Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-24675

Proposed Rule2022-24675

Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

December 6, 2022

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

The EPA is issuing this supplemental proposal to update, strengthen, and expand the standards proposed on November 15, 2021 (November 2021 proposal), which are intended to significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other harmful air pollutants from the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category. First, the EPA proposes standards for certain sources that were not addressed in the November 2021 proposal. Second, the EPA proposes revisions that strengthen standards for sources of leaks, provide greater flexibility to use innovative advanced detection methods, and establish a super emitter response program. Third, the EPA proposes to modify and refine certain elements of the proposed standards in response to information submitted in public comments on the November 2021 proposal. Finally, the EPA proposes details of the timelines and other implementation requirements that apply to states to limit methane pollution from existing designated facilities in the source category under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74702-74847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24675]

[[Page 74701]]

Vol. 87

Tuesday,

No. 233

December 6, 2022

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 60

Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources
and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas
Sector Climate Review; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 6, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 74702]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317; FRL-8510-04-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV16

Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified
Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural
Gas Sector Climate Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is issuing this supplemental proposal to update,
strengthen, and expand the standards proposed on November 15, 2021
(November 2021 proposal), which are intended to significantly reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other harmful air pollutants
from the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category. First, the EPA
proposes standards for certain sources that were not addressed in the
November 2021 proposal. Second, the EPA proposes revisions that
strengthen standards for sources of leaks, provide greater flexibility
to use innovative advanced detection methods, and establish a super
emitter response program. Third, the EPA proposes to modify and refine
certain elements of the proposed standards in response to information
submitted in public comments on the November 2021 proposal. Finally,
the EPA proposes details of the timelines and other implementation
requirements that apply to states to limit methane pollution from
existing designated facilities in the source category under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES:
Comments.
Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2023. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collections of information contained in the proposed
rule between 30 and 60 days after publication and submission to OMB. A
comment to OMB is best assured of consideration if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) receives it on or before January 5, 2023.
Public hearing. The EPA will hold a virtual public hearing on
January 10, 2023, and January 11, 2023. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
for information on the hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317 by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aacb87cbc4ce87d887cec5c9c1cfdeeacfdacb84cdc5dc">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0317 in the subject line of the message.
<bullet> Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0317.
<bullet> Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
<bullet> Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal holidays).
Instructions. All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. For
further information on EPA Docket Center services and the current
status, please visit us online at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Ms. Karen Marsh, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E143-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1065; fax number: (919) 541-0516;
and email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b767a69687335707a697e755b7e6b7a357c746d">[email&#160;protected]</a> or Ms. Amy Hambrick, 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) 541-0964;
fax number: (919) 541-0516; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acc4cdc1cedec5cfc782cdc1d5ecc9dccd82cbc3da">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Participation in virtual public hearing. The public hearing will be
held via virtual platform on January 10, 2023, and January 11, 2023,
and will convene at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and conclude at 8:00
p.m. ET each day. On each hearing day, the EPA may close a session 15
minutes after the last pre-registered speaker has testified if there
are no additional speakers. The EPA will announce further details at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry">https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry</a>. If the EPA receives a high volume of registrations for the
public hearing, we may continue the public hearing on January 12, 2023.
The EPA does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register
announcing the potential addition of a third day for the public hearing
or any other updates to the information on the hearing described in
this document. Please monitor <a href="https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry">https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry</a> for any updates to the
information described in this document, including information about the
public hearing. For information or questions about the public hearing,
please contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#de8d8e8e9aaeabbcb2b7bdb6bbbfacb7b0b99ebbaebff0b9b1a8">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing no
later than 1 business day following the publication of this document in
the Federal Register. The EPA will accept registrations on an
individual basis. To register to speak at the virtual hearing, follow
the directions at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry">https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry</a> or contact the public hearing team at (888)
372-8699 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#feadaeaeba8e8b9c92979d969b9f8c979099be9b8e9fd0999188">[email&#160;protected]</a>. The last day to pre-
register to speak at the hearing will be January 5, 2023. Prior to the
hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that will list pre-
registered speakers in approximate order at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry">https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry</a>.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral
testimony by submitting the text of your oral testimony as written
comments to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
If you require the services of an interpreter or a special
accommodation

[[Page 74703]]

such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing with the
public hearing team and describe your needs by December 13, 2022. The
EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advanced notice.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317. All documents in the docket are
listed in <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) 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. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket
materials are available electronically in <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0317. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit electronically to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be
submitted as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
The <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID,
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and identify
electronically within the digital storage media the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures
outlined in the Instructions section of this document. If you submit
any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside
of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI and
note the docket ID. Information not marked as CBI will be included in
the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2.
Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP),
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the
OAQPS CBI Office at the email address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#523d3323222131303b123722337c353d24">[email&#160;protected]</a>, and as
described in the preceding paragraph, should include clear CBI markings
and note the docket ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large
electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments,
and if you do not have your own file sharing service, please email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81eee0f0f1f2e2e3e8c1e4f1e0afe6eef7">[email&#160;protected]</a> to request a file transfer link. If sending CBI
information through the postal service, please send it to the following
address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317. The mailed CBI
material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings
should not show through the outer envelope.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

AMEL alternate means of emissions limitation
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APA Administrative Procedures Act
API American Petroleum Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AVO audio, visual, and olfactory
AWP alternative work practice
BMP best management practices
boe barrels of oil equivalents
BSER best system of emission reduction
Btu/scf British thermal unit per standard cubic foot
[deg]C degrees Centigrade
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CCR Code of Colorado Regulations
CDX EPA's Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH<INF>4</INF> methane
CO carbon monoxide
CO<INF>2</INF> carbon dioxide
CO<INF>2</INF> Eq. carbon dioxide equivalent
CRA Congressional Review Act
CVS closed vent systems
CWA Clean Water Act
D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit
DOE Department of Energy
EAV equivalent annual value
EDF Environmental Defense Fund
EG emission guidelines
EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
EJ environmental justice
E.O. Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESD emergency shutdown devices
[deg]F degrees Fahrenheit
FEAST Fugitive Emissions Abatement Simulation Toolkit
FR Federal Register
FRFA final regulatory flexibility analysis
g/hr grams per hour
GHG greenhouse gas
GHGI Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

[[Page 74704]]

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
ICR information collection request
IRFA initial regulatory flexibility analysis
IWG Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
kg kilograms
low-e low emission
LDAR leak detection and repair
Mcf thousand cubic feet
METEC Methane Emissions Technology Evaluation Center
MW megawatt
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NDE no detectable emissions
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NGO non-governmental organization
NHV net heating value
NO<INF>X</INF> nitrogen oxides
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OGI optical gas imaging
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM<INF>2.5</INF> particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5
micrometers or less
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PTE potential to emit
PV present value
REC reduced emissions completion
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA regulatory impact analysis
RULOF remaining useful life and other factors
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review
SC-CH<INF>4</INF> social cost of methane
SC-GHG social cost of greenhouse gases
scf standard cubic feet
scfh standard cubic feet per hour
scfm standard cubic feet per minute
SIP state implementation plan
SO<INF>2</INF> sulfur dioxide
SPeCS State Planning Electronic Collaborative System
tpy tons per year
the court U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
TAR Tribal Authority Rule
TIP tribal implementation plan
TSD technical support document
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S. United States
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
VOC volatile organic compounds
VRU vapor recovery unit

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action
C. Costs and Benefits
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. How do I obtain a copy of this document, background
information, other related information?
III. Purpose of This Regulatory Action
A. What is the purpose of this supplemental proposal?
B. What date defines a new, modified, or reconstructed source
for purposes of the proposed NSPS OOOOb?
C. What date defines an existing source for purposes of the
proposed EG OOOOc?
D. How will the proposed EG OOOOc impact sources already subject
to NSPS KKK, NSPS OOOO, or NSPS OOOOa?
E. How does the EPA consider costs in this supplemental
proposal?
F. Legal Basis for Rulemaking Scope
G. Inflation Reduction Act
IV. Summary and Rationale for Changes to the Proposed NSPS OOOOb and
EG OOOOc
A. Fugitive Emissions From Well Sites, Centralized Production
Facilities, and Compressor Stations
B. Advanced Methane Detection Technologies
C. Super-Emitter Response Program
D. Pneumatic Controllers
E. Pneumatic Pumps
F. Wells and Associated Operations
G. Centrifugal Compressors
H. Combustion Control Devices
I. Reciprocating Compressors
J. Storage Vessels
K. Covers and Closed Vent Systems
L. Equipment Leaks at Natural Gas Processing Plants
M. Sweetening Units
N. Recordkeeping and Reporting
V. Supplemental Proposal for State, Tribal, and Federal Plan
Development for Existing Sources
A. Overview
B. Establishing Standards of Performance in State Plans
C. Components of State Plan Submission
D. Timing of State Plan Submissions and Compliance Times
VI. Use of Optical Gas Imaging in Leak Detection (Appendix K)
A. Overview of the November 2021 Proposal
B. Significant Changes Since Proposal
C. Summary of Proposed Requirements
VII. Impacts of This Proposed Rule
A. What are the air impacts?
B. What are the energy impacts?
C. What are the compliance costs?
D. What are the economic and employment impacts?
E. What are the benefits of the proposed standards?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

On November 15, 2021, the EPA published a proposed rule (November
2021 proposal) that was intended to mitigate climate-destabilizing
pollution and protect human health by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) and
VOC emissions from the Oil and Natural Gas Industry,\1\ specifically
the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category.\2\ A wide range of
stakeholders, as well as state and tribal governments, submitted public
comments on the November 2021 proposal. Over 470,000 public comments
were submitted. Many commenters representing diverse perspectives
expressed general support for the proposal and requested that the EPA
further strengthen the proposed standards and make them more
comprehensive. Other commenters highlighted implementation or cost
concerns related to elements of the November 2021 proposal or provided
specific data and information that the EPA was able to use to refine or
revise several of the standards included in the November 2021 proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The EPA characterizes the Oil and Natural Gas Industry
operations as being generally composed of four segments: (1)
Extraction and production of crude oil and natural gas (``oil and
natural gas production''), (2) natural gas processing, (3) natural
gas transmission and storage, and (4) natural gas distribution.
\2\ The EPA defines the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source
category to mean: (1) Crude oil production, which includes the well
and extends to the point of custody transfer to the crude oil
transmission pipeline or any other forms of transportation; and (2)
natural gas production, processing, transmission, and storage, which
include the well and extend to, but do not include, the local
distribution company custody transfer station, commonly referred to
as the ``city-gate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the November 2021 proposal, the EPA proposed new standards and
emission guidelines under CAA section 111 which would be included in 40
CFR part 60 at subpart OOOOb (NSPS OOOOb) and subpart OOOOc (EG OOOOc).
The purpose of this supplemental proposed rulemaking is to strengthen,
update, and expand the proposed standards for certain emissions
sources, including: (1) To reduce emissions from the source category
more comprehensively by adding proposed standards for certain sources
that were not addressed in the November 2021 proposal, revising the

[[Page 74705]]

proposed requirements for fugitive emissions monitoring and repair, and
establishing a super-emitter response program; (2) to encourage the
deployment of innovative technologies and techniques for detecting and
reducing methane emissions by providing additional options for the use
of advanced monitoring; (3) to modify and refine certain elements of
the proposed standards in response to concerns and information
identified in an initial review of public comments on the November 2021
proposal; and (4) to provide additional information not included in the
November 2021 proposal for public comment, such as the content for the
new subparts that reflects the proposed standards and emission
guidelines, and details of the timelines and other requirements that
apply to states as they develop state plans to implement the emission
guidelines.
In the November 2021 proposal, the EPA performed a comprehensive
analysis of the available data from emission sources in the Crude Oil
and Natural Gas source category and the latest available information on
control measures and techniques to identify achievable, cost-effective
measures to significantly reduce methane and VOC emissions, consistent
with the requirements of section 111 of the CAA.\3\ This supplemental
proposal builds on that analysis to apply additional information and
data provided to the Agency since the November 2021 proposal to
identify areas to further strengthen standards, such as measures to
address large emissions events, commonly referred to as super-emitters.
If finalized and implemented, the proposed actions in this rulemaking,
as detailed in the November 2021 proposal and this supplemental
proposal, would lead to significant and cost-effective reductions in
climate and health-harming pollution and encourage the continued
development and deployment of innovative technologies to further reduce
this pollution in the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 42 U.S.C. 7411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This supplemental proposal comprises distinct actions:
<bullet> Update, strengthen, and/or expand on the standards
proposed in November 2021 under CAA section 111(b) for methane and VOC
emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed facilities that
commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after November
15, 2021,
<bullet> Update, strengthen, and/or expand the presumptive
standards proposed in November 2021 as part of the CAA section 111(d)
emission guidelines for methane emissions from existing designated
facilities that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification
on or before November 15, 2021,
<bullet> And establish the implementation requirements for states
to limit methane pollution from existing designated facilities in the
source category under CAA section 111(d).
The Oil and Natural Gas Industry is the United States' largest
industrial emitter of methane, a highly potent GHG.\4\ Methane and VOC
emissions from the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category result
from a variety of industry operations across the supply chain. As
natural gas moves through the necessarily interconnected system of
exploration, production, storage, processing, and transmission that
brings it from wellhead to commerce, emissions primarily result from
intentional venting, unintentional gas carry-through (e.g., vortexing
from separator drain, improper liquid level settings, liquid level
control valve on an upstream separator or scrubber not seating properly
at the end of an automated liquid dumping event, inefficient separation
of gas and liquid phases occurring upstream of tanks allowing some gas
carry-through), routine maintenance, unintentional fugitive emissions,
flaring, malfunctions, abnormal process conditions, and system upsets.
These emissions are associated with a range of specific equipment and
practices, including leaking valves, connectors, and other components
at well sites and compressor stations; leaks and vented emissions from
controlled storage vessels; releases from natural gas-driven pneumatic
pumps and controllers; liquids unloading at well sites; and venting or
under-performing flaring of associated gas from oil wells. Technical
innovations have produced a range of technologies and best practices to
monitor, eliminate or minimize these emissions, which in many cases
have the benefit of simultaneously reducing multiple pollutants and
recovering saleable product. These technologies and best practices have
been deployed by individual oil and natural gas companies, required by
state regulations, reflected in regulations issued by the EPA and other
Federal agencies, or utilized by various non-industry groups and
research teams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Emissions from EPA (2022) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2020. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA 430-R-22-003. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/draft-inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissionsand-sinks-1990-2020">https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/draft-inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissionsand-sinks-1990-2020</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In developing this supplemental proposal, the EPA applied the
latest available information to refine or supplement the analyses
presented in the November 2021 proposal. This latest information
provided additional insights into lessons learned from states'
regulatory efforts, the emission reduction efforts of leading
companies, the continued development of new and developing
technologies, and peer-reviewed research from emission measurement
campaigns across the United States (U.S.). As stated in the November
2021 proposal, the EPA solicited comment on all aspects of the proposed
standards and stated its intent to issue a supplemental proposal that
revisited and refined certain provisions of that proposal in response
to information provided by the public. This supplemental proposal does
just that. For instance, the EPA sought input in the November 2021
proposal on multiple aspects of the proposed approach for fugitive
emissions monitoring at well sites, including the baseline emission
threshold and other criteria (such as the presence of specific types of
malfunction-prone equipment) that should be used to determine whether a
well site is required to undertake ongoing fugitive emissions
monitoring. (86 FR 63115; November 15, 2021). After considering the
comments and information received, this supplemental proposal includes
a revised approach for fugitive emissions monitoring at well sites
utilizing modeling to establish the proposed monitoring frequency and
detection method for individual sites based on the presence of specific
types of equipment. In contrast to the November 2021 proposal, this
supplemental proposal would establish an obligation for all well sites
to routinely monitor for fugitive emissions and repair leaks found--
ranging from a quarterly audio, visual, and olfactory (AVO) inspection
for single wellhead-only sites to quarterly optical gas imaging (OGI)
inspections for any site with significant production equipment. This
revised approach to addressing fugitive emissions from well sites also
would carry the monitoring requirements through the entire life of the
well site and would specify the requirements for ceasing monitoring
following well closures when production from the entire well site has
stopped. The EPA is seeking comments about labor requirements to
implement these monitoring requirements.

