Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Definitions of Low Pressure Gas Well and Storage Vessel, 48262-48268 [2015-19733]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
48262
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 13, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
Subpart K—Florida
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
2. Section 52.520(c) is amended under
Chapter 62–252 by:
■ a. Removing the entries for ‘‘62–252–
.100,’’ ‘‘62–252–.200,’’ ‘‘62–252–.400,’’
‘‘62–252–.500,’’ ‘‘62–252–.800’’, and
‘‘62–252–.900’’ and
■ b. Revising the entry for ‘‘62–252–
.300.’’
The revision reads as follows:
■
Dated: July 30, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
§ 52.520
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA REGULATIONS
State citation
(Section)
Title/subject
*
62–252.300 ...............
*
*
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Stage I
Vapor Recovery.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–19721 Filed 8–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505; FRL–9931–76–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AS49
Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Definitions
of Low Pressure Gas Well and Storage
Vessel
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action finalizes
amendments to new source performance
standards (NSPS) for the Oil and
Natural Gas Sector. On March 23, 2015,
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) re-proposed its definition of ‘‘low
pressure gas well’’ for notice and
comment to correct a procedural defect
with its prior rulemaking that included
this definition. The EPA also proposed
to amend the NSPS to remove
provisions concerning storage vessels
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
State effective
date
Jkt 235001
*
5/1/2015
*
EPA approval date
*
8/12/2015 [Insert
publication].
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
*
citation
*
connected or installed in parallel and to
revise the definition of ‘‘storage vessel.’’
This action finalizes the definition of
‘‘low pressure gas well’’ and the
amendments to the storage vessel
provisions.
DATES: The final rule is effective on
August 12, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this rulemaking under Docket
ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505.
All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room 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
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
*
of
*
*
number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566–1742.
For
further information on this action,
contact Mr. Matthew Witosky, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (E143–
05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number:
(919) 541–2865; facsimile number: (919)
541–3470; email address:
witosky.matthew@epa.gov. For further
information on the EPA’s Oil and
Natural Gas Sector regulatory program
for air, contact Mr. Bruce Moore, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (E143–
05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number:
(919) 541–5460; facsimile number: (919)
541–3470; email address: moore.bruce@
epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this reconsideration action
apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially
affected by this action include:
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Category
NAICS
code 1
Industry .......................................................................................................
211111
211112
221210
486110
486210
........................
........................
Federal government ...................................................................................
State/local/tribal government ......................................................................
1 North
Examples of regulated entities
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction.
Natural Gas Extraction.
Natural Gas Distribution.
Pipeline Distribution of Crude Oil.
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.
Not affected.
Not affected.
American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
either the air permitting authority for
the entity or your EPA regional
representative as listed in 40 CFR 60.4
(General Provisions).
B. How do I obtain a copy of this
document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this action
is available on the World Wide Web
(WWW). Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, a copy of this
proposed action will be posted at the
following address: https://www.epa.gov/
airquality/oilandgas/actions.html.
C. Judicial Review
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
48263
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this
final rule is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by October 13, 2015.
Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA,
only an objection to this final rule that
was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review.
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the
CAA, the requirements established in
this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements. Section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides
that ‘‘[o]nly an objection to a rule or
procedure which was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period
for public comment (including any
public hearing) may be raised during
judicial review.’’ This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene
a proceeding for reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f
the person raising an objection can
demonstrate to the EPA that it was
impracticable to raise such objection
within the period for public comment
(but within the time specified for
judicial review) and if such objection is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
of central relevance to the outcome of
the rule.’’ Any person seeking to make
such a demonstration to us should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC West
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to
both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. Low Pressure Gas Wells
On August 23, 2011 (76 FR 52758),
the EPA proposed the Oil and Natural
Gas Sector NSPS (40 CFR part 60,
subpart OOOO). Among the elements of
the proposed rule were provisions for
reduced emission completion (REC),
also known as ‘‘green completion’’ of
hydraulically fractured gas wells. In the
proposal, the EPA solicited comment on
situations where conducting a REC
would be infeasible. Several
commenters highlighted technical
issues that prevent the implementation
of a REC on what they referred to as
‘‘low pressure’’ gas wells because of the
lack of the necessary reservoir pressure
to flow at rates appropriate for the
transportation of solids and liquids from
a hydraulically fractured gas well
completion against additional
backpressure which would be caused by
the REC equipment. Based on our
analysis of the public comments
received, we determined that there are
certain wells where a REC is technically
infeasible because of the characteristics
of the reservoir and the well depth that
will not allow the flowback to overcome
the gathering system pressure due to the
additional backpressure imposed by the
REC surface equipment.
On August 16, 2012, the EPA
published the final NSPS (77 FR 49490).
Under the 2012 NSPS, a REC is not
required for well completions of low
pressure gas wells. Rather, the 2012
final NSPS requires at 40 CFR 60.5375(f)
that well completions of low pressure
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
gas wells using hydraulic fracturing
meet the requirements for combustion of
flowback emissions and to the general
duty to safely maximize resource
recovery and minimize releases to the
atmosphere required under 40 CFR
60.5375(a)(4).
The 2012 NSPS includes a definition
of ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ that is based
on a mathematical formula that takes
into account a well’s depth, reservoir
pressure, and flow line pressure.
Section 60.5430 defines low pressure
gas well as ‘‘a well with reservoir
pressure and vertical well depth such
that 0.445 times the reservoir pressure
(in psia) minus 0.038 times the vertical
well depth (in feet) minus 67.578 psia
is less than the flow line pressure at the
sales meter.’’
Following publication of the 2012
NSPS, a group of petitioners, led by the
Independent Petroleum Association of
America (IPAA), representing
independent oil and natural gas owners
and operators, submitted a joint petition
for administrative reconsideration of the
rule. The petitioners questioned the
technical merits of the low pressure
well definition and asserted that the
public had not had an opportunity to
comment on the definition because it
was added in the final rule.1
On March 24, 2014, the petitioners
submitted to the EPA a suggested
alternative definition 2 for
consideration. The petitioners’
definition is based on the fresh water
hydrostatic gradient of 0.433 pounds per
square inch per foot (psi/ft). The
petitioners assert that this approach is
straightforward and has been recognized
for many years in the oil and natural gas
industry and by governmental agencies
and professional organizations. As
expressed in the paper submitted by the
1 Letter from James D. Elliott, Spilman, Thomas
& Battle PLLC, to Lisa P. Jackson, EPA
Administrator, October 15, 2012; Petition for
Administrative Reconsideration of Final Rule ‘‘Oil
and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance
Standards and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews,’’ 77 FR 49490
(August 16, 2012).
2 Email from James D. Elliott, Spilman, Thomas
& Battle PLLC, to Bruce Moore, EPA, March 24,
2014.
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
48264
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
petitioners, the alternative definition for
consideration by the EPA, as stated by
the petitioners, would be ‘‘a well where
the field pressure is less than 0.433
times the vertical depth of the deepest
target reservoir and the flow-back period
will be less than three days in
duration.’’
On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed
clarifying amendments to the gas well
completion provisions of the NSPS. In
the July proposal, we re-proposed the
definition of ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ for
notice and comment. We also discussed
the alternative definition provided by
the IPAA. Specifically, we expressed
concern that the IPAA alternative
definition is too simplistic and may not
adequately account for the parameters
that must be considered when
determining whether a REC would be
feasible for a given hydraulically
fractured gas well. We expressed
disagreement with the petitioners’
assertion that the EPA definition is too
complicated and that it would pose
difficulty or hardship for smaller
operators. However, we agreed with the
petitioners that the public should have
been provided an opportunity to
comment on the 2012 definition of ‘‘low
pressure gas well,’’ and we, therefore,
re-proposed the 2012 definition for
notice and comment. In addition, we
solicited comment on the alternative
definition suggested by the petitioners.
