emissions shall be calculated as
Ea,n = Annual natural gas venting emissions
follows:
at ambient conditions from blowdowns
(i) Use the storage tank emissions as
in cubic feet.
determined in this section.
N = Number of blowdowns for the equipment
(ii) Multiply the emissions by 3.87 for
in reporting year.
sales oil less than 45 API gravity.
Vv = Total volume of blowdown equipment
(iii) Multiply the emissions by 5.37
chambers (including, but not limited to,
for sales oil equal to or greater than 45
pipelines, compressors and vessels)
API gravity.
between isolation valves in cubic feet.
(k) Transmission storage tanks. For
(4) Calculate natural gas volumetric
storage tanks without vapor recovery or
emissions at standard conditions using
thermal control devices in onshore
calculations in paragraph (t) of this
natural gas transmission compression
section.
facilities calculate annual emissions as
(5) Calculate both CH4 and CO2
follows:
volumetric and mass emissions from
(1) Monitor tank vapor vent stack for
volumetric natural gas emissions using
emissions using an optical gas imaging
calculations in paragraphs (u) and (v) of
instrument according to methods set
this section.
(j) Onshore production and processing forth in § 98.234(a)(1) for a duration of
5 minutes.
storage tanks. For emissions from
(2) If the tank vapors are continuous
atmospheric pressure storage tanks
then use a meter to measure tank
receiving produced liquids from
vapors.
onshore petroleum and natural gas
(i) Use a meter, such as, but not
production facilities (including
limited to a turbine meter, to estimate
stationary liquid storage not owned or
tank vapor volumes according to
operated by the reporter) and onshore
methods set forth in § 98.234(b).
natural gas processing facilities,
(ii) Use the appropriate gas
calculate annual CH4 and CO2 emissions composition in paragraph (u)(2)(iii) of
using the latest software package for
this section.
E&P Tank (incorporated by reference,
(3) Calculate emissions from storage
see § 98.7).
tanks to flares as follows:
(1) A minimum of the following
(i) Use the storage tank emissions
parameters must be used to characterize volume and gas composition as
emissions from liquid transfer to
determined in paragraph (j)(1) of this
atmospheric pressure storage tanks.
section.
(i) Separator oil composition.
(ii) Use the calculation methodology
(ii) Separator temperature.
of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this
(iii) Separator pressure.
section to determine storage tank
(iv) Sales oil API gravity.
emissions from the flare.
(v) Sales oil production rate.
(l) Well testing venting and flaring.
(vi) Sales oil Reid vapor pressure.
Calculate well testing venting and
(vii) Ambient air temperature.
flaring emissions as follows:
(viii) Ambient air pressure.
(1) Determine the gas to oil ratio
(2) Determine if the storage tank has
(GOR) of the hydrocarbon production
vapor recovery or thermal control
from each well tested.
devices.
calculations in paragraph (t) of this
section.
(ii) Both CH4 and CO2 volumetric and
mass emissions shall be calculated from
volumetric natural gas emissions using
calculations in paragraphs (u) and (v) of
this section.
(iii) Blowdown vent stacks. Calculate
blowdown vent stack emissions as
follows:
(1) Calculate the total volume
(including, but not limited to, pipelines,
compressor case or cylinders,
manifolds, suction and discharge bottles
and vessels) between isolation valves.
(2) Retain logs of the number of
blowdowns for each equipment type.
(3) Calculate the total annual venting
emissions using Equation W–10 of this
section:
EP12AP10.007
(C) New flow rates for completions
and workovers are calculated every
other year for each reporting field and
horizon.
(ii) Calculation Methodology 2. For
one well completion in each gas
producing field and for one well
workover in each gas producing field,
record the pressures measured before
and after the well choke according to
methods set forth in § 98.234(b).
(A) The average flow rate in cubic feet
per minute of venting across the choke
is calculated for one well completion in
each field and for one well workover in
each field.
(B) The respective flow rates are
applied to all well completions in the
field and to all well workovers in the
field, multiplied by the number of
minutes of venting of all well
completions and workovers in that field.
(C) New flow rates for completions
and workovers are calculated every
other year for each reporting field and
horizon.
(iii) Calculate natural gas volumetric
emissions at standard conditions using
calculations in paragraph (t) of this
section.
(iv) Both CH4 and CO2 volumetric and
mass emissions shall be calculated from
volumetric natural gas emissions using
calculations in paragraphs (u) and (v) of
this section.
(2) Calculate annual emissions from
gas well venting during well
completions and workovers to flares as
follows:
(i) Use the gas well venting volume
during well completions and workovers
as determined in paragraph (g)(1) of this
section.
(ii) Use the calculation methodology
of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this
section to determine gas well venting
during well completions and workovers
emissions from the flare.
(h) Gas well venting during
conventional well completions and
workovers. Calculate emissions from
each gas well venting during
conventional well completions and
workovers using Equation W–9 of this
section:
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(i) If GOR is not available then use an
appropriate standard method published
by a consensus-based standards
organization to determine GOR.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Estimate venting emissions using
Equation W–11 of this section.
(Eq. W-11)
Where:
Ea,n = Annual volumetric natural gas
emissions from well testing in cubic feet
under ambient conditions.
GOR = Gas to oil ratio in cubic feet of gas
per barrel of oil; oil here refers to
hydrocarbon liquids produced of all API
gravities.
FR = Flow rate in barrels of oil per day for
the well being tested.
D = Number of days during the year, the well
is tested.
(3) Calculate natural gas volumetric
emissions at standard conditions using
calculations in paragraph (t) of this
section.
(4) Calculate both CH4 and CO2
volumetric and mass emissions from
volumetric natural gas emissions using
calculations in paragraphs (u) and (v) of
this section.
(5) Calculate emissions from well
testing to flares as follows:
(i) Use the well testing emissions
volume and gas composition as
determined in paragraphs (l)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(ii) Use the calculation methodology
of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this
section to determine well testing
emissions from the flare.
(m) Associated gas venting and
flaring. Calculate associated gas venting
and flaring emissions as follows:
Ea,n = GOR ∗ V
(Eq. W-12)
Where:
Ea,n = Annual volumetric natural gas
emissions from associated gas venting
under ambient conditions, in cubic feet.
GOR = Gas to oil ratio in cubic feet of gas
per barrel of oil; oil here refers to
hydrocarbon liquids produced of all API
gravities.
V = Total volume of oil produced in barrels
in the reporting year.
(3) Calculate natural gas volumetric
emissions at standard conditions using
calculations in paragraph (t) of this
section.
(4) Calculate both CH4 and CO2
volumetric and mass emissions from
volumetric natural gas emissions using
calculations in paragraphs (u) and (v) of
this section.
(5) Calculate emissions from
associated natural gas to flares as
follows:
(i) Use the associated natural gas
volume and gas composition as
determined in paragraphs (m)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(ii) Use the calculation methodology
of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this
section to determine associated gas
emissions from the flare.
(n) Flare stacks. Calculate emissions
from a flare stack as follows:
(1) If you have a continuous flow
measurement device on the flare, you
must use the measured flow volumes to
calculate the flare gas emissions. If you
do not have a continuous flow
measurement device on the flare, you
can install a flow measuring device on
the flare or use engineering calculations,
company records, or similar estimates of
volumetric flare gas flow.
(2) If you have a continuous gas
composition analyzer on gas to the flare,
you must use these compositions in
calculating emissions. If you do not
have a continuous gas composition
analyzer on gas to the flare, you must
use the appropriate gas compositions for
each stream of hydrocarbons going to
the flare as follows:
(i) When the stream going to the flare
is natural gas, use the GHG mole percent
in feed natural gas for all streams
upstream of the de-methanizer and GHG
mole percent in facility specific residue
gas to transmission pipeline systems for
all emissions sources downstream of the
de-methanizer overhead for onshore
natural gas processing facilities.
(ii) When the stream going to the flare
is a hydrocarbon product stream, such
as ethane or butane, then use a
representative composition from the
source for the stream.
(3) Determine flare combustion
efficiency from manufacturer. If not
available, assume that flare combustion
efficiency is 98 percent.
(4) Calculate GHG volumetric
emissions at actual conditions using
Equations W–13, W–14, and W–15 of
this section.
(Eq. W-14)
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Ea,i (total ) = Ea,i (combusted ) + Ea,i (un-combusted )
Where:
Ea,i (un-combusted) = Contribution of annual
uncombusted GHG i emissions from flare
stack in cubic feet, under ambient
conditions.
Ea,CO2 (combusted) = Contribution of annual
emissions from combustion from flare
stack in cubic feet, under ambient
conditions.
Ea,I (total) = Total annual emissions from flare
stack in cubic feet, under ambient
conditions.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
Va = Volume of natural gas sent to flare in
cubic feet, during the year.
h = Percent of natural gas combusted by flare
(default is 98 percent).
Xi = Concentration of GHG i in gas to the
flare.
Yj = Concentration of natural gas
hydrocarbon constituents j (such as
methane, ethane, propane, butane, and
pentanes plus).
Rj = Number of carbon atoms in the natural
gas hydrocarbon constituent j; 1 for
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Eq. W-15)
methane, 2 for ethane, 3 for propane, 4
for butane, and 5 for pentanes plus).
(5) Calculate GHG volumetric
emissions at standard conditions using
calculations in paragraph (t) of this
section.
(6) Calculate both CH4 and CO2 mass
emissions from volumetric CH4 and CO2
emissions using calculation in
paragraph (v) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
EP12AP10.012
j
EP12AP10.011
Ea,CO2 (combusted ) = ∑η ∗ Va ∗ Yj ∗ R j
EP12AP10.013
(Eq. W-13)
EP12AP10.010
Ea,i (un-combusted ) = Va ∗ (1 − η ) ∗ X i
EP12AP10.009
Ea,n = GOR ∗ FR ∗ D
(1) Determine the GOR ratio of the
hydrocarbon production from each well
whose associated natural gas is vented
or flared.
(i) If GOR is not available then use an
appropriate standard method published
by a consensus-based standards
organization to determine GOR.
(i) [Reserved]
(2) Estimate venting emissions using
the Equation W–12 of this section.
18641
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
from centrifugal compressor wet seal
degassing vents as follows:
(1) For each centrifugal compressor
determine the volume of vapors from
wet seal oil degassing tank sent to an
atmospheric vent or flare using a
temporary or permanent flow
Ea,i = MT ∗ T ∗ Mi ∗ (1 − B)
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(3) Calculate CH4 and CO2 volumetric
emissions at standard conditions using
paragraph (t) of this section.
(4) Calculate both CH4 and CO2 mass
emissions from volumetric emissions
using calculations in paragraph (v) of
this section.
(5) Calculate emissions from
degassing vent vapors to flares as
follows:
(i) Use the degassing vent vapor
volume and gas composition as
determined in paragraphs (o)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(ii) Use the calculation methodology
of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this
section to determine degassing vent
vapor emissions from the flare.
(p) Reciprocating compressor rod
packing venting. Calculate annual CH4
and CO2 emissions from each
reciprocating compressor rod packing
venting as follows:
(Eq. W-16)
(1) Estimate annual emissions using a
meter flow measurement using Equation
W–17 of this section.
Ea,i = MT ∗ T ∗ Mi
(Eq. W-17)
Ea,i = Annual GHG i (either CH4 or CO2)
volumetric emissions at ambient
conditions.
MT = Meter volumetric reading of gas
emissions per unit time, under ambient
conditions.
T = Total time the compressor associated
with the venting is operational in the
reporting year.