[[Page 74706]]

Super-emitter emissions events \5\ were another key area in the
November 2021 proposal for which the EPA solicited comment. (86 FR
63177; November 15, 2021). This supplemental proposal includes various
standards that, when implemented by an owner or operator, could reduce
or eliminate the occurrence of super-emitter emissions events, such as
the inclusion of specific compliance assurance measures to ensure that
flares are operating as designed with a continuously lit pilot. In
addition, this supplemental notice proposes a super-emitter response
program to trigger swift mitigation of super-emitter emissions events
when they are identified through credible information provided by
regulatory authorities or approved qualified third-party sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ In the November 2021 proposal, the EPA solicited comment on
the use of information collected by communities and others to
address large emissions events, which this supplemental proposal now
defines as ``super-emitter emissions events.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Content for the new subparts reflecting these proposed changes is
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0317) and supplements the redline versions of NSPS OOOO and NSPS OOOOa
provided in the November 2021 proposal (Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0317-0095 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0097). In addition, the EPA is
providing an updated regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that seeks to
account for the full impacts of these proposed actions.
Additionally, the EPA is seeking comment and information on the
proposed provisions for the use of advanced methane measurement
technologies for both periodic screening and continuous monitoring as
an alternative to OGI. The revised proposal includes a matrix that
provides various monitoring frequencies based on specific performance
criteria a technology would need to meet in order to be used for
periodic screening. In addition to this proposed matrix, this
supplemental proposal includes provisions for requesting the use of
alternative test method(s) that, where approved, could be used broadly
for deploying these alternative technologies. Further, the EPA is
proposing a framework for the use of continuous monitoring systems that
provide a mass emissions rate with site-specific action levels based on
changes in quarterly average emissions and on the detection of an acute
large emission spike or event on a shorter term. Diverse stakeholders
expressed strong interest in employing these new tools for methane
identification and quantification, particularly for super-emitters, and
in the EPA's creation of a regime to promote and accommodate their
development and use. This proposal provides an approach for fostering
those alternatives, which could provide a template for future
innovation-conducive regulatory standards. The EPA is also seeking
comment on the detection limits of all monitoring and inspection
requirements.
Throughout this action, unless noted otherwise, the EPA is
requesting comments on all aspects of the supplemental proposal to
enable the EPA to develop a final rule that, consistent with our
responsibilities under section 111 of the CAA, achieves the greatest
possible reductions in methane and VOC emissions while remaining
achievable, cost effective, and conducive to technological innovation.
Because this preamble includes comment solicitations/requests on
several topics and issues, we have prepared a separate memorandum that
presents these comment requests by section and topic as a guide to
assist commenters in preparing comments. This memorandum can be
obtained from the Docket for this action (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0317). The title of the memorandum is ``Standards of Performance
for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines
for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review--
Supplemental Proposed Rule Summary of Comment Solicitations.'' It is
not necessary to resubmit comments that were submitted for the November
2021 proposal.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

This supplemental proposal includes two distinct rulemaking actions
under the CAA. First, the EPA is proposing specific changes to
strengthen the proposed requirements under CAA section 111(b) for
methane and VOC emissions from sources that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after November 15, 2021. These proposed
revisions to strengthen the November 15, 2021, proposed standards of
performance will be in a new subpart, NSPS OOOOb, and include proposed
standards for emission sources previously not regulated for this source
category.
Second, pursuant to CAA section 111(d), the EPA is proposing
specific revisions to strengthen the first nationwide emission
guideline (EG) for states to limit methane pollution from existing
designated facilities in the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category.
The proposed revisions to strengthen the November 15, 2021, proposed
presumptive standards will be in a new subpart, EG OOOOc. The emissions
guidelines (EG) are designed to inform states in the development,
submittal, and implementation of state plans that are required to
establish standards of performance for GHGs (in the form of limitations
on methane) from their designated facilities in the Crude Oil and
Natural Gas source category.
As CAA section 111(a)(1) requires, the standards of performance
under section 111(b) and presumptive standards under section 111(d)
being proposed in this action reflect ``the degree of emission
limitation achievable through the application of the best system of
emission reduction (BSER) which (taking into account the cost of
achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirement) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' \6\ In this proposed
supplemental rulemaking, we evaluated new data made available to the
EPA and information provided from public comments on the November 2021
proposal to update the analyses and evaluate whether revisions to the
proposed BSER should be considered. For any potential control measure
evaluated in this action, as in the November 2021 proposal, the EPA
evaluated the emission reductions achievable through these measures and
employed multiple approaches to evaluate the reasonableness of control
costs associated with the options under consideration. For example, in
evaluating controls for reducing VOC and methane emissions from new
sources, we considered a control measure's cost-effectiveness under
both a ``single pollutant cost-effectiveness'' approach and a
``multipollutant cost-effectiveness'' approach, to appropriately
reflect that the systems of emission reduction evaluated in this rule
typically achieve reductions in multiple pollutants simultaneously and
secure a multiplicity of climate and public health benefits. We also

[[Page 74707]]

compared: (1) The capital costs that would be incurred through
compliance with the proposed standards against the industry's current
level of capital expenditures and (2) the annualized costs against the
industry's estimated annual revenues. For a detailed discussion of the
EPA's consideration of this and other BSER statutory elements, please
see section III.E of this preamble, 86 FR 63133; November 15, 2021, and
86 FR 63153; November 15, 2021. Table 1 summarizes the applicability
dates for the four subparts that the EPA's November 2021 proposal
included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The EPA notes that design, equipment, work practice or
operational standards established under CAA section 111(h) (commonly
referred to as ``work practice standards'') reflect the ``best
technological system of continuous emission reduction'' and that
this phrasing differs from the ``best system of emission reduction''
phrase in the definition of ``standard of performance'' in CAA
section 111(a)(1). Although the differences in these phrases may be
meaningful in other contexts, for purposes of evaluating the sources
and systems of emission reduction at issue in this rulemaking, the
EPA has applied these concepts in an essentially comparable manner
because the systems of emission reduction the EPA evaluated are all
technological.

Table 1--Applicable Dates for Proposed Subparts Addressed in This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart Source type Applicable dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO.... New, modified, or After August 23,
reconstructed 2011, and on or
sources. before September
18, 2015.
40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa... New, modified, or After September
reconstructed 18, 2015, and on
sources. or before
November 15,
2021.
40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOb... New, modified, or After November 15,
reconstructed 2021.\1\
sources.
40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOc... Existing sources.. On or before
November 15,
2021.\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The standards for dry seal centrifugal compressors will apply to
those for which construction, reconstruction, or modification
commenced after December 6, 2022.
\2\ The presumptive standards for dry seal centrifugal compressors will
apply to those for which construction, reconstruction, or modification
commenced on or before December 6, 2022.

1. Proposed Standards for New, Modified and Reconstructed Sources After
November 15, 2021 (Proposed NSPS OOOOb)
As described in section IV of this preamble, the EPA is proposing
several changes to the BSER and the standards for certain affected
facilities based on a review of new data made available to the EPA and
information provided in public comments. For the other standards
proposed in the November 2021 proposal that generally remain unchanged
in this action, we have provided further justifications or
clarifications as needed based on the public comments and other
additional information received, as described in section IV of this
preamble. The proposed NSPS would apply to new, modified, and
reconstructed emission sources across the Crude Oil and Natural Gas
source category, including the production, processing, transmission,
and storage segments, for which construction, reconstruction, or
modification commenced after November 15, 2021, which is the date of
publication of the proposed NSPS OOOOb. In addition, the EPA is
proposing methane and VOC standards for one new emission source that is
currently unregulated (i.e., dry seal centrifugal compressors). Because
standards for dry seal centrifugal compressors were not proposed in the
November 2021 proposal, new, modified, and reconstructed dry seal
centrifugal compressors are defined as those for which construction,
reconstruction, or modification commenced after December 6, 2022.
In particular, this action proposes revisions to strengthen the
proposed VOC and methane standards addressing fugitive emissions from
well sites and pneumatic pumps; generally leaves unchanged the proposed
sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) performance standard for sweetening
units and the proposed VOC and methane performance standards for well
completions, gas well liquids unloading operations, associated gas from
oil wells, wet seal centrifugal compressors, reciprocating compressors,
pneumatic controllers, storage vessels, fugitive emissions from
compressor stations, and equipment leaks at natural gas processing
plants; and proposes new VOC and methane standards for dry seal
centrifugal compressors previously not regulated. A summary of the
proposed BSER determination and proposed NSPS for new, modified, and
reconstructed sources (NSPS OOOOb) is presented in Table 2. See section
IV of this preamble for a complete discussion of the proposed changes
to the BSER determination and proposed NSPS requirements.
This proposal also includes provisions for the use of alternative
test methods using advanced methane detection technologies that allow
for periodic screening or continuous monitoring for fugitive emissions
and emissions from covers and closed vent systems (CVS) used to route
emissions to control devices. These proposed alternatives would allow
for advanced screening technologies, which could be used to identify
large emissions or ``super-emitter emissions events'' sooner than the
proposed use of periodic OGI monitoring for fugitive emissions, covers
on storage vessels, and CVS. Various studies using aerial monitoring
techniques have identified large emissions from these types of sources.
Finally, in order to ensure that super-emitter emissions events are
identified and mitigated as quickly as possible, the EPA is proposing a
super-emitter response program where an owner or operator must
investigate and take appropriate mitigation actions upon receiving
certified notifications of detected emissions that are 100 kg/hr of
methane or greater. See sections IV.A and IV.B of this preamble for a
complete discussion of these proposed provisions.
2. Proposed EG for Sources Constructed Prior to November 15, 2021
(Proposed EG OOOOc)
As described in sections IV and V of this preamble, the EPA is
proposing several changes to the BSER determinations and presumptive
standards that were proposed under the authority of CAA section 111(d)
in the November 2021 proposal. These changes are based on a review of
new data made available to the EPA and information provided in public
comments. In the November 2021 proposal the EPA proposed the first
nationwide EG for GHG (in the form of methane limitations) for the
Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category, including the production,
processing, transmission, and storage segments (EG OOOOc).
This action proposes revisions to strengthen the proposed
presumptive standards for methane addressing fugitive emissions from
well sites, pneumatic controllers, pneumatic pumps, and wet seal
centrifugal compressors; generally leaves unchanged the proposed
methane presumptive standards for associated gas from oil wells,
reciprocating compressors, storage vessels, fugitive emissions from
compressor stations, and equipment leaks at natural gas processing
plants; and proposes new methane presumptive standards for well liquids
unloading operations and dry seal centrifugal compressors previously

[[Page 74708]]

not proposed to be regulated. A summary of the proposed BSER
determination and proposed presumptive standards for EG OOOOc is
presented in Table 3. See section IV of this preamble for a complete
discussion of the proposed changes to the BSER determination and
proposed presumptive standards.
This proposal also includes the same provisions described for NSPS
OOOOb that allow for the use of alternative test methods using advanced
methane detection technologies for periodic screening or continuous
monitoring for fugitive emissions and emissions from covers and CVS
used to route emissions to control devices. Finally, the EPA is also
proposing a super-emitter response program, where an owner or operator
that receives certified notifications of detected emissions that are
100 kg/hr or greater is obligated to take action to address those
emissions. See sections IV.A and IV.B of this preamble for a complete
discussion of these proposed provisions.
As stated in the November 2021 proposal,\7\ when the EPA
establishes NSPS for a source category, the EPA is required to issue EG
to reduce emissions of certain pollutants from existing sources in that
same source category. In such circumstances, under CAA section 111(d),
the EPA must issue regulations to establish procedures under which
states submit plans to establish, implement, and enforce standards of
performance for existing sources for certain air pollutants to which a
Federal NSPS would apply if such existing source were a new source.
Thus, the issuance of CAA section 111(d) final EG does not impose
binding requirements directly on sources but instead provides
requirements for states in developing their plans. Although state plans
bear the obligation to establish standards of performance, under CAA
sections 111(a)(1) and 111(d), those standards of performance must
reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the
application of the BSER as determined by the Administrator. As provided
in CAA section 111(d), a state may choose to take into account
remaining useful life and other factors in applying a standard of
performance to a particular source, consistent with the CAA, the EPA's
implementing regulations, and the final EG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ See 86 FR 63117 (November 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this supplemental proposal, the EPA is proposing changes to the
BSER determinations and the degree of limitation achievable through
application of the BSER for certain existing equipment, processes, and
activities across the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category. Those
changes are discussed in section IV of this preamble. Section V of this
preamble discusses the components of EG, including the steps,
requirements, and considerations associated with the development,
submittal, and implementation of state, tribal, and Federal plans, as
appropriate. For the EG, the EPA is proposing to translate the degree
of emission limitation achievable through application of the BSER
(i.e., level of stringency) into presumptive standards that states may
use in the development of state plans for specific designated
facilities. By doing this, the EPA has formatted the proposed EG such
that if a state chooses to adopt these presumptive standards, once
finalized, as the standards of performance in a state plan, the EPA
could approve such a plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section
111(d) and the finalized EG, if the plan meets all other applicable
requirements. In this way, the presumptive standards included in the EG
serve a function similar to that of a model rule,\8\ because they are
intended to assist states in developing their plan submissions by
providing states with a starting point for standards that are based on
general industry parameters and assumptions. The EPA anticipates that
providing these presumptive standards will create a streamlined
approach for states in developing plans and the EPA in evaluating state
plans. However, the EPA's action on each state plan submission is
carried out via rulemaking, which includes public notice and comment.
Inclusion of presumptive standards in the EG does not seek to pre-
determine the outcomes of any future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ The presumptive standards are not the same as a Federal plan
under CAA section 111(d)(2). The EPA has an obligation to promulgate
a Federal plan if a state fails to submit a satisfactory plan. In
such circumstances, the final EG and presumptive standards would
serve as a guide to the development of a Federal plan. See section
VIII.F. for information on Federal plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Designated facilities located in Indian country would not be
encompassed within a state's CAA section 111(d) plan. Instead, an
eligible tribe that has one or more designated facilities located in
its area of Indian country would have the opportunity, but not the
obligation, to seek authority and submit a plan that establishes
standards of performance for those facilities on its Tribal lands. If a
tribe does not submit a plan, or if the EPA does not approve a tribe's
plan, then the EPA has the authority to establish a Federal plan for
that tribe. A summary of the proposed EG for existing sources (EG
OOOOc) for the oil and natural gas sector is presented in Table 3. See
sections IV and V of this preamble for a complete discussion of the
proposed EG requirements.