On August 18, 2014, prior to the close
of the public comment period for the
July 17, 2014, proposal, the IPAA, on
behalf of the independent oil and
natural gas owner and operator
petitioners, submitted a comment to the
EPA via the email address to the Air and
Radiation Docket provided in the
proposed rule.
The EPA published final amendments
in the Federal Register at 79 FR 79018
on December 31, 2014, which finalized
the definition of ‘‘low pressure gas
well’’ unchanged from the 2012
definition. Subsequent to the December
31, 2014, publication of the final
amendments, the EPA became aware
that the comment submitted by the
IPAA was not made part of the record
in the docket and, thus, was not
available to be considered by the EPA in
its decision-making process prior to
finalizing the amendments. On March
23, 2015 (80 FR 15180), the EPA reproposed the definition of ‘‘low
pressure gas well’’, and took comment
on IPAA’s alternative definition to
correct the procedural defect.
B. Storage Vessels Connected in Parallel
In the December 31, 2014, final rule,
the EPA finalized amendments to the
NSPS to address, among other issues,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
the affected facility status of storage
vessel affected facilities. The final
action included amendments related to
storage vessels ‘‘connected in parallel’’
or ‘‘installed in parallel.’’ As we
explained in the final rule preamble (79
FR 79027), ‘‘Although we believe it is an
unlikely occurrence, we note that, when
two or more storage vessels receive
liquids in parallel, the total throughput
is shared between or among the parallel
vessels and, in turn, this causes the PTE
of each vessel to be a fraction of the total
PTE.’’ To address such isolated
occurrences where storage vessels are
installed or connected to reduce the
potential to emit (PTE) and, therefore,
avoid being subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart OOOO, we amended the NSPS
to address situations in which two or
more storage vessels could be installed
or connected in parallel which could, in
some cases, lower the PTE of the
individual storage vessels to levels
below the 6 tons per year (tpy)
applicability threshold provided in 40
CFR 60.5365(e). Specifically, we
amended 40 CFR 60.5365(e)(4) to
provide that a storage vessel that is
being placed into service, and is
connected in parallel with a storage
vessel affected facility, is immediately
subject to the same requirements as the
affected facility with which it is being
connected in parallel. We also amended
the definitions for ‘‘returned to service’’
and ‘‘storage vessel’’ in 40 CFR 60.5430
to provide that two or more storage
vessels connected in parallel are
considered equivalent to a single storage
vessel with throughput equal to the total
throughput of the storage vessels
connected in parallel.
Following publication of the
December 2014 final rule, we became
aware that the terms ‘‘connected in
parallel’’ and ‘‘installed in parallel’’
inadvertently included storage vessels
beyond those we attempted to address
as described above. On February 19,
2015, the Gas Processors Association
(GPA) submitted a petition for
administrative reconsideration of the
December 31, 2014, amendments. The
GPA asserted that ‘‘it is quite common
for multiple storage vessels to be
situated next to each other and
connected in parallel. Sometimes the
storage vessels are operated in parallel,
sometimes they are operated in series,
and sometimes they are operated one-ata-time with the connecting valves
closed.’’ The GPA further asserted that
this configuration has existed for
decades and that ‘‘this language
potentially has large impacts to how our
members evaluate affected facility
status.’’ For the reasons discussed
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
above, we proposed to remove the
regulatory provisions relative to storage
vessels ‘‘installed in parallel’’ or
‘‘connected in parallel.’’
III. Summary of Final Amendments
This section presents a summary of
the provisions of the final action with
brief explanations where appropriate. In
some cases, additional detailed
discussions are provided in section IV
and V of this preamble, as well as the
Response to Comment document. The
final amendments include revisions to
certain reconsidered aspects of the 2012
NSPS as follows: (1) Definition of ‘‘low
pressure gas well’’; (2) definition of
‘‘returned to service’’; (3) definition of
‘‘storage vessel’’; (4) revision of 40 CFR
60.5365(e)(4) to remove the phrases ‘‘or
is installed in parallel with any storage
vessel affected facility,’’ and ‘‘or with
which it is installed in parallel.’’
A. Low Pressure Gas Wells
The EPA is finalizing its definition of
‘‘low pressure gas well.’’ For the
purposes of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
OOOO, our definition of low pressure
gas well is for a singular purpose—to
identify the wells that cannot
implement a REC because of a lack of
necessary reservoir pressure to flow gas
at rates appropriate for the
transportation of solids and liquids from
a hydraulically fractured gas well
against additional backpressure that
would be caused by the REC equipment,
thereby making a REC infeasible (80 FR
15182).
In response to comments, we are
amending the definition of ‘‘low
pressure gas well’’ in this final action by
changing ‘‘vertical depth’’ to ‘‘true
vertical depth.’’ This change more
accurately reflects our intent when
formulating the definition of ‘‘low
pressure gas well.’’
B. Storage Vessels Connected in Parallel
The EPA is revising the definition of
‘‘storage vessel’’ to remove references to
‘‘connected in parallel’’ and ‘‘installed
in parallel’’ from the current definition,
and making associated changes to 40
CFR 60.5365(e)(4). We are not making
any changes to the proposed definition
of ‘‘storage vessel.’’
IV. Significant Changes Since Proposal
There is only one significant change
since proposal, which is to refer to ‘‘true
vertical depth’’ (instead of ‘‘vertical
depth’’) in the definition of ‘‘low
pressure gas well.’’ Several commenters
took issue that the proposal definition of
‘‘low pressure gas well’’ does not take
into account the ‘‘true vertical depth’’ of
the well, as the ‘‘vertical depth’’ of the
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
well can overstate actual vertical depth
because well bores may not be
absolutely vertical. The commenters
concluded that measured vertical depth
often exceeds the true vertical depth of
a well bore. The commenters believe
this is an important distinction,
especially for directional or horizontal
wells, that should be clarified in the
definition.
We agree with the commenters that
‘‘true vertical depth’’ is more accurate
terminology that better represents our
intent. In light of the above
considerations, we are amending the
definition of ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ in
this action by changing ‘‘vertical depth’’
to ‘‘true vertical depth.’’
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
V. Summary of Significant Comments
and Responses
This section summarizes the
significant comments on our proposed
amendments and our responses.
A. Definition of ‘‘Low Pressure Gas
Well’’
Comment: One commenter noted that
the EPA’s defense of the low pressure
well definition focuses on the level of
burden the definition imposes on the
industry. The commenter contended
that the EPA is missing the point with
this response. The commenter
contended that their concern is not the
hardship imposed by the calculation
required by the definition but rather that
the definition does not accurately depict
what historically has been considered to
be a low pressure gas well. Thus,
according to the commenter, the current
definition would require RECs to be
performed on marginally cost-effective
wells.
Response: In the 2012 rulemaking,
EPA concluded that the BSER for well
completion was a combination of REC
and combustion; however, in response
to comment that REC is not technically
feasible for ‘‘low pressure gas wells’’
due to the inability of such wells to
attain a gas velocity sufficient to clean
up the well when flowing against the
backpressure imposed by the surface
equipment and the flow line pressure,
the EPA exempted ‘‘low pressure gas
wells’’ from REC in the 2012 NSPS. The
EPA subsequently re-proposed its ‘‘low
pressure gas well’’ definition in
response to an administrative petition
that notice or an opportunity to
comment was not provided for the
EPA’s 2012 definition of ‘‘low pressure
gas well.’’ However, rather than
commenting on parameters for defining
‘‘technical infeasibility’’ to implement
REC, the commenter asks the EPA to
consider other burdens and hardships in
defining ‘‘low pressure wells.’’ In the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
2015 re-proposal of the ‘‘low pressure
gas well’’ definition, the EPA did not
propose or otherwise contempt
exempting well completions from
performing REC for reasons beyond
technical infeasibility. This request is
thus beyond the purpose and scope of
this re-proposal, which is to provide a
low pressure well definition that would
accurately describe wells for which REC
is technically infeasible due to low
pressure and, therefore, exempt from the
REC requirements under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart OOOO.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed support for the alternative
definition of ‘‘low pressure gas well’’
provided by IPAA as being more
representative of current industry
practice of defining these wells.