Mi = Mole percent of GHG i in the vent gas;
use the appropriate gas compositions in
paragraph (u)(2) of this section.
(2) If the rod packing case is
connected to an open ended vent line
then use one of the following two
methods to calculate emissions.
(i) Measure emissions from all vents
(including emissions manifolded to
common vents) including rod packing,
unit isolation valves, and blowdown
valves using bagging according to
methods set forth in § 98.234(c).
(ii) Use a temporary meter such as,
but not limited to, a vane anemometer
or a permanent meter such as, but not
limited to, an orifice meter to measure
emissions from all vents (including
emissions manifolded to a common
vent) including rod packing vents, unit
isolation valves, and blowdown valves
according to methods set forth in
§ 98.234(b).
(3) If the rod packing case is not
equipped with a vent line use the
following method to estimate emissions:
(i) You must use the methods
described in § 98.234(a) to conduct
Es,i = Count ∗ EF ∗ GHGi ∗ T
Where:
Es,i = Annual total volumetric GHG emissions
at standard conditions from each fugitive
source.
Count = Total number of this type of
emission source found to be leaking.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
(Eq. W-18)
EF = Leaker emission factor for specific
sources listed in Table W–2 through
Table W–7 of this subpart.
GHGi = For onshore natural gas processing
facilities, concentration of GHGi, CH4 or
CO2, in the total hydrocarbon of the feed
natural gas; for other facilities listed in
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
annual leak detection of fugitive
emissions from the packing case into an
open distance piece, or from the
compressor crank case breather cap or
vent with a closed distance piece.
(ii) Measure emissions using a high
flow sampler, or calibrated bag, or
appropriate meter according to methods
set forth in § 98.234(d).
(4) Conduct one measurement for
each compressor in each of the
operational modes that occurs during a
reporting period:
(i) Operating.
(ii) Standby pressurized.
(iii) Not operating, depressurized.
(5) Calculate CH4 and CO2 volumetric
emissions at standard conditions using
calculations in paragraph (t) of this
section.
(6) Estimate CH4 and CO2 volumetric
and mass emissions from volumetric
natural gas emissions using the
calculations in paragraphs (u) and (v) of
this section.
(q) Leak detection and leaker
emission factors. You must use the
methods described in § 98.234(a) to
conduct an annual leak detection of
fugitive emissions from all sources
listed in § 98.232(d)(9), (e)(7), (f)(5),
(g)(3), (h)(4), and (i)(1). This paragraph
(q) applies to emissions sources in
streams with gas content greater than 10
percent CH4 plus CO2 by weight.
Emissions sources in streams with gas
content less than 10 percent CH4 plus
CO2 by weight do not need to be
reported. If fugitive emissions are
detected for sources listed in this
paragraph, calculate emissions using
Equation W–18 of this section for each
source with fugitive emissions.
§ 98.230(a)(3) through (a)(8), GHGi equals
1.
T = Total time the specific source associated
with the fugitive emission was
operational in the reporting year, in
hours.
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
EP12AP10.016
Where:
Ea,i = Annual GHG i (either CH4 or CO2)
volumetric emissions at ambient
conditions.
MT = Meter reading of gas emissions per unit
time.
T = Total time the compressor associated
with the wet seal(s) is operational in the
reporting year.
Mi = Mole percent of GHG i in the degassing
vent gas; use the appropriate gas
compositions in paragraph (u)(2) of this
section.
B = Percentage of centrifugal compressor wet
seal degassing vent gas sent to vapor
recovery or fuel gas or other beneficial
use as determined by keeping logs of the
number of operating hours for the vapor
recovery system and the amount of vent
gas that is directed to the fuel gas system.
measurement meter such as, but not
limited to, a vane anemometer
according to methods set forth in
§ 98.234(b).
(2) Estimate annual emissions using
meter flow measurement using Equation
W–16 of this section.
EP12AP10.015
(7) Calculate N2O emissions using the
emission factors for Gas Flares listed in
Table W–8 of this subpart.
(8) This emissions source excludes
any emissions calculated under other
emissions sources in § 98.233.
(o) Centrifugal compressor wet seal
degassing vents. Calculate emissions
EP12AP10.014
18642
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(4) Underground natural gas storage
facilities for storage stations shall use
the appropriate default leaker emission
factors listed in Table W–4 of this
subpart for fugitive emissions detected
from connectors; block valves; control
valves; compressor blowdown valves;
pressure relief valves; orifice meters;
other meters; regulators; and open
ended lines.
(5) LNG storage facilities shall use the
appropriate default leaker emission
factors listed in Table W–5 of this
subpart for fugitive emissions detected
from valves; pump seals; connectors;
and other.
(6) LNG import and export facilities
shall use the appropriate default leaker
emission factors listed in Table W–6 of
this subpart for fugitive emissions
detected from valves; pump seals;
connectors; and other.
Es,i = Count ∗ EF ∗ GHGi ∗ T
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Es,i = Annual total volumetric GHG
emissions at standard conditions from each
fugitive source.
Count = Total number of this type of
emission source at the facility.
EF = Population emission factor for
specific sources listed in Table W–1 through
Table W–7 of this subpart.
GHGi = for onshore petroleum and natural
gas production facilities and onshore natural
gas processing facilities, concentration of
GHG i, CH4 or CO2, in produced natural gas
or feed natural gas; for other facilities listed
in § 98.230 (b)(3) through (b)(8),GHGi equals
1.
T = Total time the specific source
associated with the fugitive emission was
operational in the reporting year, in hours.
(1) Calculate both CH4 and CO2 mass
emissions from volumetric emissions
using calculations in paragraph (v) of
this section.
(2) Onshore petroleum and natural gas
production facilities shall use the
appropriate default population emission
factors listed in Table W–1 of this
subpart for fugitive emissions from
valves; connectors; open ended lines;
pressure relief valves; compressor
starter gas vent; pump; flanges; other;
and CBM well water production. Where
facilities conduct EOR operations the
emissions factor listed in Table W–1
shall be used to estimate all streams of
gases, including recycle CO2 stream. In
cases where the stream is almost all
CO2, the emissions factors in Table W–
1 shall be assumed to be for CO2 instead
of natural gas.
(3) Onshore natural gas processing
facilities shall use the appropriate
default population emission factor listed
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
(Eq. W-19)
in Table W–2 of this subpart for fugitive
emissions from gathering pipelines.
(4) Underground natural gas storage
facilities for storage wellheads shall use
the appropriate default population
emission factors listed in Table W–4 of
this subpart for fugitive emissions from
connectors; valves; pressure relief
valves; and open ended lines.
(5) LNG storage facilities shall use the
appropriate default population emission
factors listed in Table W–5 of this
subpart for fugitive emissions from
vapor recovery compressors.
(6) LNG import and export facilities
shall use the appropriate default
population emission factor listed in
Table W–6 of this subpart for fugitive
emissions from vapor recovery
compressors.
(7) Natural gas distribution facilities
shall use the appropriate default
population emission factors listed in
Table W–7 of this subpart for fugitive
emissions from below grade M&R
stations; gathering pipelines; mains; and
services.
(s) Offshore petroleum and natural
gas production facilities in both state
and federal waters. Report GHG
emissions from all ‘‘stationary fugitive’’
and ‘‘stationary vented’’ sources as
identified in the Minerals Management
Service (MMS) Gulfwide Offshore
Activity Data System (GOADS) study
(2005 Gulfwide Emission Inventory
Study MMS 2007–067) for each
platform.
(1) MMS GOADS Reporters. Offshore
production facilities currently reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(7) Natural gas distribution facilities
for above ground meter regulator and
gate stations shall use the appropriate
default leaker emission factors listed in
Table W–7 of this subpart for fugitive
emissions detected from connectors;
block valves; control valves; pressure
relief valves; orifice meters; other
meters; regulators; and open ended
lines.
(r) Population count and emission
factors. This paragraph applies to
emissions sources listed in
§ 98.232(c)(2), (c)(9), (c)(15), (c)(21),
(d)(8), (e)(6), (f)(4), (f)(5), (g)(3), (h)(4),
(i)(2), (i)(3) and (i)(4), on streams with
gas content greater than 10 percent CH4
plus CO2 by weight. Emissions sources
in streams with gas content less than 10
percent CH4 plus CO2 by weight do not
need to be reported. Calculate emissions
from all sources listed in this paragraph
using Equation W–19 of this section.
under the MMS GOADS program will
report the same annual emissions as
calculated by GOADS under paragraph
(s) of this section.
(i) For the first reporting year, report
the latest available emissions from
GOADS.
(ii) In subsequent reporting years
when GOADS is updated reporters shall
report the new emissions that are made
available from the latest GOADS
software.
(ii) For each reporting year that does
not overlap with the GOADS reporting
year, report the last reported GOADS
emissions with emissions adjusted
based on the operating time for each
platform.
(iii) If MMS discontinues or delays
their GOADS survey by more than 4
years, then Platform operators shall
collect monthly activity data every 4
years from platform sources in
accordance with the latest version of the
MMS GOADS program instructions,
beginning in the year that the GOADS
survey would have been conducted, and
annual emissions shall be calculated
using the latest available MMS GOADS
emission factors and methods.
(2) Non-MMS GOADS Reporters.
Offshore production facilities not
reporting under the MMS GOADS
program shall collect monthly activity
data from platform sources for the first
reporting year in accordance with the
latest MMS GOADS program
instructions. Annual emissions shall be
calculated using the latest MMS GOADS
emission factors and methods.
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
EP12AP10.017
(1) Calculate GHG mass emissions in
carbon dioxide equivalent at standard
conditions using calculations in
paragraph (v) of this section.
(2) Onshore natural gas processing
facilities shall use the appropriate
default leaker emission factors listed in
Table W–2 of this subpart for fugitive
emissions detected from valves;
connectors; open ended lines; pressure
relief valves; meters; and centrifugal
compressor dry seals.
(3) Onshore natural gas transmission
compression facilities shall use the
appropriate default leaker emission
factors listed in Table W–3 of this
subpart for fugitive emissions detected
from connectors; block valves; control
valves; compressor blowdown valves;
pressure relief valves; orifice meters;
other meters; regulators; and open
ended lines.
18643
18644
( 460 + Ta ) ∗ Ps
(Eq. W-21)
Where:
Es,i = GHG i volumetric emissions at
standard temperature and pressure (STP)
conditions.
Ea,i = GHG i volumetric emissions at actual
conditions.
Ts = Temperature at standard conditions.
(°F).
Ta = Temperature at actual emission
conditions. (°F).
Ps = Absolute pressure at standard
conditions (inches of Hg).
Pa = Absolute pressure at ambient
conditions (inches of Hg).
(u) GHG volumetric emissions.
Calculate GHG volumetric emissions at
standard conditions as specified in
paragraphs (u)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Estimate CH4 and CO2 emissions
from natural gas emissions using
Equation W–22 of this section.
Es,i = Es,n ∗ M i
(Eq. W-20)
Where:
Es,n = Natural gas volumetric emissions at
standard temperature and pressure (STP)
conditions.
Ea,n = Natural gas volumetric emissions at
ambient conditions.
Ts = Temperature at standard conditions.
(°F).
Ta = Temperature at actual emission
conditions. (°F).
Ps = Absolute pressure at standard conditions
(inches of Hg).
Pa = Absolute pressure at ambient conditions
(inches of Hg).
(Eq. W-22)
Where:
Es,i = GHG i (either CH4 or CO2) volumetric
emissions at standard conditions.
Es,n = Natural gas volumetric emissions at
standard conditions.