Table 2--Summary of Proposed BSER and Proposed Standards of Performance
for GHGs and VOCs
[NSPS OOOOb]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed standards
Affected source Proposed BSER of performance for
GHGs and VOCs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Super-Emitters.............. Root cause analysis Root cause analysis
and corrective and corrective
action following action following
notification of notification of
super-emitter super-emitter
emissions event. emissions event.
Fugitive Emissions: Single Quarterly AVO Quarterly AVO
Wellhead Only Well Sites inspections. inspections. Repair
and Small Well Sites. for indications of
potential leaks
within 15 days of
inspection.
Fugitive monitoring
continues for all
well sites until
the site has been
closed, including
plugging the wells
at the site and
submitting a well
closure report.
Fugitive Emissions: Multi- Quarterly AVO Quarterly AVO
wellhead Only Well Sites (2 inspections. inspections. Repair
or more wellheads). AND................. for indications of
potential leaks
within 15 days of
inspection.

[[Page 74709]]

Monitoring and Semiannual OGI
repair based on monitoring
semiannual (Optional
monitoring using semiannual EPA
OGI \2\. Method 21
monitoring with 500
ppm defined as a
leak).
First attempt at
repair within 30
days of finding
fugitive emissions.
Final repair within
30 days of first
attempt.
Fugitive monitoring
continues for all
well sites until
the site has been
closed, including
plugging the wells
at the site and
submitting a well
closure report.
Fugitive Emissions: Well Bimonthly AVO Bimonthly AVO
Sites with Major Production monitoring (i.e., inspections. Repair
and Processing Equipment every other month). for indications of
and Centralized Production AND................. potential leaks
Facilities. Well sites with within 15 days of
specified major inspection.
production and AND
processing Well sites with
equipment: specified major
Monitoring and production and
repair based on processing
quarterly equipment:
monitoring using Quarterly OGI
OGI. monitoring.
(Optional quarterly
EPA Method 21
monitoring with 500
ppm defined as a
leak).
First attempt at
repair within 30
days of finding
fugitive emissions.
Final repair within
30 days of first
attempt.
Fugitive monitoring
continues for all
well sites until
the site has been
closed, including
plugging the wells
at the site and
submitting a well
closure report.
Fugitive Emissions: Monthly AVO Monthly AVO
Compressor Stations. monitoring. monitoring.
AND................. AND
Monitoring and Quarterly OGI
repair based on monitoring.
quarterly (Optional quarterly
monitoring using EPA Method 21
OGI. monitoring with 500
ppm defined as a
leak).
First attempt at
repair within 30
days of finding
fugitive emissions.
Final repair within
30 days of first
attempt.
Fugitive Emissions: Well Monitoring and Annual OGI
Sites and Compressor repair based on monitoring.
Stations on Alaska North annual monitoring (Optional annual
Slope. using OGI. EPA Method 21
monitoring with 500
ppm defined as a
leak).
First attempt at
repair within 30
days of finding
fugitive emissions.
Final repair within
30 days of first
attempt.
Fugitive Emissions: Well (Optional) (Optional)
Sites and Compressor Screening, Alternative
Stations. monitoring, and periodic screening
repair based on with advanced
periodic screening measurement
using an advanced technology instead
measurement of OGI and AVO
technology instead monitoring
of OGI monitoring. according to
minimum detection
sensitivity of
technology.
Fugitive Emissions: Well (Optional) (Optional)
Sites and Compressor Monitoring and Alternative
Stations. repair based on continuous
using a continuous monitoring system
monitoring system instead of OGI and
instead of OGI AVO monitoring.
monitoring.
Storage Vessels: A Single Capture and route to 95 percent reduction
Storage Vessel or Tank a control device. of VOC and methane.
Battery with PTE \4\ of 6
tpy or more of VOC and PTE
of 20 tpy or more of
methane.
Pneumatic Controllers: Use of zero- VOC and methane
Natural gas-driven that emissions emission rate of
Vent to the Atmosphere. controllers. zero.
Pneumatic Controllers: Use of low-bleed Natural gas bleed
Alaska (at sites where pneumatic rate no greater
onsite power is not controllers. than 6 scfh.\5\
available--continuous bleed
natural gas-driven).
Pneumatic Controllers: Monitor and repair OGI monitoring and
Alaska (at sites where through fugitive repair of emissions
onsite power is not emissions program. from controller
available--intermittent malfunctions.
natural gas-driven).
Well Liquids Unloading...... Employ techniques or Perform liquids
technologies that unloading with zero
eliminate methane methane or VOC
and VOC emissions. emissions. If this
If this is not is not feasible for
feasible for safety safety or technical
or technical reasons, employ
reasons, employ best management
best management practices to
practices to minimize venting of
minimize venting of emissions to the
emissions to the maximum extent
maximum extent possible.
possible.
Wet Seal Centrifugal Capture and route 95 percent reduction
Compressors (except for emissions from the of methane and VOC
those located at well wet seal fluid emissions.
sites). degassing system to
a control device.
Dry Seal Centrifugal Conduct preventative Volumetric flow rate
Compressors (except for maintenance and of 3 scfm.
those located at well repair to maintain
sites). flow rate at or
below 3 scfm \7\.

[[Page 74710]]

Reciprocating Compressors Repair or replace Volumetric flow rate
(except for those located the reciprocating of 2 scfm.
at well sites). compressor rod
packing in order to
maintain a flow
rate at or below 2
scfm.
Pneumatic Pumps............. Use of zero-emission Methane and VOC
pumps that are not emission rate of
powered by natural zero.
gas.
Well Completions: Combination of REC Applies to each well
Subcategory 1 (non-wildcat \8\ and the use of completion
and non-delineation wells). a completion operation with
combustion device. hydraulic
fracturing.
REC in combination
with a completion
combustion device;
venting in lieu of
combustion where
combustion would
present
demonstrable safety
hazards.
Initial flowback
stage: Route to a
storage vessel or
completion vessel
(frac tank, lined
pit, or other
vessel) and
separator.
Separation flowback
stage: Route all
salable gas from
the separator to a
flow line or
collection system,
re-inject the gas
into the well or
another well, use
the gas as an
onsite fuel source
or use for another
useful purpose that
a purchased fuel or
raw material would
serve. If
technically
infeasible to route
recovered gas as
specified,
recovered gas must
be combusted. All
liquids must be
routed to a storage
vessel or well
completion vessel,
collection system,
or be re-injected
into the well or
another well.
The operator is
required to have
(and use) a
separator onsite
during the entire
flowback period.
Well Completions: Use of a completion Applies to each well
Subcategory 2 (exploratory, combustion device. completion
wildcat, and delineation operation with
wells and low-pressure hydraulic
wells). fracturing.
The operator is not
required to have a
separator onsite.
Either: (1) Route
all flowback to a
completion
combustion device
with a continuous
pilot flame; or (2)
Route all flowback
into one or more
well completion
vessels and
commence operation
of a separator
unless it is
technically
infeasible for a
separator to
function. Any gas
present in the
flowback before the
separator can
function is not
subject to control
under this section.
Capture and direct
recovered gas to a
completion
combustion device
with a continuous
pilot flame.
For both options (1)
and (2), combustion
is not required in
conditions that may
result in a fire
hazard or
explosion, or where
high heat emissions
from a completion
combustion device
may negatively
impact tundra,
permafrost, or
waterways.
Equipment Leaks at Natural LDAR \9\ with LDAR with OGI
Gas Processing Plants. bimonthly OGI. following
procedures in
appendix K.
Oil Wells with Associated Route associated gas Route associated gas
Gas. to a sales line. If to a sales line. If
access to a sales access to a sales
line is not line is not
available, the gas available, the gas
can be used as an can be used as an
onsite fuel source, onsite fuel source
used for another or used for another
useful purpose that useful purpose that
a purchased fuel or a purchased fuel or
raw material would raw material would
serve, or routed to serve. If
a flare or other demonstrated that a
control device that sales line and
achieves at least beneficial uses are
95 percent not technically
reduction in feasible, the gas
methane and VOC can be routed to a
emissions. flare or other
control device that
achieves at least
95 percent
reduction in
methane and VOC
emissions.
Sweetening Units............ Achieve SO2 emission Achieve required
reduction minimum SO2
efficiency. emission reduction
efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ tpy (tons per year).
\2\ OGI (optical gas imaging).
\3\ ppm (parts per million).
\4\ PTE (potential to emit).

[[Page 74711]]

\5\ scfh (standard cubic feet per hour).
\6\ BMP (best management practices).
\7\ scfm (standard cubic feet per minute).
\8\ REC (reduced emissions completion).
\9\ LDAR (leak detection and repair).

Table 3--Summary of Proposed BSER and Proposed Presumptive Standards for
GHGs From Designated Facilities (EG OOOOc)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed presumptive
Designated facility Proposed BSER standards for GHGs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Super-Emitters.............. Root cause analysis Root cause analysis
and corrective and corrective
action following action following
notification of notification by an
super-emitter EPA-approved entity
emissions event. or regulatory
authority of a
super-emitter
emissions event.\9\
Fugitive Emissions: Single Quarterly AVO Quarterly AVO
Wellhead Only Well Sites inspections. inspections. Repair
and Small Well Sites. for indications of
potential leaks
within 15 days of
inspection.
Fugitive monitoring
continues for all
well sites until
the site has been
closed, including
plugging the wells
at the site and
submitting a well
closure report.
Fugitive Emissions: Multi- Quarterly AVO Quarterly AVO
wellhead Only Well Sites (2 inspections. inspections. Repair
or more wellheads). AND................. for indications of
Monitoring and potential leaks
repair based on within 15 days of
semiannual inspection.
monitoring using Semiannual OGI
OGI \2\. monitoring
(Optional
semiannual EPA
Method 21
monitoring with 500
ppm defined as a
leak).
First attempt at
repair within 30
days of finding
fugitive emissions.
Final repair within
30 days of first
attempt.
Fugitive monitoring
continues for all
well sites until
the site has been
closed, including
plugging the wells
at the site and
submitting a well
closure report.
Fugitive Emissions: Well Bimonthly AVO Bimonthly AVO
Sites and Centralized monitoring (i.e., inspections. Repair
Production Facilities. every other month). for indications of
AND................. potential leaks
Well sites with within 15 days of
specified major inspection.
production and AND
processing Well sites with
equipment: specified major
Monitoring and production and
repair based on processing
quarterly equipment:
monitoring using Quarterly OGI
OGI. monitoring.
(Optional quarterly
EPA Method 21
monitoring with 500
ppm defined as a
leak).
First attempt at
repair within 30
days of finding
fugitive emissions.
Final repair within
30 days of first
attempt.
Fugitive monitoring
continues for all
well sites until
the site has been
closed, including
plugging the wells
at the site and
submitting a well
closure report.
Fugitive Emissions: Monthly AVO Monthly AVO
Compressor Stations. monitoring. monitoring.
AND................. AND
Monitoring and Quarterly OGI
repair based on monitoring.
quarterly (Optional quarterly
monitoring using EPA Method 21
OGI. monitoring with 500
ppm defined as a
leak).
First attempt at
repair within 30
days of finding
fugitive emissions.
Final repair within
30 days of first
attempt.
Fugitive Emissions: Well Monitoring and Annual OGI
Sites and Compressor repair based on monitoring.
Stations on Alaska North annual monitoring (Optional annual
Slope. using OGI. EPA Method 21
monitoring with 500
ppm defined as a
leak).
First attempt at
repair within 30
days of finding
fugitive emissions.
Final repair within
30 days of first
attempt.
Fugitive Emissions: Well (Optional) (Optional)
Sites and Compressor Screening, Alternative
Stations. monitoring, and periodic screening
repair based on with advanced
periodic screening measurement
using an advanced technology instead
measurement of OGI monitoring.
technology instead
of OGI monitoring.
Fugitive Emissions: Well (Optional) (Optional)
Sites and Compressor Monitoring and Alternative
Stations. repair based on continuous
using a continuous monitoring system
monitoring system instead of OGI
instead of OGI monitoring.
monitoring.
Storage Vessels: Tank Capture and route to 95 percent reduction
Battery with PTE of 20 tpy a control device. of methane.
or More of Methane.
Pneumatic Controllers: Use of zero- Methane emission
Natural gas-driven that emissions rate of zero.
Vent to the Atmosphere. controllers.

[[Page 74712]]

Pneumatic Controllers: Use of low-bleed Natural gas bleed
Alaska (at sites where pneumatic rate no greater
onsite power is not controllers. than 6 scfh.
available--continuous bleed
natural gas-driven).
Pneumatic Controllers: Monitor and repair OGI monitoring and
Alaska (at sites where through fugitive repair of emissions
onsite power is not emissions program. from controller
available--intermittent malfunctions.
natural gas-driven).
Gas Well Liquids Unloading.. Employ techniques or Perform liquids
technologies that unloading with zero
eliminate methane methane emissions.
emissions. If this If this is not
is not feasible for feasible for safety
safety or technical or technical
reasons, employ reasons, employ
best management best management
practices to practices to
minimize venting of minimize venting of
emissions to the emissions to the
maximum extent maximum extent
possible. possible.
Wet Seal Centrifugal Conduct preventative Volumetric flow rate
Compressors (except for maintenance and of 3 scfm.
those located at well repair to maintain
sites). flow rate at or
below 3 scfm \7\.
Dry Seal Centrifugal Conduct preventative Volumetric flow rate
Compressors (except for maintenance and of 3 scfm.
those located at well repair to maintain
sites). flow rate at or
below 3 scfm \7\.
Reciprocating Compressors Repair or replace Volumetric flow rate
(except for those located the reciprocating of 2 scfm.
at well sites). compressor rod
packing in order to
maintain a flow
rate at or below 2
scfm.
Pneumatic Pumps............. Use of zero-emission Methane emission
pumps that are not rate of zero.
powered by natural
gas.
Equipment Leaks at Natural LDAR with bimonthly LDAR with OGI
Gas Processing Plants. OGI. following
procedures in
appendix K.
Oil Wells with Associated Route associated gas Route associated gas
Gas. to a sales line. If to a sales line. If
access to a sales access to a sales
line is not line is not
available, the gas available, the gas
can be used as an can be used as an
onsite fuel source, onsite fuel source
used for another or used for another
useful purpose that useful purpose that
a purchased fuel or a purchased fuel or
raw material would raw material would
serve, or routed to serve. If
a flare or other demonstrated that a
control device that sales line and
achieves at least beneficial uses are
95 percent not technically
reduction in feasible, the gas
methane emissions. can be routed to a
flare or other
control device that
achieves at least
95 percent
reduction in
methane emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Costs and Benefits