According to one commenter, the
alternative definition is based on the
fresh water gradient, is widely used in
industry, and appropriately describes
the well conditions where installation of
REC equipment is impractical. The
commenter stated that the fresh water
gradient (i.e., 0.433 psi/ft or 8.33
pounds(lbs)/gallon (gal) × 0.052 × True
Vertical Depth (TVD)) represents
normally pressured wells based on the
hydrostatic overhead pressure of fresh
water that increases linearly with TVD.
If reservoir pressure is less than the
hydrostatic pressure of water, the well
will not flow on its own because of the
overhead pressure of fracture fluids in
the wellbore that will be higher than the
reservoir pressure which may make REC
equipment impractical. The commenter
added that whether a well’s productive
reservoir pressure is above or below the
water gradient may be readily confirmed
by reading offset reservoir pressure data
in the development field or by
evaluating certain wireline well logs
that may be run after drilling a well
before well completion begins.
Another commenter stated that the
EPA’s current definition does not
accurately define what industry has
historically defined and recognized as a
low pressure well. According to the
commenter, because EPA’s definition
does not accurately delineate low
pressure wells, the current definition
will subject a subset of wells to RECs
where the operation of a separator is not
physically possible, thereby making the
wells uneconomical as a result of being
subject to REC requirements. The
commenter included a table showing
the values calculated using the EPA’s
definition for various well depths and
flow line pressures. According to the
commenter, the alternate definition
would classify all of the values in the
table as a low pressure well, while the
EPA’s definition would only consider
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48265
about a quarter of the wells as low
pressure.
The commenter further stated that the
permeability of the reservoir and other
reservoir characteristics play a critical
role in determining when a well is low
pressure well or under-pressured. In
addition to overcoming the hydrostatic
pressure and sale line pressure, the
separator necessary for the REC adds to
the pressure which must be overcome
for gas to flow from the reservoir. The
commenter stated that the separator
pressure is arguably the controlling
parameter on when a REC is feasible
versus the sales line pressure. Unlike
the sales line pressure, which is easily
known, the commenter contended that
the separator pressure can vary greatly
depending on gas and liquid rates,
liquid composition, and equipment
limitations. The commenter pointed out
that the EPA’s definition does not take
separator pressure into account, thereby
making the definition overly
conservative. The commenter admitted
that the alternative definition does not
contain an adjustment for separator
pressure either, but the definition is
more accurate and is inclusive of wells
recognized by the industry as ‘‘low
pressure.’’
In addition to the pressure associated
with the separator, the commenter
stated that in order for a separator to
function, there must be a sufficient
volume of gas (at appropriate pressure)
to lift the associated liquids and
overcome the pressure of the separator.
The commenter added that if that gas
rate is not achieved, the well will load
up and a REC will not be possible.
According to the commenter, the gas
rate necessary for a REC varies based on
reservoir pressure and casing/tubing
diameter. The commenter provided a
graph of Coleman curves to illustrate
this point, which illustrates that as the
pressure and casing diameter increase,
so must the gas rate.
Response: The EPA believes that the
alternative definition of ‘‘low pressure
gas well,’’ based only on fresh water
gradient, may not adequately account
for the parameters that must be taken
into account when determining whether
a REC would be feasible for a given
hydraulically fractured gas well. We
believe that, to determine whether the
flowback gas has sufficient pressure to
flow into a flow line, it is necessary to
account for reservoir pressure, well
depth, and flow line pressure. In
addition, it is important for any such
determination to take into account
pressure losses in the surface equipment
used to perform the REC. The EPA’s
definition in the proposed rule was
developed to account for these factors.
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
48266
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
The EPA agrees that there must be a
sufficient volumetric flow of gas (caused
by adequate reservoir pressure) to lift
the associated liquids and overcome the
pressure of the separator, enabling the
gas to be collected (i.e., enter the flow
line). However, the EPA disagrees that
the current definition, which we reproposed for notice and comment, does
not take into account the additional
backpressure caused by the REC
equipment, including a separator. The
model uses an energy balance to
determine the pressure drop based on
the calculated velocity, and then the
model accounts for pressure losses
caused by REC equipment, including
the separator. The result of the model is
a prediction of the pressure of the
flowback gas immediately before it
enters the flow line. The result can be
compared to the actual flow line
pressure available to the well. For wells
with insufficient pressure to produce
into the flow line, as predicted using the
EPA equation, combustion must be used
to control emissions. For wells with
sufficient pressure to produce into the
flow line, gas capture in combination
with combustion must be used to
control emissions.
According to some of the commenters,
the EPA’s definition of low pressure gas
well should be revised because it does
not comport with what the industry has
historically considered to be a low
pressure gas well. We are not making a
determination on the similarity of the
two definitions because we do not
believe that the two must be the same
for purposes of the Oil and Gas NSPS.
The EPA has provided a definition of
‘‘low pressure gas well’’ in the NSPS in
order to designate a class of wells where
a REC is not technically feasible. Our
definition of ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ in
the NSPS is for a singular purpose—to
identify the wells that cannot
implement a REC because of a lack of
necessary reservoir pressure to flow gas
at rates appropriate for the
transportation of solids and liquids from
a hydraulically fractured gas well
during flowback against additional
backpressure which would be caused by
the REC equipment, thereby making a
REC technically infeasible (80 FR
15182). To the extent that the industry
definition is different from the EPA
definition, the industry likely defines a
particular well as being low pressure for
a variety of reasons.3 As such, it is not
3 ‘‘USEPA’s proposed low pressure well
definition forces controls on a segment of the
industry that have no or minimal beneficial impact
on the environment while imposing significant
additional costs that will make drilling and
operating such wells uneconomical.’’ (James Elliott,
Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, on behalf of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
clear that a REC is not technically
infeasible for all of the wells that the
industry has historically considered to
be ‘‘low pressure wells.’’
B. Revisions to the Alternate Definition
Comment: One commenter stated that
the alternative definition should also be
clarified to state ‘‘where field reservoir
pressure is less than 0.433 times the true
vertical depth of the reservoir.’’
According to the commenter, referring
to reservoir pressure adds clarity and
true vertical depth is a well-known
standard term in the industry to
differentiate from ‘‘measured depth,’’
where measured depth is the length of
the well. The commenters stated this is
an important distinction, especially for
directional or horizontal wells, that
should be clarified in the low pressure
well definition.
Another commenter similarly
suggested that instead of defining the
term ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ in terms
of the ‘‘vertical depth’’ of the deepest
target reservoir, it should instead by
defined in terms of the ‘‘true vertical
depth.’’ The commenter cited to the
Schlumberger online Oil Field Glossary,
which defines ‘‘true vertical depth’’ as
follows:
The vertical distance from a point in
the well (usually the current or final
depth) to a point at the surface, usually
the elevation of the rotary kelly bushing
(RKB). This is one of two primary depth
measurements used by the drillers, the
other being measured depth. TVD is
important in determining bottomhole
pressures, which are caused in part by
the hydrostatic head of fluid in the
wellbore. For this calculation, measured
depth is irrelevant and TVD must be
used. For most other operations, the
driller is interested in the length of the
hole or how much pipe will fit into the
hole. For those measurements,
measured depth, not TVD, is used.
While the drilling crew should be
careful to designate which measurement
they are referring to, if no designation is
used, they are usually referring to
measured depth. Note that measured
depth, due to intentional or
unintentional curves in the wellbore, is
always longer than true vertical depth.