Mi = Mole percent of GHG i in the natural
gas.
(2) For Equation W–22 of this section,
the mole percent, Mi, shall be the
annual average mole percent for each
facility, as specified in paragraphs
(u)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) GHG mole percent in produced
natural gas for onshore petroleum and
natural gas production facilities. If you
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Masss,i = Es,i ∗ ρi ∗ GWP ∗ 10−3
Where:
Masss,i = GHG i (either CH4 or CO2) mass
emissions at standard conditions in
metric tons CO2e.
Es,i = GHG i (either CH4 or CO2) volumetric
emissions at standard conditions, in
cubic feet.
ri = Density of GHG i, 0.053 kg/ft3 for CO2
and 0.0193 kg/ft3 for CH4.
GWP = Global warming potential, 1 for CO2
and 21 for CH4.
(w) EOR injection pump blowdown.
Calculate pump blowdown emissions as
follows:
(1) Calculate the total volume in cubic
feet (including, but not limited to,
Massc,i = N ∗ Vv ∗ Rc ∗ GHGi ∗ 10−3
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
(Eq. W-23)
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
pipelines, compressors and vessels)
between isolation valves.
(2) Retain logs of the number of
blowdowns per reporting period.
(3) Calculate the total annual venting
emissions using Equation W–24 of this
section:
(Eq. W-24)
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
EP12AP10.021
Ea,i ∗ ( 460 + Ts ) ∗ Pa
EP12AP10.020
( 460 + Ta ) ∗ Ps
Es,i =
have a continuous gas composition
analyzer for produced natural gas, you
must use these values in calculating
emissions. If you do not have a
continuous gas composition analyzer,
then quarterly samples must be taken
according to methods set forth in
§ 98.234(b).
(ii) GHG mole percent in feed natural
gas for all emissions sources upstream
of the de-methanizer and GHG mole
percent in facility specific residue gas to
transmission pipeline systems for all
emissions sources downstream of the
de-methanizer overhead for onshore
natural gas processing facilities. If you
have a continuous gas composition
analyzer on feed natural gas, you must
use these values in calculating
emissions. If you do not have a
continuous gas composition analyzer,
then quarterly samples must be taken
according to methods set forth in
§ 98.234(b).
(iii) GHG mole percent in
transmission pipeline natural gas that
passes through the facility for onshore
natural gas transmission compression
facilities.
(iv) GHG mole percent in natural gas
stored in underground natural gas
storage facilities.
(v) GHG mole percent in natural gas
stored in LNG storage facilities.
(vi) GHG mole percent in natural gas
stored in LNG import and export
facilities.
(vii) GHG mole percent in local
distribution pipeline natural gas that
passes through the facility for natural
gas distribution facilities.
(v) GHG mass emissions. Calculate
GHG mass emissions in carbon dioxide
equivalent at standard conditions by
converting the GHG volumetric
emissions into mass emissions using
Equation W–23 of this section.
EP12AP10.019
Es,n =
Ea,n ∗ ( 460 + Ts ) ∗ Pa
(2) Calculate GHG volumetric
emissions at standard conditions by
converting ambient temperature and
pressure of GHG emissions to standard
temperature and pressure using
Equation W–21 of this section.
12APP3
EP12AP10.018
(i) In subsequent reporting years,
facilities not reporting under GOADS
shall follow the data collection cycle as
GOADS in collecting new activity data
monthly to estimate emissions and
report emissions.
(ii) For each reporting year that does
not overlap with the GOADS reporting
year, report the last reported emissions
data with emissions adjusted based on
the operating time for each platform.
(iii) If MMS discontinues or delays
their GOADS survey by more than 4
years, then Platform operators shall
collect monthly activity data every 4
years from platform sources in
accordance with the latest version of the
MMS GOADS program instructions, and
annual emissions shall be calculated
using currently available MMS GOADS
emission factors and methods.
(t) Volumetric emissions. Calculate
volumetric emissions at standard
conditions as specified in paragraphs
(t)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Calculate natural gas volumetric
emissions at standard conditions by
converting ambient temperature and
pressure of natural gas emissions to
standard temperature and pressure
natural gas using Equation W–20 of this
section.
EP12AP10.022
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Masss, CO2 = Sh1 ∗ Vh1
(Eq. W-25)
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Where:
Masss, CO2 = Annual CO2 emissions from CO2
retained in hydrocarbon liquids beyond
tankage, in metric tons.
Shl = Amount of CO2 retained in hydrocarbon
liquids in metric tons per barrel, under
standard conditions.
Vhl = Total volume of hydrocarbon liquids
produced in barrels in the reporting year.
(y) Produced water dissolved CO2.
Calculate dissolved CO2 in produced
water as follows:
(1) Determine the amount of CO2
retained in produced water at STP
conditions. Quarterly samples must be
taken according to methods set forth in
§ 98.234(b) to determine retention of
CO2 in produced water immediately
downstream of the separator where
hydrocarbon liquids and produced
water are separated. Use the average of
the quarterly analysis for the reporting
period.
(2) Estimate emissions using the
Equation W–26 of this section.
Mass, CO2 = Spw ∗ Vpw
(Eq. W-26)
Where:
Masss, CO2 = Annual CO2 emissions from CO2
retained in produced water beyond
tankage, in metric tons.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
(3) EOR operations that route
produced water from separation directly
to re-injection into the hydrocarbon
reservoir in a closed loop system
without any leakage to the atmosphere
are exempt from paragraph (y) of this
section.
(z) Portable equipment combustion
emissions. Calculate emissions from
portable equipment using the Tier 1
methodology described in subpart C of
this part (General Stationary Fuel
Combustion Sources).
§ 98.234 Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements.
(a) You must use the method
described as follows to conduct annual
leak detection of fugitive emissions from
all source types listed in
§ 98.233(p)(3)(i) and (q) in operation or
on standby mode that occur during a
reporting period.
(1) Optical gas imaging instrument.
Use an optical gas imaging instrument
for fugitive emissions detection in
accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart
A, § 60.18(i)(1) and (2) Alternative work
practice for monitoring equipment
leaks. In addition, you must operate the
optical gas imaging instrument to image
the source types required by this
proposed reporting rule in accordance
with the instrument manufacturer’s
operating parameters.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) All flow meters, composition
analyzers and pressure gauges that are
used to provide data for the GHG
emissions calculations shall use
measurement methods, maintenance
practices, and calibration methods, prior
to the first reporting year and in each
subsequent reporting year using an
appropriate standard method published
by a consensus standards organization
such as, but not limited to, ASTM
International, American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), and
American Petroleum Institute (API). If a
consensus based standard is not
available, you must use manufacturer
instructions to calibrate the meters,
analyzers, and pressure gauges.
(c) Use calibrated bags (also known as
vent bags) only where the emissions are
at near-atmospheric pressures such that
it is safe to handle and can capture all
the emissions, below the maximum
temperature specified by the vent bag
manufacturer, and the entire emissions
volume can be encompassed for
measurement.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(1) Hold the bag in place enclosing the
emissions source to capture the entire
emissions and record the time required
for completely filling the bag. If the bag
inflates in less than one second, assume
one second inflation time.
(2) Perform three measurements of the
time required to fill the bag, report the
emissions as the average of the three
readings.
(3) Estimate natural gas volumetric
emissions at standard conditions using
calculations in § 98.233(t).
(4) Estimate CH4 and CO2 volumetric
and mass emissions from volumetric
natural gas emissions using the
calculations in § 98.233(u) and (v).
(d) Use a high volume sampler to
measure emissions within the capacity
of the instrument.
(1) A technician following
manufacturer instructions shall conduct
measurements, including equipment
manufacturer operating procedures and
measurement methodologies relevant to
using a high volume sampler, including,
but not limited to, positioning the
instrument for complete capture of the
fugitive emissions without creating
backpressure on the source.
(2) If the high volume sampler, along
with all attachments available from the
manufacturer, is not able to capture all
the emissions from the source then you
shall use anti-static wraps or other aids
to capture all emissions without
violating operating requirements as
provided in the instrument
manufacturer’s manual.
(3) Estimate CH4 and CO2 volumetric
and mass emissions from volumetric
natural gas emissions using the
calculations in § 98.233(u) and (v).
(4) Calibrate the instrument at 2.5
percent methane with 97.5 percent air
and 100 percent CH4 by using calibrated
gas samples and by following
manufacturer’s instructions for
calibration.
§ 98.235 Procedures for estimating
missing data.
A complete record of all estimated
and/or measured parameters used in the
GHG emissions calculations is required.
If data are lost or an error occurs during
annual emissions estimation or
measurements, you must repeat the
estimation or measurement activity for
those sources as soon as possible,
including in the subsequent reporting
year if missing data are not discovered
until after December 31 of the reporting
year, until valid data for reporting is
obtained. Data developed and/or
collected in a subsequent reporting year
to substitute for missing data cannot be
used for that subsequent year’s
emissions estimation. Where missing
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
EP12AP10.024
(x) Hydrocarbon liquids dissolved
CO2. Calculate dissolved CO2 in
hydrocarbon liquids as follows:
(1) Determine the amount of CO2
retained in hydrocarbon liquids after
flashing in tankage at STP conditions.
Quarterly samples must be taken
according to methods set forth in
§ 98.234(b) to determine retention of
CO2 in hydrocarbon liquids
immediately downstream of the storage
tank. Use the average of the quarterly
analysis for the reporting period.
(2) Estimate emissions using Equation
W–25 of this section.
Spw = Amount of CO2 retained in produced
water in metric tons per barrel, under
standard conditions.
Vpw = Total volume of produced water
produced in barrels in the reporting year.
EP12AP10.023
Where:
Massc,i = Annual EOR injection gas venting
emissions in metric tons at critical
conditions ‘‘c’’ from blowdowns.
N = Number of blowdowns for the equipment
in reporting year.
Vv = Total volume in cubic feet of blowdown
equipment chambers (including, but not
limited to, pipelines, compressors,
manifolds and vessels) between isolation
valves.
Rc = Density of critical phase EOR injection
gas in kg/ft3. Use an appropriate
standard method published by a
consensus-based standards organization
to determine density of super critical
EOR injection gas.
GHGi = Mass fraction of GHGi in critical
phase injection gas.
18645
18646
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
data procedures are used for the
previous year, at least 30 days must
separate emissions estimation or
measurements for the previous year and
emissions estimation or measurements
for the current year of data collection.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 98.236
Data reporting requirements.
In addition to the information
required by § 98.3(c), each annual report
must contain reported emissions as
specified in this section.
(a) Report annual emissions
separately for each of the industry
segment listed in paragraphs (a) (1)
through (8) of this section. For each
segment, report emissions from each
source type in the aggregate, unless
specified otherwise. For example, an
underground natural gas storage
operation with multiple reciprocating
compressors must report emissions from
all reciprocating compressors as an
aggregate number.
(1) Onshore petroleum and natural gas
production.
(2) Offshore petroleum and natural
gas production.
(3) Onshore natural gas processing.
(4) Onshore natural gas transmission
compression.
(5) Underground natural gas storage.
(6) LNG storage.
(7) LNG import and export.
(8) Natural gas distribution. Report
each source in the aggregate for
pipelines and for Metering and
Regulating (M&R) stations.
(b) Report emissions separately for
standby equipment.
(c) Report activity data for each
aggregated source type as follows:
(1) Count of natural gas pneumatic
high bleed devices.
(2) Count of natural gas pneumatic
low bleed devices.
(3) Count of natural gas driven
pneumatic pumps.