In accordance with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.)
12866, the EPA projected the emissions reductions, costs, and benefits
that may result from this proposed action if finalized as proposed.
These results are presented in detail in the RIA accompanying this
proposal developed in response to E.O. 12866. The RIA focuses on the
elements of the proposed rule that are likely to result in quantifiable
cost or emissions changes compared to a baseline that incorporates
changes to the regulatory requirements induced by the Congressional
Review Act (CRA) resolution \10\ but does not incorporate the proposed
standards. We estimated the cost, emissions, and benefit impacts for
the 2023 to 2035 period. We present the present value (PV) and
equivalent annual value (EAV) of costs, benefits, and net benefits of
this action in 2019 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ As described in section IV.C, the EPA is proposing a super-
emitter response program under the statutory rationale that super-
emitters are a designated facility. The EPA is also proposing the
program under a second rationale that the super-emitter response
program constitutes work practice standards for certain sources and
compliance assurance measures for other sources. Under either
rationale, state plans are generally required to adopt the super-
emitter response program either as presumptive standards or as
measures that provide for the implementation and enforcement of such
standards.
\10\ See November 2021 Proposal, 86 FR at 63116 (discussing the
CRA Resolution and its effect on regulatory requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The initial analysis year in the RIA is 2023 as we assume the
proposed rule will be finalized early in 2023. The NSPS will take
effect immediately and impact sources constructed after publication of
the proposed rule. The EG will take longer to go into effect as states
will need to develop implementation plans in response to the rule and
have them approved by the EPA. We assume in the RIA that this process
will take 3 years, and so EG impacts will begin in 2026. The final
analysis year is 2035, which allows us to provide 10 years of projected
impacts after the EG is assumed to take effect.
The cost analysis presented in the RIA reflects a nationwide
engineering analysis of compliance cost and emissions reductions, of
which there are two main components. The first component is a set of
representative or model plants for each regulated facility, segment,
and control option. The characteristics of the model plant include
typical equipment, operating characteristics, and representative
factors including baseline emissions and the costs, emissions
reductions, and product recovery resulting from each control option.
The second component is a set of projections of activity data for
affected facilities, distinguished by vintage, year, and other
necessary attributes (e.g., oil versus natural gas wells). Impacts are
calculated by setting parameters on how and when affected facilities
are assumed to respond to a particular regulatory regime, multiplying
activity data by model plant cost and emissions estimates, differencing
from the baseline scenario, and then summing to the desired level of
aggregation. In addition to emissions reductions, some control options
result in natural gas recovery, which can then be combusted in
production or sold. Where applicable, we present projected compliance
costs with and without the projected revenues from product recovery.
The EPA expects climate and health benefits due to the emissions
reductions projected under this proposed rule. The EPA estimated the
climate benefits of

[[Page 74713]]

methane (CH<INF>4</INF>) emission reductions expected from this
proposed rule using the social cost of methane (SC-CH<INF>4</INF>)
estimates presented in the ``Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under E.O. 13990''
(IWG 2021) published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group
on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). As a member of the IWG
involved in the development of the February 2021 TSD, the EPA agrees
that these estimates continue to represent at this time the most
appropriate estimate of the SC-CH<INF>4</INF> until revised estimates
have been developed reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed science.
However, as discussed in Section VII.E, the EPA also presents a
sensitivity analysis of the monetized climate benefits using a set of
SC-CH<INF>4</INF> estimates that incorporates recent research
addressing recommendations of the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine (2017). The EPA notes that the benefits
analysis is entirely distinct from the statutory BSER determinations
proposed herein and is presented solely for the purposes of complying
with E.O. 12866.
Under the proposed rule, the EPA expects that VOC emission
reductions will improve air quality and are likely to improve health
and welfare associated with exposure to ozone, particulate matter with
a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM<INF>2.5</INF>), and hazardous
air pollutants (HAP). Calculating ozone impacts from VOC emissions
changes requires information about the spatial patterns in those
emissions changes. In addition, the ozone health effects from the
proposed rule will depend on the relative proximity of expected VOC and
ozone changes to population. In this analysis, we have not
characterized VOC emissions changes at a finer spatial resolution than
the national total. In light of these uncertainties, we present an
illustrative screening analysis in appendix C of the RIA based on
modeled oil and natural gas VOC contributions to ozone concentrations
as they occurred in 2017 and do not include the results of this
analysis in the estimate of benefits and net benefits projected from
this proposal.
The projected national-level emissions reductions over the 2023 to
2035 period anticipated under the proposed requirements are presented
in Table 4. Table 5 presents the PV and EAV of the projected benefits,
costs, and net benefits over the 2023 to 2035 period under the proposed
requirements using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. The estimates
presented in Tables 4 and 5 reflect an updated analysis compared with
the RIA that accompanied the November 2021 proposal. The updated
analysis not only incorporates the new provisions put forth in the
supplemental proposal (in addition to the elements of the November 2021
proposal that are unchanged), but also includes key updates to
assumptions and methodologies that impact both the baseline and policy
scenarios. As such, the estimates presented in the tables are not
directly comparable to corresponding estimates presented in the
November 2021 proposal. Additionally, we note that the estimated
emission reductions in both proposals may not fully characterize the
emissions reductions achieved by this rule because they might not fully
account for the emissions resulting from super-emitter emissions events
that would be prevented or quickly corrected as a result of this rule.
The EPA solicits comments on any relevant data, appropriate
methodologies, or reliable estimates to help quantify the costs,
emissions reductions, benefits, and potential distributional effects
related to super-emitter events, the proposed emissions control
requirements for associated gas from oil wells, and the proposed
storage vessel control requirements at centralized production
facilities and in the gathering and boosting segment.

Table 4--Projected Emissions Reductions Under the Proposed Rule, 2023-
2035 Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions reductions
Pollutant (2023-2035 total)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methane (million short tons) \a\.................. 36
VOC (million short tons).......................... 9.7
Hazardous Air Pollutant (million short tons)...... 0.39
Methane (million metric tons CO2 Eq.) \b\......... 810
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ To convert from short tons to metric tons, multiply the short tons
by 0.907. Alternatively, to convert metric tons to short tons,
multiply metric tons by 1.102.
\b\ Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 Eq.) calculated using a global
warming potential of 25.

Table 5--Benefits, Costs, Net Benefits, and Emissions Reductions of the Proposed Rule, 2023 Through 2035
[Dollar estimates in millions of 2019 dollars] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equivalent annual Equivalent annual
Present value value Present value value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent Discount Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Benefits \b\........... $48,000 $4,500 $48,000 $4,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent Discount Rate
7 Percent Discount Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Compliance Costs........... $14,000 $1,400 $12,000 $1,400
Compliance Costs............... 19,000 1,800 15,000 1,800
Product Recovery............... 4,600 440 3,300 390
Net Benefits................... 34,000 3,200 36,000 3,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Monetized Benefits......... Climate and ozone health benefits from reducing 36 million short tons of
methane from 2023 to 2035.
PM2.5 and ozone health benefits from reducing 9.7 million short tons of VOC
from 2023 to 2035.\c\
HAP benefits from reducing 390 thousand short tons of HAP from 2023 to 2035.

[[Page 74714]]

Emissions reductions from the super-emitter response program.
Visibility benefits.
Reduced vegetation effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values rounded to two significant figures. Totals may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.
\b\ Climate benefits are based on reductions in methane emissions and are calculated using four different
estimates of the SC-CH4 (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th
percentile at 3 percent discount rate). For the presentational purposes of this table, we show the benefits
associated with the average SC-CH4 at a 3 percent discount rate, but the Agency does not have a single central
SC-CH4 point estimate. We emphasize the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all
four SC-CH4 estimates; the present value (and equivalent annual value) of the additional benefit estimates
ranges from $19 billion to $130 billion ($2.1 billion to 12 billion) over 2023 to 2035 for the proposed
option. Please see Table 3-5 and Table 3-8 of the RIA for the full range of SC-CH4 estimates. As discussed in
Section 3 of the RIA, a consideration of climate benefits calculated using discount rates below 3 percent,
including 2 percent and lower, are also warranted when discounting intergenerational impacts. Appendix B of
the RIA presents the results of a sensitivity analysis using a set of SC-CH4 estimates that incorporates
recent research addressing recommendations of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
(2017). All net benefits are calculated using climate benefits discounted at 3 percent.
\c\ A screening-level analysis of ozone benefits from VOC reductions can be found in appendix C of the RIA,
which is included in the docket.

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially affected by this action
include:

Table 6--Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code \1\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................... 211120 Crude Petroleum Extraction.
211130 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 (NAICS).

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be
affected by this action. To determine whether your entity is affected
by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria
found in the final rule. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, your air
permitting authority, or your EPA Regional representative listed in 40
CFR 60.4 (General Provisions).

B. How do I obtain a copy of this document, background information, and
other related information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
the proposed action is available on the internet. Following signature
by the Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action
at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry">https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry</a>. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will
post the Federal Register version of the supplemental proposal and key
technical documents at this same website and at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317 located at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>.

III. Purpose of This Regulatory Action

A. What is the purpose of this supplemental proposal?

On November 15, 2021, the EPA published a proposed rulemaking that
included proposed NSPS and EGs to mitigate climate-destabilizing
pollution and to protect human health by reducing GHG and VOC emissions
from the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, specifically the Crude Oil and
Natural Gas source category. The November 2021 proposal included
comprehensive analyses of the available data for methane and VOC
emissions sources in the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category and
the latest available information on control measures and techniques to
identify achievable, cost-effective measures to significantly reduce
emissions, consistent with the requirements of section 111 of the CAA.
The November 2021 proposal also solicited comment and information on
specific topics.
New information was received and reviewed that was not considered
in the November 2021 proposal. As a result, changes to some of the
standards and other provisions proposed in November 2021 are being
proposed in this supplemental notice.
Some of the new information was provided by commenters during the
November 2021 proposal public comment period. Approximately 470,000
public comment letters were submitted on the November 2021 proposal
representing a wide range of stakeholders and state and tribal
governments. The EPA reviewed and considered the comments received,
including the responses to the specific solicitations for information
and input in the development of this supplemental proposal. Several of
the commenters

[[Page 74715]]

representing diverse stakeholder perspectives expressed general support
for the proposal and requested that the EPA further strengthen the
proposed standards and make them more comprehensive. Other commenters
highlighted implementation or cost concerns related to some of the
elements proposed in the November 2021 proposal. Some commenters also
provided data and information that the EPA was able to use to refine or
revise several of the standards included in the November 2021 proposal.
This supplemental proposal only addresses specific comments that
the EPA determined warranted changes to what was proposed. It does not
address/summarize all of the comments submitted on the November 2021
proposal. The EPA will continue to evaluate all the previously
submitted comments, as well as new comments submitted on this
supplemental action, in the development of a final NSPS OOOOb and EG
OOOOc. All relevant comments submitted on both proposals will be
responded to at that time.
In summary, the purpose of this supplemental proposed rulemaking is
to update, strengthen, and expand the standards proposed in the
November 2021 proposal under CAA section 111(b) for methane and VOC
emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed facilities, and the
presumptive standards proposed under CAA section 111(d) for methane
emissions from existing sources. In addition, this proposal: (1)
Proposes to reduce emissions from the source category more
comprehensively by adding proposed standards for certain sources that
were not addressed in the November 2021 proposal, revising the proposed
requirements for fugitive emissions monitoring and repair, and by
establishing a super-emitter response program to target timely
mitigation of super-emitter emissions events; (2) encourages the
deployment of innovative technologies and techniques for detecting and
reducing methane emissions by providing additional options for the use
of advanced monitoring; (3) modifies and refines certain aspects of the
proposed standards in response to concerns and information submitted in
public comments; and (4) provides additional information not included
in the November 2021 proposal for public comment, such as content for
the new subparts that reflects the proposed standards and emission
guidelines, and details of the timelines and other implementation
requirements that apply to states to limit methane pollution from
existing designated facilities in the source category under CAA section
111(d).
This supplemental notice also includes an updated RIA that accounts
for the full impacts of these proposed actions. If finalized and
implemented, the proposed actions in this rulemaking, as detailed in
the November 2021 proposal and this supplemental proposal, would result
in significant and cost-effective reductions in climate and health-
harming pollution while encouraging the continued development and
deployment of innovative technologies to further reduce this pollution
in the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category.
The summary and rationale for changes to the November 2021 proposed
NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc standards are presented in section IV of this
preamble. For each change, a high-level summary of the relevant points
raised by commenters leading to the change is provided, followed by the
EPA's rationale for the change. In addition to changes from the
November 2021 proposal that are the result of public comments, the EPA
has also included changes made as a result of additional EPA review and
consideration of available information.
Section V of this preamble proposes specific requirements for the
implementation of the proposed EG to provide states with information
needed for purposes of EG state plan development. First, we discuss
changes to the proposed requirements for establishing standards of
performance in state plans. Second, we discuss changes to the proposed
components of an approvable state plan submission. Third, we discuss
the proposed timing for state plan submissions, and changes to the
proposed timeline for designated facilities to come into final
compliance with the state plan.
Section VI of this preamble includes requirements for using optical
gas imaging in leak detection as appendix K to 40 CFR part 60 (appendix
K). It provides an overview of the November 2021 proposal, significant
changes made to the proposal and the basis for those changes, and a
summary of the updated appendix K requirements.
Section VII of this supplemental proposal includes updates to the
impacts of the November 2021 NSPS proposal based on changes discussed
in sections IV and V of this preamble.
The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of the supplemental
proposal to enable the EPA to develop a final rule that, consistent
with our responsibilities under section 111 of the CAA, achieves the
greatest possible reductions in methane and VOC emissions while
remaining achievable, cost effective, and conducive to technological
innovation. Because this preamble includes comment solicitations/
requests on several topics and issues, we have prepared a separate
memorandum that presents these comment requests by section and topic as
a guide to assist commenters in preparing comments. This memorandum and
supporting materials can be obtained from the Docket for this action
(see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317). The title of the memorandum
is ``Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified
Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural
Gas Sector Climate Review--Supplemental Proposed Rule Summary of
Comment Solicitations.''