The commenter stated that it would
be better to use ‘‘true vertical depth’’
because the measured vertical depth can
overstate actual vertical depth because
well bores may not be absolutely
vertical. Thus, measured vertical depth
often exceeds the true vertical depth of
a well bore.
Independent Petroleum Association of America et
al., August 8, 2014)
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
One commenter stated that the IPAA’s
proposed definition for ‘‘low pressure
well’’ was based on the weight of fresh
water (8.33 lbs/gal) which is stacked on
top of itself, and is known as hydrostatic
pressure. Converting the density of fresh
water to a pressure gradient results in
8.33 lb/gal being equal to 0.433 psi/ft.
Therefore, the pressure of fresh water in
the well bore is 0.433 psi/ft times the
vertical well depth.
The commenter added that in reality,
the fluid flowing to the surface could be
fresh water, re-used hydraulic fracturing
water, re-used, produced water, or a
mixture. Additionally, in the beginning
of the operation, the commenter stated
that initial fluids flowing to the surface
are essentially the fracturing fluids put
down hole. At the end of the operation,
the fluids flowing to the surface will
mainly consist of reservoir fluids, and
the water will be more of a brine water
and not fresh water. The commenter
added that brine water has a greater
density, and more reservoir pressure
will be required to lift the fluid to the
surface. The commenter contended that
the use of a fresh water gradient of 0.433
psi/ft should be used to keep the
definition conservative and simple.
As an alternative, or in addition, to a
fresh water gradient, the commenter
recommended that the density of brine
water influenced by sand or proppant
should be used to more accurately
reflect the pressure of the water column
in the well bore. The commenter
pointed out that the EPA appears to
have utilized a gradient of 0.4645 psi/
ft in the ‘‘Lessons Learned from Natural
Gas STAR Partners; Reduced Emissions
Completions for Hydraulically
Fractured Natural Gas Wells’’ paper
developed as a part of the EPA’s Natural
Gas STAR Program. The commenter
stated that this is evidenced by the
gradients listed in Exhibit 5 of the
paper. Additionally, to perform a REC,
the commenter contended that the
downhole reservoir pressure must be
sufficient enough to lift the hydraulic
fracturing fluid to the surface and
through the separation equipment and
piping, with the resulting gas still
having enough backpressure for it to get
into the natural gas gathering line.
According to the commenter, to
combust flowback emissions the
downhole reservoir pressure must be
sufficient enough to lift the hydraulic
fracturing fluid to the surface and
through the separation equipment and
piping, with the resulting gas still
having enough backpressure to flow to
a flare or enclosed combustion device.
To reflect these realities, the
commenter proposed that no emission
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
control be required when the following
scenario exists:
A well where the reservoir pressure is less
than 0.4645 times the vertical depth of the
deepest target reservoir.
At reservoir pressures below this
value, the commenter contends that
insufficient pressure exists for any gas
to flow to a flare, enclosed combustion
device or the process. Consequently, the
commenter proposes that combustion
through a flare or enclosed combustion
device be required when the following
scenario exists:
A well where the reservoir pressure is less
than 0.4645 times the vertical depth of the
deepest target reservoir plus the gathering or
sales line pressure.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
At reservoir pressures less than the
sum of the water column pressure and
the sales line pressure, the commenter
contended that the recovered gas will
not naturally flow into the sales line.
The commenter stated that the proposed
rule does not require compression of
recovered gas into the sales line. The
commenter further states that the EPA
has recognized this type of simpler
approach in estimating the level of
pressure necessary for recovered gas to
flow into a gathering or sales line in
their Gas STAR document cited above.
In this Gas STAR paper, a table (Exhibit
5) is provided that shows the pressures
necessary for various well depths. For
instance, the commenter pointed out
that the document indicates that the
reservoir pressure necessary to flow
recovered gas into a sales line for a
10,000-foot well would be 4,645 psig
plus the sales line pressure.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that ‘‘true vertical depth’’ is
more accurate terminology that better
represents our intent. Although we are
not adopting the alternative definitions
for the reasons presented above, we are
amending the current definition of low
pressure gas well to include ‘‘true
vertical depth.’’
C. Storage Vessel Requirements
Comment: One commenter
acknowledged the EPA’s proposal to
remove provisions relating to storage
vessels ‘‘installed in parallel’’ or
‘‘connected in parallel’’ because these
provisions ‘‘inadvertently’’
encompassed storage vessels the Agency
did not intend to address. However, the
commenter contended that the EPA
does not identify those vessels that it
believes were inadvertently covered in
the December 2014 rule, nor does it
propose alternative regulatory language
that would ensure adequate control
measures for vessels connected or
installed in parallel that were intended
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
to be covered under the December 2014
rule.
Given that storage vessels, including
those installed or connected in parallel,
can be significant sources of emissions,
the commenter opposed the EPA’s
proposal to simply remove any
provisions addressing these vessels.
Instead of removing all provisions
regarding vessels installed or connected
in parallel, as the Agency proposed, the
commenter urged the EPA to instead
clarify its existing requirements for such
vessels. The commenter suggested that
the EPA could, for instance, clarify that
pollution control measures apply to
storage vessels operated in parallel in
the relevant regulatory provisions
addressing storage vessel affected
facilities and the definitions of
‘‘returned to service’’ and ‘‘storage
vessel.’’
Response: The change to the
definition of ‘‘storage vessel’’ is
intended to preserve the original basis
on individual storage vessels to
determine affected facility status, while
addressing the potential situation where
the flow of crude oil, condensate,
intermediate hydrocarbon liquids, or
produced water is divided into two or
more tanks operated in parallel (i.e.,
sharing the emissions at the correlated
fraction of what a single tank would
emit). Through comments submitted on
the March 2015 proposed rule, the
public has informed us that many
storage vessels that are configured in
parallel may not be operated or
constructed to divide their potential to
emit continuously, if ever. The EPA has
now reconsidered our attempt to
include storage vessels connected in
parallel to address the specific situation
resulting in circumvention. We believe
that we do not have sufficient data to
evaluate the scope of storage vessels that
would fall under the amended
definition and for which we did not
intend to cover.
We believe that we have sufficient
provisions under the General Provisions
at 40 CFR 60.12 ‘‘Circumvention’’ to
address the specific situation where
storage vessels are divided into smaller
tanks to avoid applicability of the rule
and which was our intent with the
previous amended definition. Therefore,
we do not believe that our reverting to
the prior definition of ‘‘storage vessel’’
will affect our ability to ensure control
of these storage vessels. Consequently,
as proposed, we are finalizing the
removal of provisions made in the 2014
amendment relating to storage vessels
‘‘installed in parallel’’ or ‘‘connected in
parallel.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48267
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA. OMB has previously approved the
information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations
and has assigned OMB control number
2060–0673. This action does not change
the information collection requirements
previously finalized and, as a result,
does not impose any additional burden
on industry.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. This action is a reconsideration
of an existing rule and imposes no new
impacts or costs.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector.
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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. This action is a
reconsideration of an existing rule and
imposes no new impacts or costs. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
48268
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or
environmental risk addressed by this
action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low-income, or indigenous
populations because it does not affect
the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment. This
action is a reconsideration of an existing
rule and imposes no new impacts or
costs.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping.
Dated: July 31, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart OOOO—Standards of
Performance for Crude Oil and Natural
Gas Production, Transmission, and
Distribution
2. Section 60.5365(e)(4) is revised to
read as follows:
■
§ 60.5365
Am I subject to this subpart?