(4) For each acid gas removal unit
report the following:
(i) Total volume of natural gas flow
into the acid gas removal unit.
(ii) Total volume of natural gas flow
out of the acid gas removal unit.
(iii) Volume weighted CO2 content of
natural gas into the acid gas removal
unit.
(5) For each dehydrator unit report
the following:
(i) Glycol dehydrators:
(A) Glycol dehydrator feed natural gas
flow rate.
(B) Glycol dehydrator absorbent
circulation pump type.
(C) Glycol dehydrator absorbent
circulation rate.
(D) Whether stripper gas is used in
glycol dehydrator.
(E) Whether a flash tank separator is
used in glycol dehydrator.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
(ii) Desiccant dehydrators:
(A) The number of desiccant
dehydrators operated.
(B) [Reserved]
(6) Count of wells vented to the
atmosphere for liquids unloading for
each field in the basin.
(7) Count of wells venting during well
completions for each field in the basin.
(i) Number of conventional
completions.
(ii) Number of completions involving
hydraulic fracturing.
(8) Count of wells venting during well
workovers for each field in the basin.
(i) Number of conventional well
workovers involving well venting to the
atmosphere.
(ii) Number of unconventional well
workovers involving well venting to the
atmosphere.
(9) For each compressor blowdown
vent stack report the following for each
compressor:
(i) Type of compressor whether
reciprocating or centrifugal.
(ii) Compressor capacity in horse
powers.
(iii) Volume of gas between isolation
valves.
(iv) Number of blowdowns per year.
(10) For each estimate of gas emitted
from liquids sent to atmospheric tank
using E&P Tank report the following:
(i) Immediate upstream separator
temperature and pressure.
(ii) Sales oil API gravity.
(iii) Estimate of individual tank or
tank battery capacity in barrels.
(iv) Oil, hydrocarbon condensate and
water sent to tank(s) in barrels.
(v) Control measure: Either vapor
recovery system or flaring of tank
vapors.
(11) For tank emissions identified
using optical gas imaging instrument
per § 98.234(a), report the following for
each tank:
(i) Immediate upstream separator
temperature and pressure.
(ii) Sales oil API gravity.
(iii) Tank capacity in barrels.
(iv) Tank throughput in barrels.
(v) Control measure: Either vapor
recovery system or flaring of tank
vapors.
(vi) Optical gas imagining instrument
used.
(vii) Meter used for measuring
emissions.
(viii) List of emissions sources routed
to the tank.
(12) For well testing report the
following for each field in the basin:
(i) Number of wells tested in reporting
period.
(ii) Average gas to oil ratio for each
field.
(iii) Average flow rate during testing
for each field.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(iv) Average number of days the well
is tested.
(v) Whether the hydrocarbons
produced during testing are vented or
flared.
(13) For associated natural gas venting
report the following for each field in the
basin:
(i) Number of wells venting or flaring
associated natural gas in reporting
period.
(ii) Average gas to oil ratio for each
field.
(iii) Average volume of oil produced
per well per field.
(iv) Whether the associated natural
gas is vented or flared.
(14) For flare stacks report the
following for each flare:
(i) Whether flare has a continuous
flow monitor.
(ii) If using engineering estimation
methods, identify sources of emissions
going to the flare.
(iii) Whether flare has a continuous
gas analyzer.
(iv) Identify proportion of total
natural gas to pure hydrocarbon stream
being sent to the flare annually for the
reporting period.
(v) Flare combustion efficiency.
(15) For well venting for liquids
unloading report the following by field,
basin, and well tubing size:
(i) Number of wells being unloaded
for liquids in reporting year.
(ii) Average number of unloading(s)
per well per reporting year.
(iii) Average volume of natural gas
produced per well per reporting year
during liquids unloading.
(16) For well completions and
workovers report the following for each
field in the basin:
(i) Number of wells completed
(worked over) in reporting year.
(ii) Average number of days required
for completion (workover).
(iii) Average volume of natural gas
produced per well per reporting year
during well completion (workover).
(17) For compressor wet seal
degassing vents report the following for
each degassing vent:
(i) Number of wet seals connected to
the degassing vent.
(ii) Number of compressors whose wet
seals are connected to the degassing
vent.
(iii) Total throughput of compressors
whose wet seals are connected to the
degassing vent.
(iv) Type of meter used for making
measurements.
(v) Whether emissions estimate is
based on a continuous or one time
measurement.
(vi) Total time the compressor(s)
associated with the degassing vent stack
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18647
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
is operating. Sum the hours of operation
if multiple compressors are connected
to the vent stack.
(vii) Proportion of vent gas recovered
for fuel gas or sent to a flare.
(18) For reciprocating compressor rod
packing report the following per rod
packing:
(i) Total throughput of the
reciprocating compressor whose rod
packing emissions is being reported.
(ii) Total time in hours the
reciprocating compressor is in operating
mode.
(iii) Whether or not the rod packing
case is connected to an open ended line.
(iv) If rod packing is connected to an
open ended line, report type of device
used for measurement emissions.
(v) If rod packing is not connected to
an open ended vent line, report the
locations from where the emissions
from the rod packing are detected.
(19) For fugitive emissions sources
using emission factors for estimating
emissions report the following:
(i) Component count for each fugitive
emissions source.
(ii) CH4 and CO2 in produced natural
gas for onshore petroleum and natural
gas production.
(20) For EOR injection pump
blowdown report the following per
pump:
(i) Pump capacity.
(ii) Volume of gas between isolation
valves.
(iii) Number of blowdowns per year.
(iv) Supercritical phase EOR injection
gas density.
(21) For hydrocarbon liquids
dissolved CO2 report the following for
each field in the basin:
(i) Volume of crude oil produced.
(ii) [Reserved]
(22) For produced water dissolved
CO2 report the following for each field
in the basin:
(i) Volume of produced water
produced.
(ii) [Reserved]
(d) Minimum, maximum and average
throughput for each operation listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of this
section.
(e) For offshore petroleum and natural
gas production facilities, the number of
connected wells, and whether the wells
are producing oil, gas, or both.
(f) Report emissions separately for
portable equipment for the following
source types: drilling rigs, dehydrators,
compressors, electrical generators,
steam boilers, and heaters.
(1) Aggregate emissions by source
type.
(2) Report count of each source type.
§ 98.237
Records that must be retained.
In addition to the information
required by § 98.3(g), you must retain
the following records:
(a) Dates on which measurements
were conducted.
(b) Results of all emissions detected
and measurements.
(c) Calibration reports for detection
and measurement instruments used.
(d) Inputs and outputs of calculations
or emissions computer model runs used
for engineering estimation of emissions.
§ 98.238
Definitions.
Except as provided below, all terms
used in this subpart have the same
meaning given in the Clean Air Act and
subpart A of this part.
Natural gas distribution facility means
the distribution pipelines, metering
stations, and regulating stations that are
operated by a Local Distribution
Company (LDC) that is regulated as a
separate operating company by a public
utility commission or that are operated
as an independent municipally-owned
distribution system.
Offshore petroleum and natural gas
production facility means each platform
structure and all associated equipment
as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section. All production equipment that
is connected via causeways or walkways
are one facility.
Onshore petroleum and natural gas
production facility means all petroleum
or natural gas equipment associated
with all petroleum or natural gas
production wells under common
ownership or common control by an
onshore petroleum and natural gas
production owner or operator located in
a single hydrocarbon basin as defined
by the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists which is assigned
a three digit Geologic Province Code.
Where an operating entity holds more
than one permit in a basin, then all
onshore petroleum and natural gas
production equipment relating to all
permits in their name in the basin is one
onshore petroleum and natural gas
production facility.
Separator means a vessel in which
streams of multiple phases are gravity
separated into individual streams of
single phase.
TABLE W–1 OF SUBPART W—DEFAULT WHOLE GAS EMISSION FACTORS FOR ONSHORE PRODUCTION
Emission Factor
(scf/hour/component)
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Onshore production
Population Emission Factors—All Components, Gas Service
Valve .......................................................................................................................................................................................
Connector ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Open-ended Line ....................................................................................................................................................................
Pressure Relief Valve .............................................................................................................................................................
Low-Bleed Pneumatic Device Vents ......................................................................................................................................
Gathering Pipelines 1 ..............................................................................................................................................................
CBM Well Water Production 2 ................................................................................................................................................
Population Emission Factors—All Components, Light Crude Service 3
Valve .......................................................................................................................................................................................
Connector ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Open-ended Line ....................................................................................................................................................................
Pump ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Other 5 .....................................................................................................................................................................................
Population Emission Factors—All Components, Heavy Crude Service 4
Valve .......................................................................................................................................................................................
Flange .....................................................................................................................................................................................
Connector (other) ...................................................................................................................................................................
Open-ended Line ....................................................................................................................................................................
Other 5 .....................................................................................................................................................................................
1 Emission
2 Emission
VerDate Nov<24>2008
0.08
0.01
0.04
0.17
2.75
2.81
0.11
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.24
0.001
0.001
0.0004
0.01
0.003
Factor is in units of ‘‘scf/hour/mile‘‘.
Factor is in units of ‘‘scf methane/gallon‘‘, in this case the operating factor is ‘‘gallons/year’’ and do not multiply by methane content.
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
18648
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
3 Hydrocarbon
liquids greater than or equal to 20*API are considered ‘‘light crude‘‘.
4 Hydrocarbon liquids less than 20*API are considered ‘‘heavy crude‘‘.
5 ‘‘Others’’ category includes instruments, loading arms, pressure relief
valves, stuffing boxes, compressor seals, dump lever arms, and vents.
TABLE W–2 OF SUBPART W—DEFAULT TOTAL HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR PROCESSING
Before
de-methanizer
emission factor
(scf/hour/component)
Processing
After
de-methanizer
emission factor
(scf/hour/component)
Leaker Emission Factors—Reciprocating Compressor Components, Gas Service
Valve ............................................................................................................................................................
Connector ....................................................................................................................................................
Open-ended Line .........................................................................................................................................
Pressure Relief Valve ..................................................................................................................................
Meter ............................................................................................................................................................
15.88
4.31
17.90
2.01
0.02
18.09
9.10
10.29
30.46
48.29
0.67
2.33
17.90
105
2.51
3.14
16.17
105
Leaker Emission Factors—Centrifugal Compressor Components, Gas Service
Valve ............................................................................................................................................................
Connector ....................................................................................................................................................
Open-ended Line .........................................................................................................................................
Dry Seal .......................................................................................................................................................
Leaker Emission Factors—Other Components, Gas Service
Valve ............................................................................................................................................................
Connector ....................................................................................................................................................
Open-ended Line .........................................................................................................................................
Pressure Relief Valve ..................................................................................................................................
Meter ............................................................................................................................................................
6.42
5.71
11.27
2.01
2.93
Population Emission Factors—Other Components, Gas Service
Gathering Pipelines 1 ...................................................................................................................................
2.81
Factor is in units of ‘‘scf/hour/mile’’.
1 Emission
TABLE W–3 OF SUBPART W—DEFAULT METHANE EMISSION FACTORS FOR TRANSMISSION
Emission Factor
(scf/hour/component)
Transmission
Leaker Emission Factors—All Components, Gas Service
Connector ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Block Valve ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Control Valve .................................................................................................................................................................................
Compressor Blowdown Valve ........................................................................................................................................................
Pressure Relief Valve ....................................................................................................................................................................
Orifice Meter ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Other Meter ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Regulator .......................................................................................................................................................................................
Open-ended Line ...........................................................................................................................................................................