B. What date defines a new, modified, or reconstructed source for
purposes of the proposed NSPS OOOOb?

For the reasons explained below, NSPS OOOOb would apply to all
emissions sources (``affected facilities'') identified in the proposed
40 CFR 60.5365b, except dry seal centrifugal compressors, that
commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after November
15, 2021. NSPS OOOOb would apply to dry seal centrifugal compressor
affected facilities that commence construction, reconstruction, or
modification after December 6, 2022.
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b), the EPA proposed new source
performance standards (NSPS) for a wide range of emissions sources in
the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category (to be codified in 40 CFR
part 60 subpart OOOOb) in a Federal Register notice published November
15, 2021. Some of the proposed standards resulted from the EPA's review
of the current NSPS codified at 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOOOa (NSPS
OOOOa), while others were proposed standards for additional emissions
sources that are currently unregulated. The emissions sources for which
the EPA proposed standards in the November 2021 proposal are as
follows:

<bullet> Well completions
<bullet> Gas well liquids unloading operations
<bullet> Associated gas from oil wells
<bullet> Wet seal centrifugal compressors
<bullet> Reciprocating compressors
<bullet> Pneumatic controllers
<bullet> Pneumatic pumps
<bullet> Storage vessels
<bullet> Collection of fugitive emissions components at well sites,
centralized production facilities, and compressor stations
<bullet> Equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants

[[Page 74716]]

<bullet> Sweetening units

These standards of performance would apply to ``new sources.'' CAA
section 111(a)(2) defines a ``new source'' as ``any stationary source,
the construction or modification of which is commenced after the
publication of regulations (or, if earlier, proposed regulations)
prescribing a standard of performance under this section which will be
applicable to such source.'' Because the proposed regulation proposing
the standards for these emission sources was published November 15,
2021, ``new sources'' to which these standards apply are those that
commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after November
15, 2021.
We received comments on the November 2021 proposal that it lacks
regulatory text and therefore should not be used to define new sources
for purposes of NSPS OOOOb.\11\ The EPA disagrees for the following
reasons. CAA section 307(d)(3) specifies the information that a
proposed rule under the CAA must contain, such as a statement of basis,
supporting data, and major legal and policy considerations; the list of
required information does not include proposed regulatory text.
Similarly, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which governs most
Federal rulemaking, does not require publication of the proposed
regulatory text in the Federal Register. Section 553(b)(3) of the APA
provides that a notice of proposed rulemaking shall include ``either
the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the
subjects and issues involved.'' (Emphasis added). Thus, the APA clearly
provides flexibility to describe the ``subjects and issues involved''
as an alternative to inclusion of the ``terms or substance'' of the
proposed rule. See also Rybachek v. EPA, 904 F.2d 1276, 1287 (9th Cir.
1990) (the EPA's ``failure to propose in advance the actual wording''
of a regulation does not make the regulation invalid where the
``proposal . . . clearly describe[s] `the subjects and issues' ''
involved). The EPA solicits comments on whether CAA section 111(a)
provides the EPA discretion to define ``new sources'' based on the
publication date of a supplemental proposal and, if so, whether there
are any unique circumstances here that would warrant the exercise of
such discretion in this rulemaking by the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0424, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0317-0539, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0579, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0598, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0599, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0815, and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the proposed standards, this supplemental proposal
includes proposed standards for an additional emissions source,
specifically dry seal centrifugal compressors. Because the EPA is
proposing standards for dry seal centrifugal compressors for the first
time in this supplemental proposal, ``new sources'' to which these
standards apply are dry seal centrifugal compressors that commence
construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date this
supplemental proposal is published, which is December 6, 2022.

C. What date defines an existing source for purposes of the proposed EG
OOOOc?

The November 2021 proposal also included proposed emissions
guidelines for states to follow and develop plans to regulate existing
sources in the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category under EG
OOOOc. Under CAA section 111, a source is either new, i.e.,
construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced after a
proposed NSPS is published in the Federal Register (CAA section
111(a)(1)), or existing, i.e., any source other than a new source (CAA
section 111(a)(6)). Accordingly, any source that is not subject to the
proposed NSPS OOOOb as described is an existing source subject to EG
OOOOc. As explained, new sources, with the exception of dry seal
centrifugal compressors, are those that commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification after November 15, 2021; therefore,
existing sources are those that commenced construction, reconstruction,
or modification on or before November 15, 2021. Similarly, because new
dry seal centrifugal compressors are those that commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification after December 6, 2022, existing dry
seal centrifugal compressors are those that commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification on or before December 6, 2022.

D. How will the proposed EG OOOOc impact sources already subject to
NSPS KKK, NSPS OOOO, or NSPS OOOOa?

Sources currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK (NSPS
KKK), 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOOO (NSPS OOOO), or NSPS OOOOa would
continue to comply with their respective standards until a state or
Federal plan implementing EG OOOOc becomes effective. For most
designated facilities, the EPA proposes to conclude that compliance
with the implementing state or Federal plan that is consistent with the
presumptive standards in EG OOOOc would constitute compliance with the
older NSPS because the presumptive standards proposed for EG OOOOc
result in the same or greater emission reductions than the current
standards in the older NSPS.
In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing standards for dry seal
centrifugal compressor and intermittent bleed pneumatic controllers for
the first time in NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc. Because these designated
facilities (i.e., dry seal centrifugal compressors and intermittent
bleed pneumatic controllers) are not subject to regulation under a
previous NSPS, they only need to comply with the state or Federal plan
implementing EG OOOOc. The EPA is proposing presumptive standards for
fugitive emissions at compressor stations, pneumatic pumps at natural
gas processing plants, and pneumatic controllers at natural gas
processing plants that are all the same or greater stringency than NSPS
KKK, NSPS OOOO, and NSPS OOOOa, as applicable. Therefore, compliance
with the state or Federal plan implementing EG OOOOc would satisfy
compliance with the respective NSPS regulation. Additionally, the
proposed presumptive standards in EG OOOOc for pneumatic pumps
(excluding processing) and natural gas processing plant equipment leaks
are more stringent than the standards in NSPS OOOOa for pneumatic pumps
and all three NSPS for natural gas processing plant equipment leaks,
and therefore compliance with the state or Federal plan implementing EG
OOOOc would satisfy compliance with the respective NSPS regulation.
For wet seal centrifugal compressors, two different standards are
in place for the older NSPS. NSPS KKK is an equipment standard that
provides several compliance options including: (1) Operating the
compressor with the barrier fluid at a pressure that is greater than
the compressor stuffing box pressure; (2) equipping the compressor with
a barrier fluid system degassing reservoir that is routed to a process
or fuel gas system, or that is connected by a CVS to a control device
that reduces VOC emissions by 95 percent or more; or (3) equipping the
compressor with a system that purges the barrier fluid into a process
stream with zero VOC emissions to the atmosphere. NSPS KKK exempts
compressors from these requirements if it is either equipped with a
closed vent system to capture and transport leakage from the compressor
drive shaft back to a process or fuel gas system or to a control device

[[Page 74717]]

that reduces VOC emissions by 95 percent, or if it is designated for no
detectable emissions. NSPS OOOO and NSPS OOOOa require 95 percent
reduction of emissions from each centrifugal compressor wet seal fluid
degassing system. NSPS OOOO and OOOOa also allow the alternative of
routing the emissions to a process. The proposed presumptive standards
under EG OOOOc would be a numerical emission limit of 3 scfm, as
described in IV.G. of this preamble, and includes an alternative
compliance option to reduce methane emissions by 95 percent by routing
to a control or process. The proposed presumptive standard of 3 scfm is
less stringent than the standards in NSPS OOOO and OOOOa, and
therefore, compliance with a state or Federal plan implementing EG
OOOOc using the 3 scfm presumptive standard would not satisfy
compliance with NSPS OOOO and NSPS OOOOa for wet seal centrifugal
compressor designated facilities. However, the EPA is not aware of any
wet seal centrifugal compressors subject to NSPS OOOO or NSPS OOOOa and
the EPA believes that centrifugal compressors installed since those
rules went into effect (August 2011 and September 2015) are utilizing
dry seals rather than wet seals. For wet seal centrifugal compressors
currently subject to KKK (those designated as new sources between
January 1984 and August 2011), compliance with NSPS KKK would allow for
compliance with the state or Federal plan implementing EG OOOOc because
the zero emissions limit would also achieve the 3 scfm limit proposed
in EG OOOOc. For an owner or operator who uses the alternative
compliance method proposed in EG OOOOc of routing to a control or
process, achieving 95 percent emissions reductions can be accomplished
using the same compressor requirements as required in NSPS OOOOa. Thus,
compliance with a state or Federal plan implementing EG OOOOc using the
95 percent control alternative would satisfy compliance with NSPS OOOO
and NSPS OOOOa for wet seal centrifugal compressor designated
facilities.
The NSPS KKK standard is more stringent than the proposed 3 scfm
presumptive standard in EG OOOOc for methane emissions. Accordingly,
for centrifugal compressors, NSPS KKK would still apply to compressors
at natural gas processing plants for which construction,
reconstruction, or modification commenced after January 20, 1984, and
on or before August 23, 2011.
There are two different standards for reciprocating compressors in
the older NSPS: (1) NSPS KKK requires the use of a seal system and
includes a barrier fluid system that prevents leakage of VOC to the
atmosphere for reciprocating compressors located at natural gas
processing plants, and (2) NSPS OOOO and NSPS OOOOa require changing
out the rod packing every 3 years or routing emissions to a control.
The proposed presumptive standard for EG OOOOc is a volumetric flow
rate of 2 scfm. The proposed BSER is to repair and/or replace the
reciprocating compressor rod packing in order to maintain the flow rate
at or below 2 scfm (based on annual monitoring and additional
preventative or corrective measures) and includes an alternative
compliance option to route emissions to a process, as described in
IV.I. of this preamble.
The NSPS KKK standard is more stringent than the proposed 2 scfm
presumptive standard in EG OOOOc for methane emissions. Accordingly,
for reciprocating compressors subject to NSPS KKK, the NSPS KKK
provisions would still apply to reciprocating compressors at natural
gas processing plants for which construction, reconstruction, or
modification commenced after January 20, 1984, and on or before August
23, 2011. For NSPS KKK, several provisions effectively exempt certain
reciprocating compressors at natural gas processing plants from the
seal system requirements, including: an exemption for reciprocating
compressors in wet gas service, a requirement that reciprocating
compressors must be in VOC service (i.e., at least 10 percent by weight
VOC in the process fluid in contact with the compressor) for standards
to apply, and an exemption for reciprocating compressors designated
with no detectable emissions. If a reciprocating compressor at a
natural gas processing plant was constructed, reconstructed, or
modified between January 20, 1984, and August 23, 2011, is exempt from
the provisions of NSPS KKK due to one of these conditions, it would be
subject to the requirements of the state or Federal plan implementing
EG OOOOc.
As explained in section XII.E.1.d. of the November 2021 proposal
\12\ and section IV.I of this preamble, the EPA finds that the proposed
EG OOOOc standard is more efficient at discovering and reducing any
emissions that may develop than the set 3-year replacement interval
from NSPS OOOO and NSPS OOOOa. Overall, the proposed presumptive
standards would produce more rod packing replacements, thereby reducing
more emissions compared to the 3-year interval. Therefore, the EPA is
proposing that compliance with the state or Federal plan implementing
EG OOOOc will satisfy compliance with the respective NSPS OOOO and
OOOOa regulations for reciprocating compressor designated facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ 86 FR 63215 to 63220 (November 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The affected facility for storage vessels is defined in the NSPS
OOOO and NSPS OOOOa as a single storage vessel with the potential to
emit greater than 6 tons of VOC per year and the standard that applies
is 95 percent emissions reduction. Under the proposed EG OOOOc, the
designated facility is a tank battery with the potential to emit
greater than 20 tons of methane per year with the same 95 percent
emission reduction standard, as discussed in IV.J. of this preamble.
Affected facilities under NSPS OOOO or OOOOa that are part of a
designated facility under the EG would be required to meet the 95
percent reduction standard, and therefore would satisfy their
respective NSPS requirement to do the same. Affected facilities under
NSPS OOOO or OOOOa that emit 6 tpy or more of VOCs but that do not meet
the potential to emit 20 tons of methane per year definition would
continue to comply with the 95-percent emissions reduction standard in
their respective NSPS. Scenarios regarding further physical or
operational changes in NSPS OOOOb that would reclassify sources from
the older NSPS and/or EG OOOOc into NSPS OOOOb are discussed in section
IV.J.1.b. of this preamble.
Similarly, pneumatic controller affected facilities not located at
natural gas processing plants are defined as single high-bleed
controllers with a low-bleed standard under NSPS OOOO and NSPS OOOOa,
while the designated facility under EG OOOOc is defined as a collection
of natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers at a site with a zero
emissions standard (discussed further in Section IV.D. of this
preamble). The proposed zero-emissions presumptive standard in EG OOOOc
is more stringent than the low-bleed standard found in the older NSPS,
therefore the EPA is proposing that compliance with the state or
Federal plan implementing EG OOOOc would satisfy compliance with the
respective NSPS regulation for pneumatic controllers not located at a
natural gas processing plant.
Lastly, standards for fugitive emissions from well sites under NSPS
OOOOa require semiannual OGI monitoring on all components at the well
site except for wellhead only well sites (which are not affected
facilities), while the presumptive standards under the proposed EG
OOOOc would require quarterly OGI monitoring at well sites

[[Page 74718]]

with major production and processing equipment, semiannual OGI combined
with quarterly AVO inspections at multi-wellhead only well sites,\13\
and quarterly AVO inspections for small sites and single wellhead well
sites, as described in section IV.A of this preamble. It is clear that
the proposed presumptive standards for well sites with major production
and processing equipment and the proposed presumptive standards for
multi-wellheads only well sites are both more stringent than the
semiannual OGI monitoring standard under NSPS OOOOa because one would
require more frequent OGI monitoring while the other would require AVO
inspections in addition to semiannual OGI monitoring; therefore, for
these existing wellsites that are also subject to NSPS OOOOa,
compliance with proposed presumptive standards would be deemed in
compliance with the semiannual OGI monitoring standard in NSPS OOOOa.
With respect to existing single wellhead only well sites and small
sites that are also subject to the semiannual monitoring under NSPS
OOOOa, the EPA is proposing that compliance with the proposed
presumptive standards, specifically quarterly AVO, would satisfy NSPS
OOOOa for the following reasons. First, as explained in more detail in
section IV.A, AVO is effective, and therefore OGI is unnecessary, for
detecting fugitive emissions from many of the fugitive emissions
components at these sites. Second, by requiring more frequent visits to
the sites, the proposed presumptive standard would allow earlier
detection and repair of fugitive emissions, in particular large
emissions from components such as thief hatches on uncontrolled storage
vessels. In light of the above, the EPA finds that the presumptive
standards under the proposed EG OOOOc would effectively address the
fugitive emissions at these well sites, and that semiannual OGI
monitoring would no longer be necessary for these well sites that are
also subject to NSPS OOOOa. For the reasons stated above, the EPA is
proposing to conclude that compliance with the state or Federal plan
implementing the presumptive fugitive emissions standards in the
proposed EG OOOOc may be deemed to satisfy compliance with monitoring
standards (i.e., semiannual monitoring using OGI) in NSPS OOOOa for all
well sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Because of a difference in the definition of a wellhead
only well site in NSPS OOOOa and the proposed EG OOOOc, some single
and multi-wellhead only well sites could be subject to the
semiannual OGI monitoring under NSPS OOOOa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA is soliciting comment on all aspects of the proposed
comparison of standards in the older NSPS to the proposed presumptive
standards in EG OOOOc. Specifically, the EPA is requesting comment
relevant to the comparison of stringency for compressors (both
centrifugal and reciprocating) to NSPS KKK and for fugitive emissions
monitoring at small well sites.