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(4) For each new, reconstructed, or
modified storage vessel with startup,
startup of production, or which is
returned to service, affected facility
status is determined as follows: If a
storage vessel is reconnected to the
original source of liquids or is used to
replace any storage vessel affected
facility, it is a storage vessel affected
facility subject to the same requirements
as before being removed from service, or
applicable to the storage vessel affected
facility being replaced, immediately
upon startup, startup of production, or
return to service.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 60.5430 is amended by
revising the definitions for ‘‘Low
pressure gas well,’’ ‘‘Returned to
service,’’ and the first three sentences in
the introductory text of ‘‘Storage vessel’’
to read as follows:
§ 60.5430
subpart?
What definitions apply to this
*
*
*
*
*
Low pressure gas well means a well
with reservoir pressure and vertical well
depth such that 0.445 times the
reservoir pressure (in psia) minus 0.038
times the true vertical well depth (in
feet) minus 67.578 psia is less than the
flow line pressure at the sales meter.
*
*
*
*
*
Returned to service means that a
Group 1 or Group 2 storage vessel
affected facility that was removed from
service has been:
(1) Reconnected to the original source
of liquids or has been used to replace
any storage vessel affected facility; or
(2) Installed in any location covered
by this subpart and introduced with
crude oil, condensate, intermediate
hydrocarbon liquids or produced water.
*
*
*
*
*
Storage vessel means a tank or other
vessel that contains an accumulation of
crude oil, condensate, intermediate
hydrocarbon liquids, or produced water,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and that is constructed primarily of
nonearthen materials (such as wood,
concrete, steel, fiberglass, or plastic)
which provide structural support. A
well completion vessel that receives
recovered liquids from a well after
startup of production following
flowback for a period which exceeds 60
days is considered a storage vessel
under this subpart. A tank or other
vessel shall not be considered a storage
vessel if it has been removed from
service in accordance with the
requirements of § 60.5395(f) until such
time as such tank or other vessel has
been returned to service. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–19733 Filed 8–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
42 CFR Part 84
[Docket Number CDC–2015–0004; NIOSH–
280]
RIN 0920–AA60
Closed-Circuit Escape Respirators;
Extension of Transition Period
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In March 2012, the
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) published a final rule
establishing a new standard for the
certification of closed-circuit escape
respirators (CCERs) by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) within the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The new standard was originally
designed to take effect over a 3-year
transition period. HHS has determined
that extending the concluding date for
the transition is necessary to allow
sufficient time for respirator
manufacturers to meet the demands of
the mining, maritime, railroad and other
industries. Pursuant to this final action,
NIOSH extends the phase-in period
until 1 year after the date that the first
approval is granted to certain CCER
models.
SUMMARY:
This rule is effective on August
12, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst; 1090
Tusculum Avenue, MS: C–46,
Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855)
818–1629 (this is a toll-free number);
email NIOSHregs@cdc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 155 (Wednesday, August 12, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48262-48268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19733]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505; FRL-9931-76-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS49
Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Definitions of Low Pressure Gas Well
and Storage Vessel
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes amendments to new source performance
standards (NSPS) for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector. On March 23, 2015,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-proposed its definition of
``low pressure gas well'' for notice and comment to correct a
procedural defect with its prior rulemaking that included this
definition. The EPA also proposed to amend the NSPS to remove
provisions concerning storage vessels connected or installed in
parallel and to revise the definition of ``storage vessel.'' This
action finalizes the definition of ``low pressure gas well'' and the
amendments to the storage vessel provisions.
DATES: The final rule is effective on August 12, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. All documents in the docket are
listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this
action, contact Mr. Matthew Witosky, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (E143-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2865; facsimile number: (919) 541-
3470; email address: witosky.matthew@epa.gov. For further information
on the EPA's Oil and Natural Gas Sector regulatory program for air,
contact Mr. Bruce Moore, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number: (919) 541-5460; facsimile number: (919) 541-3470;
email address: moore.bruce@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this reconsideration action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action
include:
[[Page 48263]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code \1\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................... 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction.
211112 Natural Gas Extraction.
221210 Natural Gas Distribution.
486110 Pipeline Distribution of Crude Oil.
486210 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.
Federal government............ .............. Not affected.
State/local/tribal government. .............. Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting
authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed
in 40 CFR 60.4 (General Provisions).
B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the World Wide Web (WWW). Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed action will
be posted at the following address: https://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by October 13, 2015. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established in this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further
provides that ``[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
(including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.''
This section also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding
for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can
demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such
objection within the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. Low Pressure Gas Wells
On August 23, 2011 (76 FR 52758), the EPA proposed the Oil and
Natural Gas Sector NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO). Among the
elements of the proposed rule were provisions for reduced emission
completion (REC), also known as ``green completion'' of hydraulically
fractured gas wells. In the proposal, the EPA solicited comment on
situations where conducting a REC would be infeasible. Several
commenters highlighted technical issues that prevent the implementation
of a REC on what they referred to as ``low pressure'' gas wells because
of the lack of the necessary reservoir pressure to flow at rates
appropriate for the transportation of solids and liquids from a
hydraulically fractured gas well completion against additional
backpressure which would be caused by the REC equipment. Based on our
analysis of the public comments received, we determined that there are
certain wells where a REC is technically infeasible because of the
characteristics of the reservoir and the well depth that will not allow
the flowback to overcome the gathering system pressure due to the
additional backpressure imposed by the REC surface equipment.
On August 16, 2012, the EPA published the final NSPS (77 FR 49490).
Under the 2012 NSPS, a REC is not required for well completions of low
pressure gas wells. Rather, the 2012 final NSPS requires at 40 CFR
60.5375(f) that well completions of low pressure gas wells using
hydraulic fracturing meet the requirements for combustion of flowback
emissions and to the general duty to safely maximize resource recovery
and minimize releases to the atmosphere required under 40 CFR
60.5375(a)(4).
The 2012 NSPS includes a definition of ``low pressure gas well''
that is based on a mathematical formula that takes into account a
well's depth, reservoir pressure, and flow line pressure. Section
60.5430 defines low pressure gas well as ``a well with reservoir
pressure and vertical well depth such that 0.445 times the reservoir
pressure (in psia) minus 0.038 times the vertical well depth (in feet)
minus 67.578 psia is less than the flow line pressure at the sales
meter.''
Following publication of the 2012 NSPS, a group of petitioners, led
by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA),
representing independent oil and natural gas owners and operators,
submitted a joint petition for administrative reconsideration of the
rule. The petitioners questioned the technical merits of the low
pressure well definition and asserted that the public had not had an
opportunity to comment on the definition because it was added in the
final rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter from James D. Elliott, Spilman, Thomas & Battle PLLC,
to Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator, October 15, 2012; Petition
for Administrative Reconsideration of Final Rule ``Oil and Natural
Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews,'' 77 FR 49490
(August 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 24, 2014, the petitioners submitted to the EPA a suggested
alternative definition \2\ for consideration. The petitioners'
definition is based on the fresh water hydrostatic gradient of 0.433
pounds per square inch per foot (psi/ft). The petitioners assert that
this approach is straightforward and has been recognized for many years
in the oil and natural gas industry and by governmental agencies and
professional organizations. As expressed in the paper submitted by the
[[Page 48264]]
petitioners, the alternative definition for consideration by the EPA,
as stated by the petitioners, would be ``a well where the field
pressure is less than 0.433 times the vertical depth of the deepest
target reservoir and the flow-back period will be less than three days
in duration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Email from James D. Elliott, Spilman, Thomas & Battle PLLC,
to Bruce Moore, EPA, March 24, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed clarifying amendments to the gas
well completion provisions of the NSPS. In the July proposal, we re-
proposed the definition of ``low pressure gas well'' for notice and
comment. We also discussed the alternative definition provided by the
IPAA. Specifically, we expressed concern that the IPAA alternative
definition is too simplistic and may not adequately account for the
parameters that must be considered when determining whether a REC would
be feasible for a given hydraulically fractured gas well. We expressed
disagreement with the petitioners' assertion that the EPA definition is
too complicated and that it would pose difficulty or hardship for
smaller operators. However, we agreed with the petitioners that the
public should have been provided an opportunity to comment on the 2012
definition of ``low pressure gas well,'' and we, therefore, re-proposed
the 2012 definition for notice and comment. In addition, we solicited
comment on the alternative definition suggested by the petitioners.