2.7
10.4
3.4
543.5
37.2
14.3
0.1
9.8
21.5
Population Emission Factors—Other Components, Gas Service
Low-Bleed Pneumatic Device Vents .............................................................................................................................................
2.57
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE W–4 OF SUBPART W—DEFAULT METHANE EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE
Emission Factor
(scf/hour/component)
Underground storage
Leaker Emission Factors—Storage Station, Gas Service
Connector ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Block Valve ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Control Valve .................................................................................................................................................................................
Compressor Blowdown Valve ........................................................................................................................................................
Pressure Relief Valve ....................................................................................................................................................................
Orifice Meter ..................................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
0.96
2.02
3.94
66.15
19.80
0.46
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
18649
TABLE W–4 OF SUBPART W—DEFAULT METHANE EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE—Continued
Emission Factor
(scf/hour/component)
Underground storage
Other Meter ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Regulator .......................................................................................................................................................................................
Open-ended Line ...........................................................................................................................................................................
0.01
1.03
6.01
Population Emission Factors—Storage Wellheads, Gas Service
Connector ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Valve ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
Pressure Relief Valve ....................................................................................................................................................................
Open-ended Line ...........................................................................................................................................................................
0.01
0.10
0.17
0.03
Population Emission Factors—Other Components, Gas Service
Low-Bleed Pneumatic Device Vents .............................................................................................................................................
2.57
TABLE W–5 OF SUBPART W—DEFAULT METHANE EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG) STORAGE
Emission Factor
(scf/hour/component)
LNG storage
Leaker Emission Factors—LNG Storage Components, LNG Service
Valve ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
Pump Seal .....................................................................................................................................................................................
Connector ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Other1 ............................................................................................................................................................................................
1.19
4.00
0.34
1.77
Population Emission Factors—LNG Storage Compressor, Gas Service
Vapor Recovery Compressor ........................................................................................................................................................
1 ‘‘other’’
6.81
equipment type should be applied for any equipment type other than connectors, pumps, or valves.
TABLE W–6 OF SUBPART W—DEFAULT METHANE EMISSION FACTORS FOR LNG TERMINALS
Emission Factor
(scf/hour/component)
LNG terminals
Leaker Emission Factors—LNG Terminals Components, LNG Service
Valve ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
Pump Seal .....................................................................................................................................................................................
Connector ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Other ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
1.19
4.00
0.34
1.77
Population Emission Factors—LNG Terminals Compressor, Gas Service
Vapor Recovery Compressor ........................................................................................................................................................
6.81
TABLE W–7 OF SUBPART W—DEFAULT METHANE EMISSION FACTORS FOR DISTRIBUTION
Emission Factor
(scf/hour/component)
Distribution
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Leaker Emission Factors—Above Grade M&R Stations Components, Gas Service
Connector ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Block Valve ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Control Valve .................................................................................................................................................................................
Pressure Relief Valve ....................................................................................................................................................................
Orifice Meter ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Regulator .......................................................................................................................................................................................
Open-ended Line ...........................................................................................................................................................................
1.69
0.557
9.34
0.270
0.212
0.772
26.131
Population Emission Factors—Below Grade M&R Stations Components, Gas Service 1
Below Grade M&R Station, Inlet Pressure > 300 psig .................................................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
1.30
18650
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE W–7 OF SUBPART W—DEFAULT METHANE EMISSION FACTORS FOR DISTRIBUTION—Continued
Emission Factor
(scf/hour/component)
Distribution
Below Grade M&R Station, Inlet Pressure 100 to 300 psig .........................................................................................................
Below Grade M&R Station, Inlet Pressure < 100 psig .................................................................................................................
0.20
0.10
Population Emission Factors—Distribution Mains, Gas Service 2
Unprotected Steel ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Protected Steel ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Plastic ............................................................................................................................................................................................
Cast Iron ........................................................................................................................................................................................
12.58
0.35
1.13
27.25
Population Emission Factors—Distribution Services, Gas Service 2
Unprotected Steel ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Protected Steel ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Plastic ............................................................................................................................................................................................
Copper ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
1 Emission
2 Emission
0.19
0.02
0.001
0.03
Factor is in units of ‘‘scf/hour/station‘‘
Factor is in units of ‘‘scf/hour/service‘‘
TABLE W–8 OF SUBPART W—DEFAULT NITROUS OXIDE EMISSION FACTORS FOR GAS FLARING
Emission Factor
(metric tons/
MMscf gas production or receipts)
Gas Flaring
Population Emission Factors—Gas Flaring
Gas Production ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Sweet Gas Processing ..................................................................................................................................................................
Sour Gas Processing .....................................................................................................................................................................
Conventional Oil Production 1 ........................................................................................................................................................
Heavy Oil Production 2 ...................................................................................................................................................................
1 Emission
2 Emission
Factor is in units of ‘‘metric tons/barrel conventional oil production‘‘
Factor is in units of ‘‘metric tons/barrel heavy oil production‘‘
[FR Doc. 2010–6767 Filed 4–9–10; 8:45 am]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:29 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\12APP3.SGM
12APP3
5.90E–07
7.10E–07
1.50E–06
1.00E–04
7.30E–05
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 69 (Monday, April 12, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18608-18650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6767]
[[Page 18607]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 98
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and Natural Gas
Systems; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 18608]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 98
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0923; FRL-9131-1]
RIN 2060-AP99
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and Natural
Gas Systems
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a supplemental rule to require reporting of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems.
Specifically, the proposed supplemental rulemaking would require
emissions reporting from the following industry segments: Onshore
petroleum and natural gas production, offshore petroleum and natural
gas production, natural gas processing, natural gas transmission
compressor stations, underground natural gas storage, liquefied natural
gas (LNG) storage, LNG import and export terminals, and distribution.
The proposed supplemental rulemaking does not require control of GHGs,
rather it requires only that sources above certain threshold levels
monitor and report emissions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2010. There will
be one public hearing. The hearing will be on April 19, 2010 in
Arlington, VA and will begin at 8 a.m. local time and end at 5 p.m.
local time.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0923 and/or RIN number 2060-AP99 by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: GHG_Reporting_Rule_Oil_and_Natural_Gas@epa.gov. Include EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0923 and/or RIN number 2060-AP99
in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
Phone: (202) 566-1744.
Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Attention Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0923, Mail Code 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center Public Reading
Room, Room 3334, EPA West Building, Attention Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0923, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0923. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected
through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov your
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA's
Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.
FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; e-mail
address: GHGMRR@epa.gov. For technical information contact the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Hotline at telephone number: (877) 444-
1188; or e-mail: GHGMRR@epa.gov. To obtain information about the public
hearings or to register to speak at the hearings, please go to https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. Alternatively,
contact Carole Cook at 202-343-9263.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA first proposed Mandatory GHG Reporting
requirements for petroleum and natural gas systems (under 40 CFR, part
98, subpart W) in April 2009. EPA received a substantial number of
comments on this initial proposal for petroleum and natural gas
systems. For this reason, EPA decided not to finalize the rule for
petroleum and natural gas systems, and instead to propose a
supplemental rule.
EPA reviewed and considered comments submitted on the previous
proposal in drafting this proposed supplemental rulemaking. However, as
this is a new proposal, EPA is not here responding to comments on the
earlier version of this rule. Any comments must be submitted as
provided herein, to be considered. A more detailed background
concerning the subpart W rulemaking and proposed changes can be found
in section II-A.
Additional Information on Submitting Comments: To expedite review
of your comments by Agency staff, you are encouraged to send a separate
copy of your comments, in addition to the copy you submit to the
official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric
Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code 6207-J, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 343-9263, e-mail:
GHG_Reporting_Rule_Oil_and_Natural_Gas@epa.gov.
Although as indicated above, EPA previously proposed a version of
this rule, that proposal never became final. This is a newly proposed
rule and comments which were submitted on the earlier version of the
rule are not being considered in the context of this rule. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.
Regulated Entities. The Administrator determined that this action
is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See
CAA section
[[Page 18609]]
307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d) apply to ``such other
actions as the Administrator may determine.''). This is a proposed
regulation. If finalized, these regulations would affect owners or
operators of petroleum and natural gas systems. Regulated categories
and entities include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble:
Table 1--Examples of Affected Entities by Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems............. 486210 Pipeline transportation of natural gas.
221210 Natural gas distribution facilities.
211 Extractors of crude petroleum and natural gas.
211112 Natural gas liquid extraction facilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be
affected by this action. Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of
facilities that EPA is now aware could be potentially affected by the
reporting requirements. Other types of facilities listed in the table
could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine whether
you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria found in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart A or
the relevant criteria in the sections related to petroleum and natural
gas systems. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Many facilities that are affected by the proposed supplemental rule
have GHG emissions from multiple source categories listed in Table 1 of
this preamble. Table 2 of this preamble has been developed as a guide
to help potential reporters in the petroleum and natural gas industry
subject to the proposed rule identify the source categories (by
subpart) that they may need to (1) consider in their facility
applicability determination, and/or (2) include in their reporting. The
table should only be seen as a guide. Additional subparts in 40 CFR
part 98 may be relevant for a given reporter. Similarly, not all listed
subparts are relevant for all reporters.
Table 2--Source Categories and Relevant Subparts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category Other Subparts recommended for review to determine applicability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum and Natural Gas 40 CFR part 98, subpart C.
Systems.
40 CFR part 98, subpart Y.
40 CFR part 98, subpart MM.
40 CFR part 98, subpart NN.
40 CFR part 98, subpart PP.
40 CFR part 98, subpart RR (proposed).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
cf cubic feet
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2-equivalent
EO Executive Order
EOR enhanced oil recovery
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
ICR information collection request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kg kilograms
LDCs local natural gas distribution companies
LNG liquefied natural gas
LPG liquefied petroleum gas
MRR mandatory GHG reporting rule
MMTCO2e million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
N2O nitrous oxide
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NGLs natural gas liquids
OMB Office of Management and Budget
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TCR The Climate Registry
TSD technical support document
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
WCI Western Climate Initiative
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Organization of this Preamble
B. Background on the Proposed Rule
C. Legal Authority
D. Relationship to Other Federal, State and Regional Programs
II. Rationale for the Reporting, Recordkeeping and Verification
Requirements
A. Overview of Proposal
B. Summary of the Major Changes Since Initial Proposal
C. Definition of the Source Category
D. Selection of Reporting Threshold
E. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods
F. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data
G. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements
H. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained
III. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule
A. How were compliance costs estimated?
B. What are the costs of the proposed rule?
C. What are the economic impacts of the proposed rule?
D. What are the impacts of the proposed rule on small
businesses?
E. What are the benefits of the proposed rule for society?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
[[Page 18610]]
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Background
A. Organization of This Preamble
This preamble is broken into several large sections, as detailed
above in the Table of Contents. The paragraphs below describe the
layout of the preamble and provide a brief summary of each section.
The first section of this preamble contains the basic background
information about the origin of this proposed supplemental rulemaking,
including a discussion of the initial proposed rule for petroleum and
natural gas systems. This section also discusses EPA's use of our legal
authority under the Clean Air Act to collect the proposed data, and the
benefits of collecting the data. The relationship between the mandatory
GHG reporting program and other mandatory and voluntary reporting
programs at the national, regional and State level also is discussed.