E. How does the EPA consider costs in this supplemental proposal?

In the November 2021 proposal, the EPA described the various
approaches for evaluating control costs in its BSER analyses. 86 FR
63154-63157 (November 15, 2021). As described in that document, in
considering the costs of the control options evaluated in this action,
the EPA estimated the control costs under various approaches, including
annual average cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness of
a given control. In its cost-effectiveness analyses, the EPA recognized
and took into account that these multi-pollutant controls reduce both
VOC and methane emissions in equal proportions, as reflected in the
single-pollutant and multipollutant cost effectiveness approaches for
the proposed NSPS OOOOb. The EPA also considered cost saving from the
natural gas recovered instead of vented due to the proposed controls.
In both the November 2021 proposal \14\ and this supplemental
proposal,\15\ the EPA proposes to find that cost-effectiveness values
up to $5,540/ton of VOC reduction are reasonable for controls that we
have identified as BSER and within the range of what the EPA has
historically considered to represent cost effective controls for the
reduction of VOC emissions. Similarly, for methane, the EPA finds the
cost-effectiveness values up to $1,970/ton of methane reduction to be
reasonable for controls that we have identified as BSER in both the
November 2021 proposal and this supplemental proposal, well below the
$2,185/ton \16\ of methane reduction that EPA has previously found to
be reasonable for the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ 86 FR 63155 (November 15, 2021).
\15\ See November 2021 TSD at Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0317-0166 and Supplemental TSD for this action located at Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317.
\16\ 80 FR 56627 (June 6, 2016). See also, ``Background
Technical Support Document for the New Source Performance Standards
40 CFR part 60 subpart OOOOa (May 2016)'', at page 93, Table 6-7
located at Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7631.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For this supplemental proposal, we also updated the two additional
analyses that the EPA performed for the November 2021 proposal to
further inform our determination of whether the cost of control of the
collection of proposed standards would be reasonable, similar to
compliance cost analyses we have completed for other NSPS.\17\ The two
additional analyses include: (1) A comparison of the capital costs
incurred by compliance with the proposed rules to the industry's
estimated new annual capital expenditures, and (2) a comparison of the
annualized costs that would be incurred by compliance with the proposed
standards to the industry's estimated annual revenues. In this section,
the EPA provides updated information regarding these cost analyses
based on the proposed standards described in this notice. See 86 FR
63156 (November 15, 2021) for additional discussion on these two
analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ For example, see our compliance cost analysis in
``Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for Residential Wood Heaters NSPS
Revision. Final Report.'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA- 452/R-15-001,
February 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, for the capital expenditures analysis, the EPA divided the
nationwide capital expenditures projected to be spent to comply with
the proposed standards by an estimate of the total sector-level new
capital expenditures for a representative year to determine the
percentage that the nationwide capital cost requirements under the
proposal represent of the total capital expenditures by the sector. We
combine the compliance-related capital costs under the proposed
standards for the NSPS and for the presumptive standards in the
proposed EG to analyze the potential aggregate impact of the proposal.
The EAV of the projected compliance-related capital expenditures over
the 2023 to 2035 period is projected to be about $1.4 billion in 2019
dollars. We obtained new capital expenditure data for relevant NAICS
codes for 2019 from the U.S. Census 2020 Annual Capital Expenditures
Survey.\18\ While Census data on capital expenditures are available for
2020, these figures were heavily influenced by COVID-19-related impacts
such that 2020 does is not an appropriate representative year to use in
this analysis. According to these data, new capital expenditures for
the sector in 2019 were about $156 billion in 2019

[[Page 74719]]

dollars.\19\ Note that new capital expenditures for pipeline
transportation of natural gas (NAICS 4862) includes only expenditures
on structures as data on expenditures on equipment data are withheld to
avoid disclosing data for individual enterprises. As a result, the
capital expenditures used here represent an underestimate of the
sector's expenditures. Comparing the EAV of the projected compliance-
related capital expenditures under the proposal with the 2019 total
sector-level new capital expenditures yields a percentage of about 0.9
percent, which is well below the percentage increase previously upheld
by the courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Annual Capital Expenditures
Survey, Table 4b. Capital Expenditures for Structures and Equipment
for Companies with Employees by Industry: 2019 Revised, <a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/econ/aces/2020-aces-summary.html">https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/econ/aces/2020-aces-summary.html</a>,
accessed 7/12/2022.
\19\ The total capital expenditures for the same NAICS codes
during COVID 19-impacted 2020 were about $90 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, for the comparison of compliance costs to revenues, we use
the EAV of the projected compliance costs without and with projected
revenues from product recovery under the proposal for the 2023 to 2035
period then divided the nationwide annualized costs by the annual
revenues for the appropriate NAICS code(s) for a representative year to
determine the percentage that the nationwide annualized costs represent
of annual revenues. Like we do for capital expenditures, we combine the
costs projected to be expended to comply with the standards for NSPS
and the presumptive standards in the proposed EG to analyze the
potential aggregate impact of the proposal. The EAV of the associated
increase in compliance cost over the 2023 to 2035 period is projected
to be about $1.7 billion without revenues from product recovery and
about $1.2 billion with revenues from product recovery (in 2019
dollars). Revenue data for relevant NAICS codes were obtained from the
U.S. Census 2017 County Business Patterns and Economic Census, the most
recent revenue figures available.\20\ According to these data, 2017
receipts for the sector were about $358 billion in 2019 dollars.
Comparing the EAV of the projected compliance costs under the proposal
with the sector-level receipts figure yields a percentage of about 0.5
percent without revenues from product recovery and about 0.4 percent
with revenues from product recovery. More data and analysis supporting
the comparison of capital expenditures and annualized costs projected
to be incurred under the rule and the sector-level capital expenditures
and receipts is presented in the TSD for this action, which is in the
public docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ 2017 County Business Patterns and Economic Census. The
Number of Firms and Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll, and
Receipts by Industry and Enterprise Receipts Size: 2017, <a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/data/tables.2017.html">https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/data/tables.2017.html</a>, accessed
September 4. 2021. Note receipts data are available only for
Economic Census years (years ending in 2 and 7) so 2017 data remains
the most recent data available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In considering the costs of the control options evaluated in this
action, the EPA estimated the control costs under various approaches,
including annual average cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-
effectiveness of a given control. In its cost-effectiveness analyses,
the EPA recognized and took into account that these multi-pollutant
controls reduce both VOC and methane emissions in equal proportions, as
reflected in the single-pollutant and multipollutant cost effectiveness
approaches for the proposed NSPS OOOOb. The EPA also considered cost
saving from the natural gas recovered instead of vented due to the
proposed controls. Based on all of the considerations described, the
EPA concludes that the costs of the controls that serve as the basis of
the standards proposed in this action are reasonable. The EPA solicits
comment on its approaches for considering control costs, as well as the
resulting analyses and conclusions.

F. Legal Basis for Rulemaking Scope

In the November 2021 proposal, the EPA described the regulatory
history of its authority to regulate methane emissions from the oil and
gas source category under CAA section 111. The EPA explained that the
2016 Rule, 81 FR 35823 (June 3, 2016), established the agency's
authority to regulate these methane emissions; the 2020 Policy Rule, 85
FR 57018 (September 14, 2020) had rescinded certain parts of the 2016
Rule, including its authorization to regulate methane; and a joint
resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), signed into law by
President Biden on June 30, 2021, had rescinded the 2020 Policy Rule,
and thereby reinstated the 2016 Rule's authorization to regulate
methane. 86 FR 63135-36 (November 15, 2021).
In describing this history, the EPA noted that in the 2016 Rule, in
response to comments, the EPA had explained that once it had listed a
source category for regulation under section 111(b)(1)(A), it was not
required to make, as a predicate to regulating GHG emissions from the
source category, an additional pollutant-specific finding that those
GHG emissions contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution
(termed, a pollutant-specific significant contribution finding).
However, in the alternative, the 2016 Rule did make such a finding,
relying on information concerning the large amounts of methane
emissions from the source category. 86 FR 63135 (November 15, 2021)
(citing 81 FR 35843; June 3, 2016). The November 2021 proposal further
noted that in the legislative history of the CRA resolution, Congress
made clear its intent that section 111 did not require or authorize a
pollutant-specific significant contribution finding, and the EPA
confirmed that it agreed with that interpretation. 86 FR 63148
(November 15, 2021).
Some commenters on the November 2021 proposal reiterated the
argument that the EPA is required to make a pollutant-specific
significant contribution finding for GHG emissions from the oil and gas
source category and stated that in order to make such a finding, the
EPA must identify a standard or criteria for when a contribution is
significant.\21\ We may respond further to these comments in the final
rule, but the November 2021 proposal notes that the legislative history
of the CRA joint resolution rejected the position that a standard or
criteria is necessary for determining significance, and explained, ``It
is fully appropriate for EPA to exercise its discretion to employ a
facts-and-circumstances approach, particularly in light of the wide
range of source categories and the air pollutants they emit that EPA
must regulate under section 111.'' 86 FR 63151 (November 15, 2021)
(quoting House Report at 11). That continues to be the EPA's view and
is consistent with decades of practice under section 111. The EPA has
listed dozens of source categories, beginning in 1971,\22\ in many
cases on the basis of multiple pollutants emitted by the particular
source category,\23\ and has never identified a standard or criteria
for determining significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Comments of Permian Basin Petroleum Ass'n, Document ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0793 at 3-4 (citing 85 FR 57018, 57038
(September 14, 2020).
\22\ List of Categories of Stationary Sources, 36 FR 5931 (March
31, 1971); see 40 CFR part 60.
\23\ For example, when it listed ``stationary gas turbines'' as
a source category, EPA considered emissions of particulates,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons.
Addition to the List of Categories of Stationary Sources, 42 FR
53657 (October 3, 1977); Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources: Proposed rule, 42 FR 53782, 53783 (October 3, 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the EPA were required to develop a standard or criteria to
determine significance, any reasonable set of criteria would
necessarily focus on the amount of emissions from the source category
and the harmfulness of the pollutant emitted. In the case of the oil
and gas source category, the ``massive quantities of methane
emissions''

[[Page 74720]]

contributed by the sector to the levels of well-mixed GHG in the
atmosphere, as described in the November 2021 proposal, 86 FR 63148
(November 15, 2021), coupled with the potency of methane (with a global
warming potential (GWP) of almost 30 or more than 80, depending on the
time period of the impacts, 86 FR 63130; November 15, 2021),
demonstrate that the source category's GHG emissions would be
significant under any rational criteria-based approach. More
specifically, as the EPA stated in the November 2021 proposal, as
illustrated by the domestic and global GHGs comparison data summarized
in that notice, the collective GHG emissions from the Crude Oil and
Natural Gas source category are significant, whether the comparison is
domestic (where this sector is the largest source of methane emissions,
accounting for 28 percent of U.S. methane and 3 percent of total U.S.
emissions of all GHGs), global (where this sector, accounting for 0.4
percent of all global GHG emissions, emits more than the total national
emissions of over 160 countries, and combined emissions of over 60
countries), or when both the domestic and global GHG emissions
comparisons are viewed in combination. See 86 FR 63131 (November 15,
2021).
The large quantity of methane emitted by the oil and gas source
category is brought into sharp relief by the fact that, as the November
2021 proposal further stated, no single GHG source category dominates
on the global scale. While the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source
category, like many (if not all) individual GHG source categories,
could appear small in comparison to total emissions, in fact, it is a
very important contributor in terms of both absolute emissions, and in
comparison, to other source categories globally or within the U.S. See
86 FR 63131 (November 15, 2021).
Importantly, the oil and gas source category is the largest emitter
of methane of any source category in the United States. 86 FR 63129
(November 15, 2021). As described in the November 2021 proposal,
methane is a potent greenhouse gas; over a 100-year timeframe, it is
nearly 30 times more powerful at trapping climate warming heat than
CO<INF>2</INF>, and over a 20-year timeframe, it is 83 times more
powerful. Because methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and is emitted
in large quantities, reductions in methane emissions provide a
significant benefit in reducing near-term warming. Indeed, one third of
the warming due to GHGs that we are experiencing today is due to human
emissions of methane. See 86 FR 63129 (November 15, 2021).
The large amounts of methane emissions from the oil and gas source
category in relation to other domestic and global sources of methane,
coupled with the harmfulness of methane, should be considered more than
sufficient to satisfy any criterion or standard for evaluating
significant contribution. In particular, in the context of a problem
like climate change that is caused by the collective contribution of
many different sources, the fact that the oil and gas source category
has the largest amount of methane emissions in the United States
confirms that those emissions would meet a criterion or standard for
significance.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ The EPA acknowledges that the collective nature of the
climate change problem means it will likely also be appropriate to
regulate other source categories of methane emissions that are not
necessarily as large as the oil and gas source category, cf. EPA v.
EME Homer City, 572 U.S. 489, 514 (2014) (affirming framework to
address ``the collective and interwoven contributions of multiple
upwind States'' to ozone nonattainment), as indicated by the fact
that EPA has long regulated landfill gas, which consists of methane
in 50 percent part. ``Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; Final Rule,'' 81 FR 59276, 59281
(August 29, 2016). But this does not mean that it would be
appropriate to regulate all other types of sources, even ones with
few emissions. In the past, the EPA has declined to regulate air
pollutants emitted from source categories in quantities too small to
be worrisome and because regulation would have produced little
environmental benefit. See Nat'l Lime Ass'n. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416,
426 & n.27 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (small amounts of emissions of nitrogen
oxides and carbon monoxide from lime kilns was a key factor in EPA
decision not to promulgate new source performance standards for
those pollutants; citing Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources Lime Manufacturing Plants--Proposed Rule, 42 FR 22506, 22507
(May 3, 1977)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Inflation Reduction Act

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was signed into law on August 16,
2022. Section 60113 of the IRA amended the CAA by adding section 136,
``Methane Emissions and Waste Reduction Incentive Program for Petroleum
and Natural Gas Systems.'' Under this new section of the CAA,
subsection 136(c), ``Waste Emission Charge,'' requires the
Administrator to ``impose and collect a charge on methane emissions
that exceed an applicable waste emissions threshold under subsection
(f) from an owner or operator of an applicable facility that reports
more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse
gases emitted per year pursuant to subpart W of part 98 of title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 98), regardless of the
reporting threshold under that subpart.'' An ``applicable facility'' is
defined under CAA section 136(d) by reference to specific industry
segments as defined in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)
petroleum and natural gas systems source category (40 CFR part 98,
subpart W, also referred to as ``GHGRP subpart W''). Pursuant to CAA
section 136(g), the charge is to be imposed and collected beginning
with respect to emissions reported for calendar year 2024 and for each
year thereafter.
CAA section 136(f) identifies several circumstances under which the
charges shall not be imposed on an owner or operator of an affected
facility. In particular, CAA section 136(f)(6)(A) states that ``charges
shall not be imposed pursuant to subsection (c) on an applicable
facility that is subject to and in compliance with methane emissions
requirements pursuant to subsections (b) and (d) of section 111 upon a
determination by the Administrator that:
(i) Methane emissions standards and plans pursuant to subsections
(b) and (d) of section 111 have been approved and are in effect in all
States with respect to the applicable facilities; and
(ii) compliance with the requirements described in clause (i) will
result in equivalent or greater emissions reductions as would be
achieved by the proposed rule of the Administrator entitled `Standards
of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and
Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector
Climate Review' (86 FR 63110 (November 15, 2021)), if such rule had
been finalized and implemented.''
Per section 136(c)(6)(B) ``if the conditions in clause (i) or (ii)
of subparagraph (A) cease to apply after the Administrator has made the
determination in that subparagraph, the applicable facility will again
be subject to the charge under subsection (c) beginning in the first
calendar year in which the conditions in either clause (i) or (ii) of
that subparagraph are no longer met.''
The EPA intends to take one or more separate actions in the future
to implement the Methane Emissions and Waste Reduction Incentive
Program, including revisions to certain requirements of GHGRP subpart
W, and will provide an opportunity for public comment on the
implementation of the Methane Emissions and Waste Reduction Incentive
Program in those actions. Accordingly, the EPA considers the
implementation of the Methane Emissions and Waste Reduction Incentive
Program to be outside the scope of this supplemental proposed rule.
However, the EPA is requesting comments on the criteria and approaches
that the Administrator