On August 18, 2014, prior to the close of the public comment period
for the July 17, 2014, proposal, the IPAA, on behalf of the independent
oil and natural gas owner and operator petitioners, submitted a comment
to the EPA via the email address to the Air and Radiation Docket
provided in the proposed rule.
The EPA published final amendments in the Federal Register at 79 FR
79018 on December 31, 2014, which finalized the definition of ``low
pressure gas well'' unchanged from the 2012 definition. Subsequent to
the December 31, 2014, publication of the final amendments, the EPA
became aware that the comment submitted by the IPAA was not made part
of the record in the docket and, thus, was not available to be
considered by the EPA in its decision-making process prior to
finalizing the amendments. On March 23, 2015 (80 FR 15180), the EPA re-
proposed the definition of ``low pressure gas well'', and took comment
on IPAA's alternative definition to correct the procedural defect.
B. Storage Vessels Connected in Parallel
In the December 31, 2014, final rule, the EPA finalized amendments
to the NSPS to address, among other issues, the affected facility
status of storage vessel affected facilities. The final action included
amendments related to storage vessels ``connected in parallel'' or
``installed in parallel.'' As we explained in the final rule preamble
(79 FR 79027), ``Although we believe it is an unlikely occurrence, we
note that, when two or more storage vessels receive liquids in
parallel, the total throughput is shared between or among the parallel
vessels and, in turn, this causes the PTE of each vessel to be a
fraction of the total PTE.'' To address such isolated occurrences where
storage vessels are installed or connected to reduce the potential to
emit (PTE) and, therefore, avoid being subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart OOOO, we amended the NSPS to address situations in which two or
more storage vessels could be installed or connected in parallel which
could, in some cases, lower the PTE of the individual storage vessels
to levels below the 6 tons per year (tpy) applicability threshold
provided in 40 CFR 60.5365(e). Specifically, we amended 40 CFR
60.5365(e)(4) to provide that a storage vessel that is being placed
into service, and is connected in parallel with a storage vessel
affected facility, is immediately subject to the same requirements as
the affected facility with which it is being connected in parallel. We
also amended the definitions for ``returned to service'' and ``storage
vessel'' in 40 CFR 60.5430 to provide that two or more storage vessels
connected in parallel are considered equivalent to a single storage
vessel with throughput equal to the total throughput of the storage
vessels connected in parallel.
Following publication of the December 2014 final rule, we became
aware that the terms ``connected in parallel'' and ``installed in
parallel'' inadvertently included storage vessels beyond those we
attempted to address as described above. On February 19, 2015, the Gas
Processors Association (GPA) submitted a petition for administrative
reconsideration of the December 31, 2014, amendments. The GPA asserted
that ``it is quite common for multiple storage vessels to be situated
next to each other and connected in parallel. Sometimes the storage
vessels are operated in parallel, sometimes they are operated in
series, and sometimes they are operated one-at-a-time with the
connecting valves closed.'' The GPA further asserted that this
configuration has existed for decades and that ``this language
potentially has large impacts to how our members evaluate affected
facility status.'' For the reasons discussed above, we proposed to
remove the regulatory provisions relative to storage vessels
``installed in parallel'' or ``connected in parallel.''
III. Summary of Final Amendments
This section presents a summary of the provisions of the final
action with brief explanations where appropriate. In some cases,
additional detailed discussions are provided in section IV and V of
this preamble, as well as the Response to Comment document. The final
amendments include revisions to certain reconsidered aspects of the
2012 NSPS as follows: (1) Definition of ``low pressure gas well''; (2)
definition of ``returned to service''; (3) definition of ``storage
vessel''; (4) revision of 40 CFR 60.5365(e)(4) to remove the phrases
``or is installed in parallel with any storage vessel affected
facility,'' and ``or with which it is installed in parallel.''
A. Low Pressure Gas Wells
The EPA is finalizing its definition of ``low pressure gas well.''
For the purposes of 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO, our definition of low
pressure gas well is for a singular purpose--to identify the wells that
cannot implement a REC because of a lack of necessary reservoir
pressure to flow gas at rates appropriate for the transportation of
solids and liquids from a hydraulically fractured gas well against
additional backpressure that would be caused by the REC equipment,
thereby making a REC infeasible (80 FR 15182).
In response to comments, we are amending the definition of ``low
pressure gas well'' in this final action by changing ``vertical depth''
to ``true vertical depth.'' This change more accurately reflects our
intent when formulating the definition of ``low pressure gas well.''
B. Storage Vessels Connected in Parallel
The EPA is revising the definition of ``storage vessel'' to remove
references to ``connected in parallel'' and ``installed in parallel''
from the current definition, and making associated changes to 40 CFR
60.5365(e)(4). We are not making any changes to the proposed definition
of ``storage vessel.''
IV. Significant Changes Since Proposal
There is only one significant change since proposal, which is to
refer to ``true vertical depth'' (instead of ``vertical depth'') in the
definition of ``low pressure gas well.'' Several commenters took issue
that the proposal definition of ``low pressure gas well'' does not take
into account the ``true vertical depth'' of the well, as the ``vertical
depth'' of the
[[Page 48265]]
well can overstate actual vertical depth because well bores may not be
absolutely vertical. The commenters concluded that measured vertical
depth often exceeds the true vertical depth of a well bore. The
commenters believe this is an important distinction, especially for
directional or horizontal wells, that should be clarified in the
definition.
We agree with the commenters that ``true vertical depth'' is more
accurate terminology that better represents our intent. In light of the
above considerations, we are amending the definition of ``low pressure
gas well'' in this action by changing ``vertical depth'' to ``true
vertical depth.''
V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
This section summarizes the significant comments on our proposed
amendments and our responses.
A. Definition of ``Low Pressure Gas Well''
Comment: One commenter noted that the EPA's defense of the low
pressure well definition focuses on the level of burden the definition
imposes on the industry. The commenter contended that the EPA is
missing the point with this response. The commenter contended that
their concern is not the hardship imposed by the calculation required
by the definition but rather that the definition does not accurately
depict what historically has been considered to be a low pressure gas
well. Thus, according to the commenter, the current definition would
require RECs to be performed on marginally cost-effective wells.
Response: In the 2012 rulemaking, EPA concluded that the BSER for
well completion was a combination of REC and combustion; however, in
response to comment that REC is not technically feasible for ``low
pressure gas wells'' due to the inability of such wells to attain a gas
velocity sufficient to clean up the well when flowing against the
backpressure imposed by the surface equipment and the flow line
pressure, the EPA exempted ``low pressure gas wells'' from REC in the
2012 NSPS. The EPA subsequently re-proposed its ``low pressure gas
well'' definition in response to an administrative petition that notice
or an opportunity to comment was not provided for the EPA's 2012
definition of ``low pressure gas well.'' However, rather than
commenting on parameters for defining ``technical infeasibility'' to
implement REC, the commenter asks the EPA to consider other burdens and
hardships in defining ``low pressure wells.'' In the 2015 re-proposal
of the ``low pressure gas well'' definition, the EPA did not propose or
otherwise contempt exempting well completions from performing REC for
reasons beyond technical infeasibility. This request is thus beyond the
purpose and scope of this re-proposal, which is to provide a low
pressure well definition that would accurately describe wells for which
REC is technically infeasible due to low pressure and, therefore,
exempt from the REC requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO.
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for the alternative
definition of ``low pressure gas well'' provided by IPAA as being more
representative of current industry practice of defining these wells.