The second section of this preamble summarizes the general
provisions of this proposed supplemental rulemaking for petroleum and
natural gas systems. It also highlights the major changes between the
initial proposed rule and the supplemental rule that we are proposing
today, including changes in the scope of the proposed rule and the
monitoring methods proposed. This section then provides a brief summary
of, and rationale for, selection of key design elements. Specifically,
this section describes EPA's rationale for (i) the definition of the
source category (ii) selection of reporting thresholds (iii) selection
of monitoring methods, (iv) missing data procedures (v) proposed data
reporting requirements, and (vi) recordkeeping requirements. Thus, for
example, there is a specific discussion regarding appropriate
thresholds, monitoring methodologies and reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for each segment of the petroleum and natural gas industry
proposed for inclusion in the rule: onshore petroleum and natural gas
production, offshore petroleum and natural gas production, natural gas
processing, natural gas transmission compressor stations, natural gas
underground storage, LNG storage, LNG import and export terminals, and
distribution. EPA describes the proposed options for each design
element, as well as the other options considered. Throughout this
discussion, EPA highlights specific issues on which we solicit comment.
Please refer to the specific source category of interest for more
details.
The third section provides the summary of the cost impacts,
economic impacts, and benefits of this proposed rule from the Economic
Analysis. Finally, the last section discusses the various statutory and
executive order requirements applicable to this proposed rulemaking.
B. Background on the Proposed Rule
The Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (``Final MRR''), (40 CFR
part 98) was signed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on September 22,
2009 and published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009 (74 FR
209 (October 30, 2009) pp. 56260-56519). The Final MRR which is
effective on December 29, 2009 included reporting of GHGs from
facilities and suppliers that EPA determined met the criteria in the
2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.\1\ These source categories
capture approximately 85 percent of U.S. GHG emissions through
reporting by direct emitters as well as suppliers of fossil fuels and
industrial gases. There are, however, many additional types of data and
reporting that the Agency deems important and necessary to address an
issue as large and complex as climate change (e.g. indirect emissions
from electricity use). In that sense, one could view the Final MRR (40
CFR part 98) as focused on certain sources of emissions and upstream
suppliers. For information on existing programs at the Federal,
Regional and State levels that also collect valuable information to
inform and implement policies necessary to address climate change,
relationship of the Final MRR to EPA and U.S. government climate change
efforts and to other State and Regional Programs, see the Preamble to
the Final MRR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161,
121 Stat. 1844, 2128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the April 2009 proposed mandatory GHG reporting rule the
petroleum and natural gas systems subcategory was included as Subpart
W. EPA received a number of lengthy, detailed comments regarding this
subpart W proposal. Some comments were focused on the significant cost
burden that the April 2009 proposed rule would impose on petroleum and
natural gas systems, whereas others focused on whether certain sources,
such as onshore production and distribution, that were not included in
the initial proposal, should be included. EPA recognized the concerns
raised by stakeholders, and decided not to finalize subpart W with the
Final MRR, but instead to propose a new supplemental rule for petroleum
and natural gas systems. This proposed supplemental rule incorporates a
number of changes including, but not limited to, different
methodologies that provide improved emissions coverage at a lower cost
burden to facilities than would have been covered under the initial
proposed rule; the inclusion of onshore production and distribution
facilities; and separate definitions for ``vented'' and ``fugitive''
emissions. As noted earlier, stakeholders should submit comments in the
context of this new proposed supplemental rule.
This proposed supplemental rule 40 CFR part 98, subpart W requires
annual reporting of fugitive and vented carbon dioxide (CO2)
and methane (CH4) emissions from petroleum and natural gas
systems facilities, as well as combustion-related CO2,
CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from
flares at those facilities, following the methods outlined in the
proposal. This proposed rule would also establish appropriate
thresholds and frequency for reporting, as well as provisions to ensure
the accuracy of emissions through monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
This proposed rule applies to facilities in specific segments of
the petroleum and natural gas industry that emit GHGs greater than or
equal to 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year.
Reporting would be at the facility level.
C. Legal Authority
EPA is proposing this rule under its existing CAA authority,
specifically authorities provided in section 114 of the CAA. As
discussed further below and in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Legal Issues'' (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508-2264), EPA is not citing the FY 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act as the statutory basis for this action. While that
law required that EPA spend no less than $3.5 million on a rule
requiring the mandatory reporting of GHG emissions, it is the CAA, not
the Appropriations Act, that EPA is citing as the authority to gather
the information proposed by this rule.
As stated in the Final MRR, CAA section 114 provides EPA broad
authority to require the information proposed to be gathered by this
rule because such data would inform and are relevant to EPA's carrying
out a wide variety of CAA provisions. As discussed in the initial
proposed rule (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), section 114(a)(1) of the
CAA authorizes the Administrator to require emissions sources, persons
[[Page 18611]]
subject to the CAA, manufacturers of control equipment, or persons whom
the Administrator believes may have necessary information to monitor
and report emissions and provide such other information the
Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision
of the CAA.
EPA notes that comments were submitted on the initial rule proposal
questioning EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to collect
emissions information from certain offshore petroleum and natural gas
platforms. Some commenters argued that EPA does not have the authority
to collect emissions information from offshore platforms located in
areas of the Western Gulf because they are under the jurisdiction of
the Department of the Interior. They cited, among other things, the
Outer Continental Shelf Act, 43 U.S.C. 1334. Without opining on the
accuracy of the commenter's summary of OCSLA or other law, we note that
even the commenter describes these authorities as relating to the
regulation of air emissions. Today's proposal does not regulate GHG
emissions; rather it gathers information to inform EPA's evaluation of
various CAA provisions. Moreover, EPA's authority under CAA Section 114
is broad, and extends to any person ``who the Administrator believes
may have information necessary for the purposes'' of carrying out the
CAA, even if that person is not subject to the CAA. Indeed, by
specifically authorizing EPA to collect information from both persons
subject to any requirement of the CAA, as well as any person who the
Administrator believes may have necessary information, Congress clearly
intended that EPA could gather information from a person not otherwise
subject to CAA requirements. EPA is comprehensively considering how to
address climate change under the CAA, including both regulatory and
non-regulatory options. The information from these and other offshore
platforms will inform our analyses, including options applicable to
emissions of any offshore platforms that EPA is authorized to regulate
under the CAA.
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(a) so that the final MRR
applies to facilities located in the United States and on or under the
Outer Continental Shelf. These revisions are necessary to ensure that
any petroleum or natural gas platforms located on our under the Outer
Continental Shelf of the United States would be required to report
under this rule. In addition, EPA is proposing revisions to the
definition of United States to clarify that the United States includes
the territorial seas. Other facilities located offshore of the United
States covered by the mandatory reporting program at 40 CFR part 98
would also be affected by this change in the definition of United
States. Revising the definition of United States will also ensure that
facilities located offshore of the United States that are injecting
CO2 into sub-seabed for long-term containment will also be
required to report data regarding greenhouse gases. EPA is proposing a
separate rule on geologic sequestration and any comments specific to
that issue should be directed to the Agency on that rulemaking not this
one. Finally, in addition to the change to the definition of United
States, EPA is adding a definition of ``Outer Continental Shelf.'' This
definition is drawn from the definition in the U.S. Code. Together,
these changes make clear that the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule applies
to facilities on land, in the territorial seas, or on or under the
Outer Continental Shelf, of the United States, and that otherwise meet
the applicability criteria of the rule.
For further information about EPA's legal authority, see the
proposed and final MRR.
D. Relationship to Other Federal, State and Regional Programs
In developing the initial proposal for mandatory reporting from
petroleum and natural gas systems that was released in April 2009, as
well as this supplemental proposed rulemaking, EPA reviewed monitoring
methods included in international guidance (e.g., Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change), as well as Federal voluntary programs (e.g.,
EPA Natural Gas STAR Program and the U.S. Department of Energy
Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program (1605(b)), corporate
protocols (e.g., World Resources Institute and World Business Council
for Sustainable Development GHG Protocol) and industry guidance (e.g.,
methodological guidance from the American Petroleum Institute, the
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, and the American Gas
Association).
EPA also reviewed State reporting programs (e.g., California and
New Mexico) and Regional partnerships (e.g., The Climate Registry, the
Western Regional Air Partnership). These are important programs that
not only led the way in reporting of GHG emissions before the Federal
government acted but also assist in quantifying the GHG reductions
achieved by various policies. Many of these programs collect different
or additional data as compared to this proposed rule. For example,
State programs may establish lower thresholds for reporting, request
information on areas not addressed in EPA's reporting rule, or include
different data elements to support other programs (e.g., offsets). For
further discussion on the relationship of this proposed rule to other
programs, refer to the preamble to the Final MRR.
II. Rationale for the Reporting, Recordkeeping and Verification
Requirements
A. Overview of Proposal
The U.S. petroleum and natural gas industry encompasses hundreds of
thousands of wells, hundreds of processing facilities, and over a
million miles of transmission and distribution pipelines. This proposed
rule would apply to the calculation and reporting of vented, fugitive,
and flare combustion emissions from selected equipment at the following
facilities that emit equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons of
CO2 equivalent per year from source categories covered by
the mandatory GHG reporting rule: offshore petroleum and natural gas
production facilities, onshore petroleum and natural gas production
facilities (including enhanced oil recovery (EOR)), onshore natural gas
processing facilities, onshore natural gas transmission compression
facilities, onshore natural gas storage facilities, LNG storage
facilities, LNG import and export facilities and natural gas
distribution facilities owned or operated by local distribution
companies (LDCs). This proposal does not address the production of gas
from landfills or manure management systems. Methods and reporting
procedures for stationary combustion emissions other than flares at
petroleum and natural gas industry facilities are covered under Subpart
C of the Final MRR.
This proposed supplemental rule incorporates a number of different
methodologies to provide improved emissions coverage at a lower cost
burden to affected facilities, as compared to the initial proposed
rule. In this supplemental proposal, EPA is requiring the use of direct
measurement of emissions for only the most significant emissions
sources where other options are not available, and proposing the use of
engineering estimates, emissions modeling software, and leak detection
and publicly available emission factors for most other vented and
fugitive sources. For smaller fugitive and inaccessible to plain view
sources, component count and population emissions factors are proposed.
In the case of offshore platforms, EPA is recommending that
[[Page 18612]]
emissions sources identified under the Minerals Management Services
(MMS) GOADS (Gulfwide Offshore Activities Data System) be used for
reporting, and the GOADS process be extended to platforms in other
Federal regions (i.e., California and Alaska) and in State waters. The
alternative methodologies proposed in this rule will provide similar or
better estimation of vented and fugitive CH4 and
CO2 emissions in the petroleum and gas industry, while
significantly reducing industry burden.
Under this supplemental proposal, facilities not already reporting
but required to report under subpart W would begin data collection in
2011 following the methods outlined in the proposed rule, and submit
data to EPA by March 31, 2012.
EPA would require reporting of calendar year 2011 emissions in 2012
because the data are crucial to the timely development of future GHG
policy and regulatory programs. In the Appropriation Act, Congress
requested EPA to develop this reporting program on an expedited
schedule, and Congressional inquiries along with public comments
reinforce that data collection for calendar year 2011 is a priority.
Delaying data collection until calendar year 2012 would mean the data
would not be received until 2013, which would likely be too late for
many ongoing GHG policy and program development needs.
EPA considered, but decided not to propose, the use of best
available monitoring methods for part (e.g., the first three months) or
all of the first year of data collection. EPA concluded that the time
period that would be allowed under this schedule is sufficient to allow
facilities to implement the monitoring methods that would be required
by the proposed rule. In general, the proposed monitors are widely
available and are not time consuming to install. Further, some of the
monitoring methods (e.g., use of emission factors) may not require the
installation of any monitoring equipment. Finally, the emissions
assessment may be done at any time during the year, and measurements do
not necessarily need to be undertaken during the first quarter.