[[Page 74721]]

should consider in making the CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(ii)
determination (``IRA equivalence determination'') because the EPA
expects that the public and regulated industry will be interested in
how the scope of the final oil and gas standards and emission
guidelines may influence the applicability of the statutory exemption.
With respect to CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(ii), the Administrator
must determine that the methane emission standards in effect pursuant
to CAA sections 111(b) and (d) ``will result in equivalent or greater
emissions reductions as would be achieved'' by the EPA's November 2021
proposed rule. As a general matter, the EPA believes that the changes
being proposed in today's action do not reduce expected methane
emission reductions relative to the November 2021 proposal. Instead,
the EPA anticipates that most, if not all, of the proposed changes
contained in this supplemental proposal would likely lead to greater
methane emissions reductions when fully implemented. For this reason,
the Agency further anticipates that promulgation of Federal and state
standards consistent with this supplemental proposal would result in
methane emissions reductions at least as great as the November 2021
proposal. However, at this point, the EPA's analysis is purely
qualitative. The EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to
quantitatively compare the emission reductions from the November 2021
proposal and this supplemental proposal because, as is discussed in
section 1.3 of the RIA, the analysis of this supplemental proposal
includes key updates to assumptions and methodologies that impact both
the baseline and policy scenarios. As such, the estimated impacts
presented in the RIA of this supplemental proposal are not directly
comparable to corresponding estimates presented in the RIA of the
November 2021 proposal.
Moreover, the statutory language in CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(ii)
does not indicate how the EPA should conduct this equivalency
evaluation and what factors should influence how the EPA conducts the
comparison. Because of this ambiguity in the statutory language, the
EPA is requesting comments on how to best conduct this evaluation and
on factors and assumptions the EPA should consider in conducting such
an evaluation.
First, the EPA seeks comments on temporal elements of the
evaluation. The EPA believes that the appropriate temporal comparison
should be based on when requirements are fully implemented by the
sources (i.e., if a state phases in installation of zero-emitting
pneumatic controllers over more than one year, the comparison should be
made at the point that the emission guidelines require full use of
zero-emitting controllers). The EPA seeks comment on this approach
versus an alternative such as making a multi-year comparison beginning
with the effective date of the rule. In either case, as discussed
below, such a determination could be made prospectively based either on
the rule finalized by the EPA or when state plans have been approved.
As discussed in section V.D. of the supplemental proposal, the EPA is
proposing to require the submission of state plans under EG OOOOc
within 18 months after publication of the final EG. In addition, the
EPA is proposing to require that state plans impose a compliance
timeline on designated facilities to require final compliance with the
standards of performance as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than 36 months following the state plan submittal deadline.
Second, the EPA seeks comments on geographical elements of the
evaluation. Per the statutory language in CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(i),
the EPA's evaluation is to be done with respect to all states. The EPA
requests comments on whether we should consider making a national
evaluation of equivalency or whether we should consider a state-by-
state evaluation instead. Under a national evaluation, the EPA
envisions conducting an assessment of the reductions achieved across
all states and then evaluating those reductions collectively against
the collective reductions anticipated from implementation of the
November 2021 proposal. Under a state-by-state evaluation, the EPA
envisions needing to analyze whether every state is achieving
equivalent or greater reductions than that state would have achieved
under the November 2021 proposal.
Third, the EPA requests comments on whether the EPA should make the
evaluation and the IRA equivalency determination in advance of states
having submitted fully approvable plans or instead make the evaluation
and IRA equivalency determination at a later date once the standards of
performance pursuant to CAA section 111(b) and 111(d) are fully
promulgated (e.g., the EPA has approved state plans and/or developed a
Federal Plan). In particular, the EPA request comments on whether the
EPA's analysis should compare the November 2021 EG proposal and final
EG OOOOc by assuming designated facilities would be subject to their
corresponding EG presumptive standards once state plans are
implemented, or whether we should compare the November 2021 EG proposal
to the actual state plans that are approved. As to the latter approach,
the EPA seeks comments on how a state's invocation of RULOF to apply a
less stringent standard to a designated facility might affect the
equivalency evaluation and IRA equivalency determination. In
establishing standards of performance for individual sources, CAA
section 111(d) and the EPA's regulations provide that states may invoke
RULOF for the application of less stringent standards provided they
meet the certain requirements established in the EPA's regulations and
the EG (see section V.B.3 below). As a result, it is possible that
those state plans (individually or collectively) may not result in
equivalent or greater emissions reductions as would be achieved by full
implementation of the presumptive standards in the November 2021
proposal, unless the state plans require other sources to overperform
to compensate for the less stringent RULOF standards or the EPA's
geographical evaluation is national in scope and national emissions
result in equivalent or greater emissions reductions, even taking into
account RULOF. The EPA requests comments on whether and how to account
for the potential application of RULOF in state plans in the IRA
equivalency determination and whether it would be appropriate to
conduct any evaluation without considering the application of RULOF.
The EPA notes that nothing in the new CAA section 136 supersedes
the EPA's statutory obligations under CAA section 111. The Methane
Emission and Waste Reduction Incentive Program does not supersede the
EPA's statutory obligation, under CAA section 111, to regulate methane
emissions from the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category. The EPA
first regulated GHG emissions from new, reconstructed, and modified
sources through limitations on methane emissions in its 2016 NSPS OOOOa
rulemaking. Therefore, the Agency is obligated to review those
standards at least every 8 years pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B).
Moreover, CAA section 111(d) requires the EPA to establish emission
guidelines to regulate methane emissions from any existing sources in
the sector to which a standard of performance would apply if it were a
new source. Although CAA section 136(f)(6) provides that facilities may
be exempted from the obligation to pay methane charges if they are

[[Page 74722]]

compliant with applicable CAA section 111(b) and (d) standards meeting
certain criteria after the Administrator makes the IRA equivalency
determination in CAA section 136(f)(6)(A), CAA section 136 does not
provide that the Methane Emission and Waste Reduction Incentive Program
may, in the alternative, serve as a compliance alternative for any
applicable CAA section 111 standards for methane. Accordingly, affected
facilities subject to the final NSPS OOOOb must continue to comply with
the final standards of performance regardless of whether they are
subject to or exempted from the waste emissions charge. Likewise,
designated facilities subject to standards of performance pursuant to
either an approved state plan or a federal plan according to the
requirements in CAA section 111(d) and the final EG OOOOc must continue
to comply with those standards regardless of whether they are subject
to or exempted from the waste emissions charge. The EPA acknowledges
the potential interplay between the provisions in this proposed rule
and the Methane Emissions and Waste Reduction Incentive Program and
invites comment on approaches for examining the economic impacts of
these programs individually and collectively.

IV. Summary and Rationale for Changes to the Proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG
OOOOc

A. Fugitive Emissions From Well Sites, Centralized Production
Facilities, and Compressor Stations

As discussed in section XI.A of the November 2021 proposal preamble
(86 FR 63169; November 15, 2021), fugitive emissions are unintended
emissions that can occur from a range of components at any time. The
magnitude of these emissions can also vary widely. The EPA has
historically addressed fugitive emissions from the Crude Oil and
Natural Gas source category through ground-based component level
monitoring using OGI or Method 21 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60
(EPA Method 21).
This section presents a summary of the November 2021 proposal, the
rationales for making certain changes to the proposed standards and
requirements, and the resulting NSPS standards and EG presumptive
standards the EPA is proposing via this supplemental proposal for
fugitive emissions from well sites and compressor stations. For
proposed standards and requirements that have not changed since the
November 2021 proposal, their supporting rationales are not reiterated
in this supplemental proposal. Rationale included in the November 2021
proposal for these standards and requirements can be found in that
proposal preamble (86 FR 63110; November 15, 2021) and in the technical
support document (TSD) for the November 2021 proposal located at (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0166).
1. Fugitive Emissions at Well Sites and Centralized Production
Facilities
a. NSPS OOOOb
i. Summary of November 2021 Proposal
Affected Facility. The November 2021 proposal defined the affected
facility as the collection of fugitive emissions components located at
well sites and centralized production facilities. The November 2021
proposal excluded ``wellhead only well sites'' as affected facilities
under NSPS OOOOb, which were defined as well sites with one or more
wellheads and no major production and processing equipment. Major
production and processing equipment was defined as reciprocating or
centrifugal compressors, glycol dehydrators, heater/treaters,
separators, and storage vessels.
Definition of fugitive emissions component. The November 2021
proposal included an expanded definition of fugitive emissions
component that was intended to capture the known sources of large
emission events. Specifically, the proposed definition in the November
2021 proposal defined a fugitive emissions component as ``any component
that has the potential to emit fugitive emissions of methane and VOC at
a well site or compressor station, including valves, connectors,
pressure relief devices, open-ended lines, flanges, all covers and CVS,
all thief hatches or other openings on a controlled storage vessel,
compressors, instruments, meters, natural gas-driven pneumatic
controllers, or natural gas-driven pneumatic pumps. However, natural
gas discharged from natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers or natural
gas-driven pumps are not considered fugitive emissions if the device is
operating properly and in accordance with manufacturers specifications.
Control devices, including flares, with emissions resulting from the
device operating in a manner that is not in full compliance with any
Federal rule, state rule, or permit, are also considered fugitive
emissions components.'' (86 FR 63170; November 15, 2021).
Summary of November 2021 Proposal BSER Analysis. The methodology
used to determine BSER for the November 2021 proposal was presented in
the section X.II.A of that proposal preamble (86 FR 63186; November 15,
2021). In the November 2021 proposal, the EPA proposed new work
practice standards for the collection of fugitive emissions components
located at well sites. The EPA proposed that well sites with total
site-level baseline methane emissions less than 3 tpy would
demonstrate, based on a one-time site-specific survey, that actual
emissions are reflected in the baseline methane emissions calculation.
For well sites with total site-level baseline methane emissions of 3
tpy or greater, the EPA proposed quarterly OGI or EPA Method 21
monitoring. The EPA also co-proposed an alternative set of work
practice standards: for well sites with total site-level baseline
methane emissions of 3 tpy or greater and less than 8 tpy semiannual
OGI or EPA Method 21 monitoring would apply; and for well sites with
total site-level baseline methane emissions of 8 tpy or greater,
quarterly OGI or EPA Method 21 monitoring would apply. For sites using
OGI to detect fugitive emissions under any of these proposed work
practice standards, the EPA proposed that surveys would be conducted
according to the procedures proposed as appendix K. See section VI of
this preamble for more information regarding appendix K.
ii. Changes to Proposal and Rationale
The EPA is proposing certain changes to the November 2021 proposal
standards for NSPS OOOOb. Specifically, the EPA is proposing: (1) To
require OGI monitoring for well sites and centralized production
facilities following the monitoring plan required in proposed 40 CFR
60.5397b instead of requiring the procedures being proposed in appendix
K for these sites; (2) to expand the affected facility definition to
include wellhead only well sites, which were previously exempt, and add
a subcategory for small well sites; (3) to revise the definition of
fugitive emissions component; (4) to require periodic AVO or other
detection methods for all well sites and centralized production
facilities (except those located on the Alaskan North Slope) at
frequencies based on the subcategory of well site; (5) to require
periodic OGI fugitive emissions monitoring based on the number and type
of equipment located at the well site, in lieu of the baseline
emissions calculations required in the November 2021 proposal; and (6)
to include requirements for well closures that would indicate when
fugitive emissions monitoring could stop.
Appendix K. The EPA is not including a requirement to conduct OGI

[[Page 74723]]