According to one commenter, the alternative definition is based on
the fresh water gradient, is widely used in industry, and appropriately
describes the well conditions where installation of REC equipment is
impractical. The commenter stated that the fresh water gradient (i.e.,
0.433 psi/ft or 8.33 pounds(lbs)/gallon (gal) x 0.052 x True Vertical
Depth (TVD)) represents normally pressured wells based on the
hydrostatic overhead pressure of fresh water that increases linearly
with TVD. If reservoir pressure is less than the hydrostatic pressure
of water, the well will not flow on its own because of the overhead
pressure of fracture fluids in the wellbore that will be higher than
the reservoir pressure which may make REC equipment impractical. The
commenter added that whether a well's productive reservoir pressure is
above or below the water gradient may be readily confirmed by reading
offset reservoir pressure data in the development field or by
evaluating certain wireline well logs that may be run after drilling a
well before well completion begins.
Another commenter stated that the EPA's current definition does not
accurately define what industry has historically defined and recognized
as a low pressure well. According to the commenter, because EPA's
definition does not accurately delineate low pressure wells, the
current definition will subject a subset of wells to RECs where the
operation of a separator is not physically possible, thereby making the
wells uneconomical as a result of being subject to REC requirements.
The commenter included a table showing the values calculated using the
EPA's definition for various well depths and flow line pressures.
According to the commenter, the alternate definition would classify all
of the values in the table as a low pressure well, while the EPA's
definition would only consider about a quarter of the wells as low
pressure.
The commenter further stated that the permeability of the reservoir
and other reservoir characteristics play a critical role in determining
when a well is low pressure well or under-pressured. In addition to
overcoming the hydrostatic pressure and sale line pressure, the
separator necessary for the REC adds to the pressure which must be
overcome for gas to flow from the reservoir. The commenter stated that
the separator pressure is arguably the controlling parameter on when a
REC is feasible versus the sales line pressure. Unlike the sales line
pressure, which is easily known, the commenter contended that the
separator pressure can vary greatly depending on gas and liquid rates,
liquid composition, and equipment limitations. The commenter pointed
out that the EPA's definition does not take separator pressure into
account, thereby making the definition overly conservative. The
commenter admitted that the alternative definition does not contain an
adjustment for separator pressure either, but the definition is more
accurate and is inclusive of wells recognized by the industry as ``low
pressure.''
In addition to the pressure associated with the separator, the
commenter stated that in order for a separator to function, there must
be a sufficient volume of gas (at appropriate pressure) to lift the
associated liquids and overcome the pressure of the separator. The
commenter added that if that gas rate is not achieved, the well will
load up and a REC will not be possible. According to the commenter, the
gas rate necessary for a REC varies based on reservoir pressure and
casing/tubing diameter. The commenter provided a graph of Coleman
curves to illustrate this point, which illustrates that as the pressure
and casing diameter increase, so must the gas rate.
Response: The EPA believes that the alternative definition of ``low
pressure gas well,'' based only on fresh water gradient, may not
adequately account for the parameters that must be taken into account
when determining whether a REC would be feasible for a given
hydraulically fractured gas well. We believe that, to determine whether
the flowback gas has sufficient pressure to flow into a flow line, it
is necessary to account for reservoir pressure, well depth, and flow
line pressure. In addition, it is important for any such determination
to take into account pressure losses in the surface equipment used to
perform the REC. The EPA's definition in the proposed rule was
developed to account for these factors.
[[Page 48266]]
The EPA agrees that there must be a sufficient volumetric flow of
gas (caused by adequate reservoir pressure) to lift the associated
liquids and overcome the pressure of the separator, enabling the gas to
be collected (i.e., enter the flow line). However, the EPA disagrees
that the current definition, which we re-proposed for notice and
comment, does not take into account the additional backpressure caused
by the REC equipment, including a separator. The model uses an energy
balance to determine the pressure drop based on the calculated
velocity, and then the model accounts for pressure losses caused by REC
equipment, including the separator. The result of the model is a
prediction of the pressure of the flowback gas immediately before it
enters the flow line. The result can be compared to the actual flow
line pressure available to the well. For wells with insufficient
pressure to produce into the flow line, as predicted using the EPA
equation, combustion must be used to control emissions. For wells with
sufficient pressure to produce into the flow line, gas capture in
combination with combustion must be used to control emissions.
According to some of the commenters, the EPA's definition of low
pressure gas well should be revised because it does not comport with
what the industry has historically considered to be a low pressure gas
well. We are not making a determination on the similarity of the two
definitions because we do not believe that the two must be the same for
purposes of the Oil and Gas NSPS. The EPA has provided a definition of
``low pressure gas well'' in the NSPS in order to designate a class of
wells where a REC is not technically feasible. Our definition of ``low
pressure gas well'' in the NSPS is for a singular purpose--to identify
the wells that cannot implement a REC because of a lack of necessary
reservoir pressure to flow gas at rates appropriate for the
transportation of solids and liquids from a hydraulically fractured gas
well during flowback against additional backpressure which would be
caused by the REC equipment, thereby making a REC technically
infeasible (80 FR 15182). To the extent that the industry definition is
different from the EPA definition, the industry likely defines a
particular well as being low pressure for a variety of reasons.\3\ As
such, it is not clear that a REC is not technically infeasible for all
of the wells that the industry has historically considered to be ``low
pressure wells.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``USEPA's proposed low pressure well definition forces
controls on a segment of the industry that have no or minimal
beneficial impact on the environment while imposing significant
additional costs that will make drilling and operating such wells
uneconomical.'' (James Elliott, Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, on
behalf of Independent Petroleum Association of America et al.,
August 8, 2014)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Revisions to the Alternate Definition
Comment: One commenter stated that the alternative definition
should also be clarified to state ``where field reservoir pressure is
less than 0.433 times the true vertical depth of the reservoir.''
According to the commenter, referring to reservoir pressure adds
clarity and true vertical depth is a well-known standard term in the
industry to differentiate from ``measured depth,'' where measured depth
is the length of the well. The commenters stated this is an important
distinction, especially for directional or horizontal wells, that
should be clarified in the low pressure well definition.
Another commenter similarly suggested that instead of defining the
term ``low pressure gas well'' in terms of the ``vertical depth'' of
the deepest target reservoir, it should instead by defined in terms of
the ``true vertical depth.'' The commenter cited to the Schlumberger
online Oil Field Glossary, which defines ``true vertical depth'' as
follows:
The vertical distance from a point in the well (usually the current
or final depth) to a point at the surface, usually the elevation of the
rotary kelly bushing (RKB). This is one of two primary depth
measurements used by the drillers, the other being measured depth. TVD
is important in determining bottomhole pressures, which are caused in
part by the hydrostatic head of fluid in the wellbore. For this
calculation, measured depth is irrelevant and TVD must be used. For
most other operations, the driller is interested in the length of the
hole or how much pipe will fit into the hole. For those measurements,
measured depth, not TVD, is used. While the drilling crew should be
careful to designate which measurement they are referring to, if no
designation is used, they are usually referring to measured depth. Note
that measured depth, due to intentional or unintentional curves in the
wellbore, is always longer than true vertical depth.
The commenter stated that it would be better to use ``true vertical
depth'' because the measured vertical depth can overstate actual
vertical depth because well bores may not be absolutely vertical. Thus,
measured vertical depth often exceeds the true vertical depth of a well
bore.
One commenter stated that the IPAA's proposed definition for ``low
pressure well'' was based on the weight of fresh water (8.33 lbs/gal)
which is stacked on top of itself, and is known as hydrostatic
pressure. Converting the density of fresh water to a pressure gradient
results in 8.33 lb/gal being equal to 0.433 psi/ft. Therefore, the
pressure of fresh water in the well bore is 0.433 psi/ft times the
vertical well depth.