EPA seeks comment on the proposal not to allow use of best
available monitoring methods for part or all of the first year of data
collection. Further, if commenters recommend that EPA allow the use of
best available monitoring methods for a designated time period (e.g.,
three months), EPA seeks comments on whether requests for use of best
available monitoring methods should only be approved for parameters
subject to direct measurement, or also in cases where engineering
calculations and/or emission factors are used.
Amendments to the General Provisions. In a separate rulemaking
package that was recently published (March 16, 2010), EPA issued minor
harmonizing changes to the general provisions for the GHG reporting
rule (40 CFR part 98, subpart A) to accommodate the addition of source
categories not included in the 2009 final rule (e.g., subparts proposed
in April 2009 but not finalized in 2009, any new subparts that may be
proposed in the future). The changes update 98.2(a) on rule
applicability and 98.3 regarding the reporting schedule to accommodate
any additional subparts and the schedule for their reporting
obligations (e.g., source categories finalized in 2010 would not begin
data collection until 2011 and reporting in 2012).
In particular, we restructured 40 CFR 98.2(a) to move the lists of
source categories from the text into tables. A table format improves
clarity and facilitates the addition of source categories that were not
included in calendar year 2010 reporting and would begin reporting in
future years. A table, versus list, approach allows other sections of
the rule to be updated automatically when the table is updated; a list
approach requires separate updates to the various list references each
time the list is changed. In addition to reformatting the 98.2(a)(1)-
(2) lists into tables, other sections of subpart A were reworded to
refer to the source category tables because the tables make it clear
which source categories are to be considered for determining the
applicability threshold and reporting requirements for calendar years
2010, 2011, and future years.
Because facilities with petroleum and natural gas systems (as
defined in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart W) would be subject to the
rule if facility emissions exceed 25,000 metric tons CO2e
per year, in today's rule we are proposing to add this source category
to those threshold categories referenced from 40 CFR 98.2(a)(2) whether
the reference is to a list or a table.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Since we are proposing to change the list of covered
subcategories to tables, we are not providing regulatory text in
this proposal because the preamble is clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's proposal, we also propose to amend 40 CFR 98.6 to add
definitions for several terms used in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart
W and to clarify the meaning of certain terms for purposes of subpart
W. We also propose to amend 40 CFR 98.7 (incorporation by reference) to
include standard methods used in proposed subpart W. In particular, we
propose to incorporate by reference the AAPG-CSD Geologic Code
Provinces Code Map available from The American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, Volume 75, No. 10 (October 1991) pages 1644-1651.
It would be used to define the geographic boundaries for reporting of
onshore oil and gas production systems. We also proposed to incorporate
by reference models, including Glycalc and E&P Tanks that would be used
to calculate emissions and were not developed by the Federal
government.
B. Summary of the Major Changes Since Initial Proposal
Mandatory GHG reporting requirements were proposed for Petroleum
and Natural Gas Systems under Subpart W in April 2009 along with a
number of other sectors of the economy. As noted in the Preamble to the
Final MRR, EPA received a number of lengthy, detailed comments
regarding Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems. In total, EPA received
comments from over 80 organizations and over 1,200 pages of formal
comments on the Petroleum and Gas Systems Initial Proposed Rule. Some
comments proposed simplified alternatives to the proposed reporting
requirements based on the potential that the proposed requirements
would entail significant burden and cost. Other comments addressed
whether to include onshore production and the distribution segment,
which were excluded from the initial proposal as EPA sought comments on
approaches for the level of reporting of fugitive and vented GHG
emissions from these segments (e.g., facility or corporate).
EPA has reviewed the comments and issues and suggestions raised by
stakeholders within and outside the petroleum and natural gas industry
related to emissions coverage and the level of cost burden in this
sector. In response, EPA is proposing a new supplemental rule for
Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems. This proposed supplemental rule now
incorporates all segments of the petroleum and gas industry, adding
onshore production and distribution.
Total fugitive, vented and combustion emissions estimated to be
covered in this supplemental proposed rulemaking amount to 351
MMTCO2e; 272 MMTCO2e from fugitive and vented
emissions and 79 MMTCO2e from combustion emissions.\3\
Fugitive and
[[Page 18613]]
vented emissions estimates included in the supplemental proposed
rulemaking are significantly higher than the 131 MMTCO2e
reported in the 2008 U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gases, due to the
inclusion of items believed to be under-reported in the inventory
(discussed further below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Some petroleum and natural gas facilities will already be
required to report emissions from stationary combustion under the
MRR that was signed in September 2009. This proposed petroleum and
natural gas subpart will require additional facilities to report to
the MRR that are not currently required to report. These facilities
will have to report combustion, fugitive and vented emissions. These
incremental combustion emissions are estimated at 79
MMTCO2e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table W-1 summarizes the estimated fugitive, vented and combustion
emissions for the segments included in the initial proposal and the
added segments of onshore production and distribution. Additional
details can be found in the Economic Impact Analysis for the Mandatory
Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under Subpart W Supplemental Rule
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0923).
Table W-1--Fugitive/Vented and Combustion Emissions From Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems, MMTCO2e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fugitive and
Fugitive and vented Combustion
vented emissions: emissions:
Segment emissions: Supplemental Supplemental
Initial proposed proposed
proposed rule rulemaking rulemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Proposed Rule Six Segments.............................. 85 94.3 9.8
Onshore Production.............................................. NA 154.9 69.3
Natural Gas Distribution........................................ NA 22.7 NA
-----------------------------------------------
Total Emissions............................................. 85 271.9 \1\ 79.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This estimate reflects only incremental combustion emissions (i.e., only those combustion emissions from
facilities above and beyond what will already be required to be reported under the Final MRR). For example,
combustion-related emissions ftrom many natural gas processing plants are already required to be reported
under subpart C and are therefore not included here. The combustion estimate also includes combustion
emissions from flares.
Inclusion of onshore production and distribution results in
estimated fugitive and vented emissions that are more than triple the
estimated emissions in the initial rule proposal for petroleum and
natural gas systems.
In addition to expanding emissions coverage under the proposed
supplemental rule, EPA has assessed a number of alternative
methodologies that were either recommended by commenters or are known
to provide effective quantification of emissions at a significantly
lower cost burden. The changes include the use of:
Limited use of fugitive leak detection.
Leaker factors to quantify detected fugitive emissions.
Population factors and component count for fugitive
emissions that are widely scattered or inaccessible to plain view.
Use of existing MMS GOADS methods and calculated emissions
for offshore production facilities.
Modeling software to quantify glycol dehydrator and tank
emissions.
Engineering estimation for well venting from liquids
unloading.
Engineering estimation for well venting from completions
and workovers.
Engineering estimation for well testing and flaring.
Engineering estimation for flaring emissions.
Limited sampling to determine gas composition.
Another significant change in the proposed supplemental rule is the
use of the term ``fugitives''. The initial rule proposal from April
2009 included both vented and fugitive emissions sources, and
collectively defined both sources as ``fugitive''. EPA received a large
number of comments from industry stakeholders and others indicating
that this definition created confusion. Hence EPA is defining vented
emissions separately from fugitives in the supplemental proposed
rulemaking. For this supplemental rulemaking, emissions from the
petroleum and natural gas industry are defined as (1) vented emissions,
which include intentional or designed releases of CH4 and/or
CO2 containing natural gas or hydrocarbon gas (not including
stationary combustion flue gas) from emissions sources including, but
not limited to, process designed flow to the atmosphere through seals
or vent pipes, equipment blowdown for maintenance, and direct venting
of gas used to power equipment (such as pneumatic devices). In
addition, this supplemental rule includes (2) fugitive emissions, or
unintentional emissions, which are defined to include those emissions
which could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or
other functionally-equivalent opening. This supplemental rule also
includes (3) flare combustion emissions, which include CH4,
CO2 and N2O emissions resulting from combustion
of gas in flares. EPA seeks comment on the use of the term ``equipment
leak'' versus ``fugitive'' and ``vented'' as defined in the proposed
supplemental rule.
C. Definition of the Source Category
EPA discusses here the general approach used in identifying the key
segments of the petroleum and natural gas industry that would be
required to report under the proposal. This general discussion is
followed by a specific discussion for each industry segment.
One factor EPA considered in assessing the applicability of certain
petroleum and natural gas industry emissions in the proposed rule is
the definition of a facility. In other words, what physically
constitutes a facility? This definition is important to determine the
reporting entity, to ensure that delineation is clear, and to minimize
double counting or omissions of emissions. For some segments of the
industry (e.g., onshore natural gas processing facilities, natural gas
transmission compression facilities, and offshore petroleum and natural
gas facilities), identifying the facility is clear since there are
physical boundaries and ownership structures that lend themselves to
identifying scope of reporting and responsible reporting entities. In
other segments of the industry (e.g., the pipelines between compressor
stations and onshore petroleum and natural gas production) such
distinctions are not as
[[Page 18614]]
straightforward. In defining a facility, EPA reviewed current
definitions used in the Clean Air Act (CAA), ISO definitions, comments
provided under the initial proposed rule, and current regulations
relevant to the industry. A complete description of our assessment can
be found in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industry: Background Technical Support Document (TSD) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0923).
At the same time, EPA also decided that it was impractical to
include each of the over 160 different sources of vented and fugitive
CH4 and CO2 emissions in the petroleum and
natural gas industry. In response to comments received on the initial
proposed rule, EPA undertook a systematic review of each emissions
source included in the 2008 U.S. GHG Inventory in order to propose
reporting of only the most significant emissions sources (e.g.
emissions that account for the majority of oil and gas fugitive and
vented emissions). In determining the most relevant vented and fugitive
emissions sources for inclusion in this supplemental proposed
rulemaking, EPA considered the following criteria: The coverage of
emissions for the source category as a whole; the coverage of emissions
per unit of the source category; the feasibility of a viable monitoring
method, including direct measurement and engineering estimations; and
the number of facilities that would be required to report. Sources that
contribute significantly large emissions were considered for inclusion
in this supplemental proposed rulemaking, since they increase the
coverage of emissions reporting. Typically, at petroleum and gas
facilities, 80 percent or more of a facility's emissions come from
approximately 10 percent of the emissions sources. EPA used this
benchmark to reduce the number of emissions sources required for
reporting while keeping the reporting burden to a minimum. Sources in
each segment of the petroleum and natural gas industry were sorted into
two main categories: (1) The largest sources contributing to
approximately 80 percent of the emissions from the segment, and (2) the
sources contributing to the remaining 20 percent of the emissions from
that particular segment. EPA assigned sources into these two groups by
determining the emissions contribution of each emissions source to its
relevant segment of the petroleum and gas industry, listing the
emissions sources in a descending order, and identifying all the
sources at the top that contribute to approximately 80 percent of the
emissions. Generally, those sources that fell into approximately the
top 80 percent were considered for inclusion. Details of the analysis
can be found in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum and Natural
Gas Industry: Background TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0923).
The following is a brief discussion of the proposed emission
sources to be included and excluded based on our analysis. Additional
information can be found in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum
and Natural Gas Industry: Background TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0923. Note
that this subpart of the GHG reporting rule addresses only vented,
fugitive and flare combustion emissions. As mentioned previously,
stationary combustion emissions are included in Subpart C of the Final
MRR Preamble.
Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production
The onshore petroleum and natural gas production segment uses wells
to extract raw natural gas, condensate, crude oil, and associated gas
from underground formations and inject CO2 for EOR.