monitoring according to the proposed appendix K for well sites or
centralized production facilities, as was proposed in the November 2021
proposal. Instead, the EPA is proposing to require OGI surveys
following the procedures specified in the proposed regulatory text for
NSPS OOOOb (at 40 CFR 60.5397b) or according to EPA Method 21. The EPA
received extensive comments \25\ from oil and gas operators and other
groups on the numerous complexities associated with following the
proposed appendix K, especially considering the remoteness and size of
many of these sites. In addition, commenters pointed out that OGI has
always been the BSER for fugitive monitoring at well sites and was
never designed as a replacement for EPA Method 21, while appendix K was
designed for use at more complex processing facilities that have
historically been subject to monitoring following EPA Method 21. The
EPA agrees with the commenters and is proposing requirements within
NSPS OOOOb at 40 CFR 60.5397b in lieu of the procedures in appendix K
for fugitive emissions monitoring at well sites or centralized
production facilities. See section VI of this preamble for additional
information on what the EPA is proposing for appendix K related to
other sources (e.g., natural gas processing plants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0579, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0317-0743, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0764, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0777, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0782, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0786, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0793, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0802, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0807, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0810, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0814, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0817, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0820, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0831, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0834, and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected facility and subcategorization of well sites. The EPA is
proposing to expand the affected facility definition to include the
collection of fugitive emissions components at all well sites,
including the previously excluded wellhead only well sites. Various
studies, including a recent U.S. Department of Energy funded study on
quantifying methane emissions from marginal wells,\26\ demonstrate that
fugitive emissions do occur from wellheads, and in some cases can be
significant. As discussed in detail later in this section, the EPA
evaluated emissions reductions resulting from the implementation of a
fugitive emissions monitoring and repair program for a range of well
site and centralized production facility configurations, ranging from
the single wellhead only well site, to sites with specific major
production and processing equipment present. While different types of
monitoring techniques were found appropriate at the various site
configurations evaluated, the EPA did not find support for an exemption
of any site from the standards. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to
define the affected facility as the collection of fugitive emissions
components located at a well site or centralized production facility
with no exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Bowers, Richard L. Quantification of Methane Emissions from
Marginal (Low Production Rate) Oil and Natural Gas Wells. United
States. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2172/1865859">https://doi.org/10.2172/1865859</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, the EPA is proposing monitoring and repair programs
specific to four distinct subcategories of well sites: (1) Single
wellhead only well sites,\27\ (2) wellhead only well sites with two or
more wellheads, (3) well sites and centralized production facilities
\28\ with major production and processing equipment, and (4) small well
sites. The third subcategory includes well sites and centralized
production facilities that have: (1) One or more controlled storage
vessels, (2) one or more control devices, (3) one or more natural gas-
driven pneumatic controllers or pumps, or (4) two or more other major
production and processing equipment. The fourth subcategory, small well
sites, are single wellhead well sites that do not contain any
controlled storage vessels, control devices, pneumatic controller
affected facilities, or pneumatic pump affected facilities, and include
only one other piece of major production and processing equipment.
Major production and processing equipment that would be allowed at a
small well site would include a single separator, glycol dehydrator,
centrifugal and reciprocating compressor,\29\ heater/treater, and
storage vessel that is not controlled. By this definition, a small well
site could only potentially contain a well affected facility (for well
completion operations or gas well liquids unloading operations that do
not utilize a CVS to route emissions to a control device) and a
fugitive emissions components affected facility. No other affected
facilities, including those utilizing CVS (such as pneumatic pumps
routing to control) can be present for a well site to meet the
definition of a small well site. The proposed monitoring requirements
for each of these subcategories is described in more detail later in
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ The EPA defines a wellhead only well site as a well site
that contains one or more wellheads and no major production and
processing equipment.
\28\ Centralized production facilities include one or more
storage vessels and all equipment at a single surface site used to
gather, for the purpose of sale or processing to sell, crude oil,
condensate, produced water, or intermediate hydrocarbon liquid from
one or more offsite natural gas or oil production wells. This
equipment includes, but is not limited to, equipment used for
storage, separation, treating, dehydration, artificial lift,
combustion, compression, pumping, metering, monitoring, and
flowline. Process vessels and process tanks are not considered
storage vessels or storage tanks. A centralized production facility
is located upstream of the natural gas processing plant or the crude
oil pipeline breakout station and is a part of producing operations.
\29\ The EPA is proposing to exclude compressors that are
located at well sites from the definition of a centrifugal affected
facility and reciprocating affected facility, consistent with the
November 2021 proposal. See 86 FR 63180 (November 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of fugitive emissions component. The EPA is proposing
specific revisions to the definition of fugitive emissions component
that was included in the November 2021 proposal. First, the EPA is
proposing to add yard piping as one of the specifically enumerated
components in the definition of a fugitive emissions component. While
not common, pipes can experience cracks or holes, which can lead to
fugitive emissions. The EPA is proposing to include yard piping in the
definition of fugitive emissions component to ensure that when fugitive
emissions are found from the pipe itself the necessary repairs are
completed accordingly.
Second, the EPA is correcting an error made in the November 2021
proposal. The EPA had proposed that all thief hatches and other
openings on all controlled storage vessels would be considered fugitive
emissions components. This definition inadvertently included storage
vessels that would already be subject to control as storage vessel
affected facilities/designated facilities, including regular
inspections of thief hatches and other sources of fugitive emissions
that are separately required as part of the proposed standards for
storage vessel affected facilities/designated facilities (see section
IV.I of this preamble). The EPA is correcting that error in this
supplemental proposal to avoid establishing redundant or duplicative
requirements. Instead, the EPA is defining fugitive emissions
components to include all thief hatches and other openings on storage
vessels that are constructed, reconstructed, or modified after November
15, 2021, and not also subject to control as storage vessel affected
facilities. This would include thief hatches and other openings on both
uncontrolled storage vessels and storage vessels that are controlled
for other purposes but not subject to NSPS OOOOb control requirements
because fugitive emissions can occur from these components.
Third, the EPA is not defining control devices as fugitive
emissions

[[Page 74724]]

components. One commenter stated that emissions resulting from
noncompliance with control device requirements should not also be
defined as fugitive emissions.\30\ This commenter opined that since
control devices are inherently designed to have emissions, even when
well operated, it should be expected that some amount of methane and
VOC would be detected during an OGI survey for fugitive emissions. The
EPA agrees that control devices should not be treated as fugitive
emissions components and is therefore revising the definition in this
proposal to not include those devices. Further, as discussed in more
detail in section IV.H of this preamble, the EPA anticipates that
control devices are used to meet at least one of the emissions
standards in the proposed rules, and as such, they would be subject to
the control device requirements in NSPS OOOOb or EG OOOOc. See section
IV.H of this preamble for additional discussion on proposed
requirements specific to control devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the EPA is not maintaining the inclusion of natural gas-
driven pneumatic controllers or natural gas-driven pneumatic pumps as
fugitive emissions components. These devices are both separate affected
facilities with separate standards identified as BSER.\31\ See sections
IV.D and IV.E of this preamble for information about the proposed BSER
for natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers and natural gas-driven
pneumatic pumps, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ As explained in sections IV.D for pneumatic controllers and
IV.E for pneumatic pumps, only natural gas-driven pneumatic
controllers and pumps are defined as affected facilities. For a
controller or pump to not be an affected facility, it would need to
be electric or solar, which would not have the potential to emit
methane or VOC emissions. Therefore, the EPA does not consider
pneumatic controllers or pneumatic pumps part of the fugitive
emissions components when they are not affected facilities as
controllers or pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA is proposing specific requirements throughout this
supplemental proposal that will address emissions from controlled
storage vessels and natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers and pumps,
including requirements for quarterly OGI monitoring. These monitoring
requirements provide compliance assurance that the proposed performance
standards for these sources are being complied with and obviate any
need to include these sources in the definition of a fugitive emissions
component. For control devices, the EPA is proposing additional initial
and continuous compliance measures to ensure the required emissions
reductions are being achieved. See sections IV.D for discussion on
pneumatic controllers, IV.E for discussion on pneumatic pumps, IV.H for
discussion on combustion control devices, IV.J for discussion on
storage vessels, and IV.K for discussion on covers and CVS.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ The EPA notes quarterly OGI monitoring will also be
performed to demonstrate compliance with specific standards for
controlled storage vessels, natural gas-driven pneumatic
controllers, natural gas-driven pneumatic pumps, and CVS associated
with any affected facilities at well sites. This quarterly OGI
monitoring would take place during the same quarterly OGI monitoring
of the fugitive emissions components affected facility located at
the same well site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments received on monitoring requirements. As discussed in the
November 2021 proposal, the EPA proposed to require fugitive emissions
monitoring using OGI based on the site-level methane baseline
emissions, as determined, in part, through equipment and component
count emissions factors. Further, the EPA solicited comment on adding
routine AVO monitoring in addition to periodic OGI monitoring to help
identify potential large emission events. Several comments, mostly from
small businesses, were received regarding the use of AVO inspections
because these are low cost and simple inspections that would identify
indications of leaks, such as open thief hatches on storage vessels.
These comments ranged from requiring monthly to annual AVO inspections
in lieu of OGI monitoring, to requests to minimize the complexity of
any associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements should the EPA
require this type of inspection.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0585, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0317-0814, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0822, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0929, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA received substantive comments from several commenters on
the November 2021 proposal regarding OGI monitoring arguing that the
proposed requirements for well sites were unreasonable and would be
difficult to implement, especially for well sites with total site-level
baseline methane emissions less than 3 tpy. Specifically, these
commenters \34\ asserted that there would be challenges around
calculating the site-level baseline emissions and that this task would
be burdensome, while other commenters \35\ asserted the calculations
would result in no regular monitoring at sites that have leak-prone
equipment. Further, commenters noted that it would be difficult to
verify the emissions calculations, which could result in compliance
and/or enforcement challenges. According to industry commenters,\36\
the requirement to repeat the calculation when equipment is added or
removed from the site would be especially burdensome. One of the
commenters further stated this requirement would force owners and
operators to constantly maintain an inventory of equipment, with some
operators carrying this burden for hundreds to thousands of sites.\37\
Moreover, the commenter indicated that the EPA has not explained the
need for the proposed recalculation of site-level methane emissions
based on equipment changes and how this would have an environmental
benefit. Another commenter argued that the EPA did not properly explain
the basis for the emissions thresholds and disagreed with the
components and equipment included in the calculation, as well as the
use of the GHGRP emissions factors.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0814.
\35\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0844.
\36\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0814.
\37\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808.
\38\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0814.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the proposed site-specific survey to demonstrate
that actual emissions are reflected in the baseline emissions
calculation, some commenters asserted that well sites with emissions
less than 3 tpy should not be exempt from regular monitoring. According
to commenters, even small sites can have leaks with significant
emissions.\39\ For this reason, the commenters made the case that
regular monitoring should be required for all sites. Some commenters
also expressed that the requirement to calculate site-level methane
baseline emissions and conduct an initial survey was confusing. As
explained by one commenter, ``[the] EPA states well sites with site-
level baseline methane emissions [less than] 3 tpy are not required to
conduct OGI monitoring.'' \40\ See 86 FR 63171 (November 15, 2021);
however, since the EPA also proposed that well sites would be required
to perform a survey to confirm that the actual emissions are less than
3 tpy, the commenter viewed this as a contradiction within the rule,
thus making it unclear what the EPA was proposing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0568, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0317-0769, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0844, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
1267.
\40\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0727.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One commenter indicated that monitoring should also be required for

[[Page 74725]]

wellhead only well sites because, even though less equipment (and so
fewer components) is present at a wellhead only well site, the wellhead
itself is a source of emissions, which should be inspected for fugitive
emissions.\41\ Other commenters provided similar comments and urged the
EPA to remove the exemption for wellhead only well sites because these
well sites have other smaller equipment that leaks and
malfunctions,\42\ with large emissions having been observed from these
sites,\43\ even though these sites do not have major production and
processing equipment. Further, commenters noted that well sites with
equipment with potentially significant emissions should not be
considered a wellhead only well site or excluded from regular
monitoring. The commenter urged the EPA that, if the wellhead only well
site exemption is retained, it must only apply to single wellhead
sites. Even if no associated equipment is located at a wellhead only
well site, sites with multiple wellheads can have a number of
components and subsequently potential sources of fugitive
emissions.\44\ This same commenter, who opposes the 3 tpy threshold,
noted that ``failure prone equipment'' such as storage vessels,
separators, flares, and natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers often
operate incorrectly and can cause significant emissions.\45\ This
commenter argued that sites with this type of equipment should be
required to monitor on a frequent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0769.
\42\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0586.
\43\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0844.
\44\ Id.
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another commenter noted that the one-time survey for sites less
than 3 tpy does not address the problem of future leaks or
malfunctions.\46\ The commenter indicated that malfunctions account for
a large amount of methane emissions and the commenter, therefore,
recommended at least annual monitoring. Comments urging the EPA to
exempt small, low producing wells were also received.\47\ Specifically,
one commenter argued that low producing wells are not
disproportionately large emitters.\48\ This commenter asked that the
EPA exempt these wells, asserting that these sources can least afford
monitoring and have relatively small emissions. The commenter further
asked that the rule exempt wells defined by states as stripper wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-1267.
\47\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0425 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0814.
\48\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0425.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As illustrated by the comments, which specifically highlight many
potential challenges related to implementation, compliance assurance,
and efficacy in reducing emissions, the EPA agrees that the fugitive
emissions monitoring program that was proposed in the November 2021
proposal should be clarified and improved in order to address the
issues identified by the various commenters. As explained below, after
considering the comments, additional data, and a revised analysis, the
EPA is proposing revised fugitive emissions applicability criteria,
monitoring frequencies, and detection methods at well sites and
centralized production facilities.
Fugitive emissions monitoring and repair modeling. In the November
2021 proposal, the EPA also solicited comment on other thresholds that
could be used to set monitoring requirements for well sites, in lieu of
using self-reported baseline emissions as a threshold. One of these
options included an equipment-based approach, in which well sites with
specific leak-prone equipment would have one set of requirements, while
well sites with other equipment (or that lack leak-prone equipment)
would have a different set of requirements. In comparison to a self-
reported baseline emissions threshold, such an approach would ensure
routine OGI monitoring takes place at sites that have equipment that is
most likely to have fugitive emissions more frequently, while also
being more straightforward for owners and operators to implement and
for the EPA and state regulators to verify and enforce. The EPA
received feedback and additional information in response to this
solicitation and used that information to develop a new analysis based
on this equipment-based concept.
To evaluate an equipment-based program, the EPA developed three
distinct model plants. These model plants were designed to account for
various equipment types located at sites and ranged from single
wellhead only well sites to complex sites with various known sources of
large emissions present. Specifically, these model plants include: (1)
Single wellhead only well sites,\49\ (2) wellhead only well sites with
two or more wellheads, and (3) well sites or centralized production
facilities \50\ with major production and processing equipment. For the
reasons explained later in this section, the EPA finds that small well
sites have component counts, and thus emissions distributions, that are
more comparable to single wellhead only well sites and less than multi-
wellhead only well sites. The EPA has not modeled this small well site
subcategory. Fugitive emissions from small well sites would originate
from the same types of components (e.g., valves, connectors, open-ended
lines, or pressure relief devices) modeled with emissions for single
wellhead only well sites, and the available data suggests that the
single piece of equipment at the site would be of smaller size, and
thus have fewer individual components, than those summarized for well
sites and centralized production facilities with major production and
processing equipment. However, for purposes of summarizing the
component counts, the EPA is including small well sites in Table 7
along with the details of the number and type of equipment included in
each of the model plants used for emissions modeling. The EPA finds
that evaluating several types of model plants based on equipment and
component counts is consistent with the empirical literature on
fugitive emissions, including the conclusion from the U.S. Department
of Energy's (DOE) recent marginal well study that a strong correlation
was observed between the major equipment count and the frequency of
fugitive emissions.51 52 The

[[Page 74726]]

EPA is soliciting comment on the proposed model plants described in
Table 7. The EPA is also seeking information on how to refine its
approach to modeling fugitive emissions in the model plants developed
for this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ The EPA defines a wellhead only well site as a well site
that contains one or more wellheads and no major production and
processing equipment. Major production and processing equipment
includes reciprocating or centrifugal compressors, glycol
dehydrators, heater/treaters, separators, and storage vessels
collecting crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon liquids,
or produced water. The EPA does not consider meters and yard piping
as major production and processing equipment for purposes of
determining if a well site is a wellhead only well site.
\50\ Centralized production facilities include one or more
storage vessels and all equipment at a single surface site used to
gather, for the purpose of sale or processing to sell, crude oil,
condensate, produced water, or intermediate hydrocarbon liquid from
one or more offsite natural gas or oil production wells. This
equipment includes, but is not limited to, equipment used for
storage, separation, treating, dehydration, artificial lift,
combustion, compression, pumping, metering, monitoring, and
flowline. Process vessels and process tanks are not considered
storage vessels or storage tanks. A centralized production facility
is located upstream of the natural gas processing plant or the crude
oil pipeline breakout station and is a part of producing operations.
\51\ Bowers, Richard L. Quantification of Methane Emissions from
Marginal (Low Production Rate) Oil and Natural Gas Wells. United
States. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2172/1865859">https://doi.org/10.2172/1865859</a>.
\52\ The U.S. DOE marginal well study did not collect
information on individual component counts on major equipment but
did find a strong correlation to emissions based on the size of the
site (defined by the major equipment count). Thus, the proposed
definition of a small well site is limited to inclusion of a single
piece of specific major production and processing equipment.

Table 7--Well Site Model Plant Component Counts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of components at well site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Major equipment at well site Count Open ended Pressure
Valves Connectors lines relief valves
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Wellhead Only Well Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Wellheads................... 1 10 38 1 0
Meter/Piping.................... 1 13 48 1 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on December 6, 2022.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.