The commenter added that in reality, the fluid flowing to the
surface could be fresh water, re-used hydraulic fracturing water, re-
used, produced water, or a mixture. Additionally, in the beginning of
the operation, the commenter stated that initial fluids flowing to the
surface are essentially the fracturing fluids put down hole. At the end
of the operation, the fluids flowing to the surface will mainly consist
of reservoir fluids, and the water will be more of a brine water and
not fresh water. The commenter added that brine water has a greater
density, and more reservoir pressure will be required to lift the fluid
to the surface. The commenter contended that the use of a fresh water
gradient of 0.433 psi/ft should be used to keep the definition
conservative and simple.
As an alternative, or in addition, to a fresh water gradient, the
commenter recommended that the density of brine water influenced by
sand or proppant should be used to more accurately reflect the pressure
of the water column in the well bore. The commenter pointed out that
the EPA appears to have utilized a gradient of 0.4645 psi/ft in the
``Lessons Learned from Natural Gas STAR Partners; Reduced Emissions
Completions for Hydraulically Fractured Natural Gas Wells'' paper
developed as a part of the EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program. The
commenter stated that this is evidenced by the gradients listed in
Exhibit 5 of the paper. Additionally, to perform a REC, the commenter
contended that the downhole reservoir pressure must be sufficient
enough to lift the hydraulic fracturing fluid to the surface and
through the separation equipment and piping, with the resulting gas
still having enough backpressure for it to get into the natural gas
gathering line. According to the commenter, to combust flowback
emissions the downhole reservoir pressure must be sufficient enough to
lift the hydraulic fracturing fluid to the surface and through the
separation equipment and piping, with the resulting gas still having
enough backpressure to flow to a flare or enclosed combustion device.
To reflect these realities, the commenter proposed that no emission
[[Page 48267]]
control be required when the following scenario exists:
A well where the reservoir pressure is less than 0.4645 times
the vertical depth of the deepest target reservoir.
At reservoir pressures below this value, the commenter contends
that insufficient pressure exists for any gas to flow to a flare,
enclosed combustion device or the process. Consequently, the commenter
proposes that combustion through a flare or enclosed combustion device
be required when the following scenario exists:
A well where the reservoir pressure is less than 0.4645 times
the vertical depth of the deepest target reservoir plus the
gathering or sales line pressure.
At reservoir pressures less than the sum of the water column
pressure and the sales line pressure, the commenter contended that the
recovered gas will not naturally flow into the sales line. The
commenter stated that the proposed rule does not require compression of
recovered gas into the sales line. The commenter further states that
the EPA has recognized this type of simpler approach in estimating the
level of pressure necessary for recovered gas to flow into a gathering
or sales line in their Gas STAR document cited above. In this Gas STAR
paper, a table (Exhibit 5) is provided that shows the pressures
necessary for various well depths. For instance, the commenter pointed
out that the document indicates that the reservoir pressure necessary
to flow recovered gas into a sales line for a 10,000-foot well would be
4,645 psig plus the sales line pressure.
Response: We agree with the commenters that ``true vertical depth''
is more accurate terminology that better represents our intent.
Although we are not adopting the alternative definitions for the
reasons presented above, we are amending the current definition of low
pressure gas well to include ``true vertical depth.''
C. Storage Vessel Requirements
Comment: One commenter acknowledged the EPA's proposal to remove
provisions relating to storage vessels ``installed in parallel'' or
``connected in parallel'' because these provisions ``inadvertently''
encompassed storage vessels the Agency did not intend to address.
However, the commenter contended that the EPA does not identify those
vessels that it believes were inadvertently covered in the December
2014 rule, nor does it propose alternative regulatory language that
would ensure adequate control measures for vessels connected or
installed in parallel that were intended to be covered under the
December 2014 rule.
Given that storage vessels, including those installed or connected
in parallel, can be significant sources of emissions, the commenter
opposed the EPA's proposal to simply remove any provisions addressing
these vessels. Instead of removing all provisions regarding vessels
installed or connected in parallel, as the Agency proposed, the
commenter urged the EPA to instead clarify its existing requirements
for such vessels. The commenter suggested that the EPA could, for
instance, clarify that pollution control measures apply to storage
vessels operated in parallel in the relevant regulatory provisions
addressing storage vessel affected facilities and the definitions of
``returned to service'' and ``storage vessel.''
Response: The change to the definition of ``storage vessel'' is
intended to preserve the original basis on individual storage vessels
to determine affected facility status, while addressing the potential
situation where the flow of crude oil, condensate, intermediate
hydrocarbon liquids, or produced water is divided into two or more
tanks operated in parallel (i.e., sharing the emissions at the
correlated fraction of what a single tank would emit). Through comments
submitted on the March 2015 proposed rule, the public has informed us
that many storage vessels that are configured in parallel may not be
operated or constructed to divide their potential to emit continuously,
if ever. The EPA has now reconsidered our attempt to include storage
vessels connected in parallel to address the specific situation
resulting in circumvention. We believe that we do not have sufficient
data to evaluate the scope of storage vessels that would fall under the
amended definition and for which we did not intend to cover.
We believe that we have sufficient provisions under the General
Provisions at 40 CFR 60.12 ``Circumvention'' to address the specific
situation where storage vessels are divided into smaller tanks to avoid
applicability of the rule and which was our intent with the previous
amended definition. Therefore, we do not believe that our reverting to
the prior definition of ``storage vessel'' will affect our ability to
ensure control of these storage vessels. Consequently, as proposed, we
are finalizing the removal of provisions made in the 2014 amendment
relating to storage vessels ``installed in parallel'' or ``connected in
parallel.''
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0673. This action does not change the information
collection requirements previously finalized and, as a result, does not
impose any additional burden on industry.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action
is a reconsideration of an existing rule and imposes no new impacts or
costs.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action is a reconsideration of an existing
rule and imposes no new impacts or costs. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.
[[Page 48268]]
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income,
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. This action is
a reconsideration of an existing rule and imposes no new impacts or
costs.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping.
Dated: July 31, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart OOOO--Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural
Gas Production, Transmission, and Distribution
0
2. Section 60.5365(e)(4) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.5365 Am I subject to this subpart?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) For each new, reconstructed, or modified storage vessel with
startup, startup of production, or which is returned to service,
affected facility status is determined as follows: If a storage vessel
is reconnected to the original source of liquids or is used to replace
any storage vessel affected facility, it is a storage vessel affected
facility subject to the same requirements as before being removed from
service, or applicable to the storage vessel affected facility being
replaced, immediately upon startup, startup of production, or return to
service.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 60.5430 is amended by revising the definitions for ``Low
pressure gas well,'' ``Returned to service,'' and the first three
sentences in the introductory text of ``Storage vessel'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.5430 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Low pressure gas well means a well with reservoir pressure and
vertical well depth such that 0.445 times the reservoir pressure (in
psia) minus 0.038 times the true vertical well depth (in feet) minus
67.578 psia is less than the flow line pressure at the sales meter.
* * * * *
Returned to service means that a Group 1 or Group 2 storage vessel
affected facility that was removed from service has been:
(1) Reconnected to the original source of liquids or has been used
to replace any storage vessel affected facility; or
(2) Installed in any location covered by this subpart and
introduced with crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon liquids
or produced water.
* * * * *
Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel that contains an
accumulation of crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon
liquids, or produced water, and that is constructed primarily of
nonearthen materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, fiberglass, or
plastic) which provide structural support. A well completion vessel
that receives recovered liquids from a well after startup of production
following flowback for a period which exceeds 60 days is considered a
storage vessel under this subpart. A tank or other vessel shall not be
considered a storage vessel if it has been removed from service in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 60.5395(f) until such time as
such tank or other vessel has been returned to service. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-19733 Filed 8-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