Extraction includes several types of processes: Reservoir management,
primary recovery, secondary recovery such as down-hole pumps, water
flood or natural gas/nitrogen/immiscible CO2 injection, and
tertiary recovery such as using critical phase miscible CO2
injection. The largest sources of CH4 and CO2
emissions include, but are not limited to, natural gas driven pneumatic
devices and pumps, field crude oil and condensate storage tanks, glycol
dehydration units, releases and flaring during well completions, well
workovers, and well blowdowns for liquids unloading, releases and
flaring of associated gas, and blowdowns of compressors and EOR pumps.
EPA is proposing to include the onshore petroleum and natural gas
production segment due to the fact that these operations represent a
significant emissions source, representing approximately 66 percent of
fugitive, vented and incremental\4\ combustion emissions from the
petroleum and natural gas segments covered by the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The denominator includes total fugitive and vented
emissions, as well as any additional combustion related emissions
that will be required to be reported by the petroleum and natural
gas industry and that wasn't already covered in the final MRR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA considered a range of possible options for reporting emissions
from onshore petroleum and natural gas facilities. Although several
options for defining the facility were considered and described below,
EPA has determined that only two of the options are feasible: Basin-
level reporting and field-level reporting. For this supplemental
proposed rulemaking, EPA proposes that emissions from onshore petroleum
and natural gas production be reported at the basin level. The
reporting entity for onshore petroleum and natural gas production would
be the operating entity listed on the state well drilling permit, or a
state operating permit for wells where no drilling permit is issued by
the state, who operates onshore petroleum and natural gas production
wells and controls by means of ownership (including leased and rented)
and operation (including contracted) stationary and portable (as
defined in this Subpart) equipment located on all well pads within a
single hydrocarbon basin as defined by the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) three-digit Geological Province Code. The
equipment referenced above includes all structures associated with
wells used in the production, extraction, recovery, lifting,
stabilization, separation or treating of petroleum and/or natural gas
(including condensate) including equipment that is leased, rented or
contracted. This includes equipment such as compressors, generators or
storage facilities, piping (such as flowlines or intra-facility
gathering lines), and portable non-self-propelled equipment (such as
well drilling and completion equipment, workover equipment, gravity
separation equipment, auxiliary non-transportation-related equipment).
This also includes associated storage or measurement equipment and all
equipment engaged in gathering produced gas from multiple wells, EOR
operations using CO2, and all petroleum and natural gas
production operations located on islands, artificial islands or
structures connected by a causeway to land, an island, or artificial
island.
Where more than one entity may hold the state well drilling permit,
or well operating permit where no drilling permit is issued by the
state, the permitted entities for the facility would be required to
designate one entity to report all emissions from the jointly
controlled facility. Where an operating entity holds more than one
permit to operate wells in a basin, then all onshore petroleum and
natural gas production well permits in their name in the basin,
including all equipment on the well pads, would be considered one
onshore petroleum and natural gas
[[Page 18615]]
production facility for purposes of reporting.
There are at least two industry recognized definitions available
that identify hydrocarbon basins; one from the United State Geological
Survey (USGS) and the other from the AAPG. The AAPG geologic definition
is referenced to county boundaries and hence likely to be familiar to
the industry, i.e. if the owner or operator knows in which county their
well is located, then they know to which basin they belong. Basins are
mapped to county boundaries only to give a surface manifestation to the
underground geologic structures, thus making it easier to relate
surface facilities to basin underground geologic boundaries. On the
other hand, the USGS definition is based purely on the geology of the
hydrocarbon basin without consideration of state and county boundaries.
Hence using the USGS definition may make it more difficult to map
surface operations to a particular basin. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to use the AAPG definition of a basin. EPA seeks comments on the
availability of other appropriate standard basin level definitions that
could be applied for the purposes of this rule and their merits over
the AAPG definition.
EPA is proposing a basin level approach, because the boundaries for
reporting are clearly defined and the approach covers approximately 81
percent of emissions from onshore petroleum and natural gas production.
EPA evaluated and is taking comment on one alternative option for
reporting from onshore petroleum and natural gas production; field
level. Field level reporting would require aggregation of emissions
from all covered equipment at onshore petroleum and natural gas
production facilities at the field level, as opposed to the basin level
as described above. A typical field level definition is available from
the Energy Information Administration Oil and Gas Field Code Master. As
outlined in the Economic Impact Analysis for this proposed rule, the
field level option would result in a significantly lower coverage in
emissions, estimated at 55 percent in comparison to the basin level
coverage of 81 percent. In essence the two reporting options are not
different from a methodological point of view because both definitions
rely on geographical boundaries. Therefore, EPA has proposed the use of
a basin level definition to increase coverage. EPA seeks comments on
our decision to propose the basin level approach, and whether there
would be advantages to requiring reporting at the field level instead.
In addition to basin and field level reporting, EPA considered one
other alternative approach for defining a facility for onshore
petroleum and natural gas production; individual well pads. This well
pad approach included all stationary and portable equipment operating
in conjunction with that well, including drilling rigs with their
ancillary equipment, gas/liquid separators, compressors, gas
dehydrators, crude oil heater-treaters, gas powered pneumatic
instruments and pumps, electrical generators, steam boilers and crude
oil and gas liquids stock tanks. This definition was analyzed with
available data including four cases to represent the full range of
petroleum and natural gas well pad operations ranging from
unconventional well drilling and operation starting in the beginning of
the year with higher emitting practices, to production at an associated
gas and oil well (no drilling) with minimal equipment and a vapor
recovery unit.
EPA analyzed the average emissions associated with each of the four
well pad facility cases and determined that average emissions at these
operations were low (from about 370 metric tons of CO2e per
year to slightly less than 5,000 metric tons of CO2e per
year). This analysis shows that the threshold would have to be set at
less than 400 metric tons CO2e per year to capture the
largest possible amount of onshore production emissions (only 33
percent) which would result in close to 170,000 reporters. Additional
information can be found in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum
and Natural Gas Industry: Background TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0923). If the
threshold was set at approximately 5,000 metric tons, EPA estimates
that the number of reporters would decrease significantly to
approximate 3,300 but the emission coverage would be only 6 percent.
Based on the results above, EPA did not consider the well pad
definition further in the Economic Impact Analysis.
Offshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production
Offshore petroleum and natural gas production is any platform
structure, affixed temporarily or permanently to offshore submerged
lands, that houses equipment to extract hydrocarbons from the ocean or
lake floor and that transfers such hydrocarbons to storage, transport
vessels, or onshore. In addition, offshore production includes
secondary platform structures and storage tanks associated with the
platform structure. GHG emissions result from sources housed on the
platforms.
In 2006, offshore petroleum and natural gas production
CO2 and CH4 emissions accounted for 5.1 million
metric tons CO2e. The primary sources of emissions from
offshore petroleum and natural gas production are from valves, flanges,
open-ended lines, compressor seals, platform vent stacks, and other
source types. Flare stacks account for the majority of combustion
CO2 emissions.
Offshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities are
proposed for inclusion due to the fact that this segment represents
approximately 1.9 percent of fugitive, vented and incremental \5\
combustion emissions from the petroleum and natural gas industry, an
existing activity data collection system already exists that can
readily be used to calculate GHG emissions (i.e., GOADS) and major
fugitive and vented emissions sources can be characterized by an
existing reasonable methodology which will minimize incremental burden
for reporters. This is consistent with comments received on the initial
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The denominator includes total fugitive and vented
emissions, as well as any additional combustion related emissions
that will be required to be reported by the petroleum and natural
gas industry and that wasn't already covered in the final MRR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onshore Natural Gas Processing
Natural gas processing facilities remove hydrocarbon and water
liquids and various other constituents (e.g., hydrogen sulfide, carbon
dioxide, helium, nitrogen, and hydrocarbons heavier than methane) from
the produced natural gas. The resulting ``pipeline quality'' natural
gas is transported to transmission pipelines. Natural gas processing
facilities also include gathering/boosting stations that dehydrate and
compress natural gas to be sent to natural gas processing facilities or
directly to natural gas transmission or distribution systems.
Compressors are used within gathering/boosting stations to adequately
pressurize the natural gas so that it can be transported to natural gas
processing, transmission, and distribution facilities through gathering
pipelines. In addition, compressors at natural gas processing
facilities are used to boost natural gas pressure so that it can pass
through all of the processes and into the high-pressure transmission
pipelines.
Vented and fugitive CH4 emissions from reciprocating and
centrifugal compressors, including centrifugal compressor wet and dry
seals, wet seal oil degassing vents, reciprocating compressor rod
packing vents, and all
[[Page 18616]]
other compressor emissions, are the primary CH4 emission
sources from this segment. The majority of vented CO2
emissions come from acid gas removal vent stacks, which are designed to
remove CO2 and hydrogen sulfide, when present, from natural
gas. While these are the major emissions sources in natural gas
processing facilities, other potential sources such as dehydrator vent
stacks, piping connectors, open-ended vent and drain lines and
gathering pipelines associated with the processing plant would also
need to be reported under the proposed supplemental rule.
Onshore natural gas processing facilities are proposed for
inclusion due to the fact that these operations represent a significant
emissions source, approximately 8 percent of fugitive, vented and
incremental \6\ combustion emissions from the natural gas segment,
methods are available to estimate emissions, and there are a reasonable
number of reporters. Most natural gas processing facilities proposed
for inclusion in this supplemental proposed rulemaking would already be
required to report under subpart C and/or subpart NN of the Final MRR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The denominator includes total fugitive and vented
emissions, as well as any additional combustion related emissions
that will be required to be reported by the petroleum and natural
gas industry and that wasn't already covered in the final MRR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Compression Facilities and Underground
Natural Gas Storage
Natural gas transmission compression facilities move natural gas
throughout the U.S. natural gas transmission system. Natural gas is
also injected and stored in underground formations during periods of
low demand (e.g., spring or fall) and withdrawn, processed, and
distributed during periods of high demand (e.g., winter or summer).
Storage compressor stations are dedicated to gas injection and
extraction at underground natural gas storage facilities.
Vented and fugitive CH4 emissions from reciprocating and
centrifugal compressors, including compressor and station blowdowns,
centrifugal compressor wet and dry seals, wet seal oil degassing vents,
reciprocating compressor rod packing vents, unit isolation valves,
blowdown valves, compressor scrubber dump valves, gas pneumatic
continuous bleed devices and all other compressor fugitive emissions,
are the primary CH4 emission source from natural gas
transmission compression stations and underground natural gas storage
facilities. Dehydrators are also a significant source of CH4
emissions from underground natural gas storage facilities. While these
are the major emissions sources in natural gas transmission, other
potential sources include, but are not limited to, condensate (water
and hydrocarbon) tanks, open-ended lines and valve stem seals.
Condensate tank vents in transmission can be a significant source of
emissions from malfunctioning compressor scrubber dump valves and will
require detection of such leakage by an optical imaging instrument and
direct measurement where found present.
Onshore natural gas transmission compression facilities and
underground natural gas storage facilities are proposed for inclusion
due to the fact that these operations represent significant sources of
fugitive, vented and incremental \7\ combustion emissions, 15 and 2
percent, respectively, methods are available to estimate emissions, and
there are a reasonable number of reporters. Further, this segment was
included in the initial proposed rule and EPA has made improvements to
the proposal based on comments received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The denominator includes total fugitive and vented
emissions, as well as any additional combustion related emissions
that will be required to be reported by the petroleum and natural
gas industry and that wasn't already covered in the final MRR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG Import