Comments on each action will be due 60 days after EPA publishes the formal notice of its action in the Federal Register.
Proposed NSPS: The NSPS would extend EPA’s regulatory reach into oil production that had not been covered by the agency’s 2012 NSPS for oil and gas sources, impose broad leak detection and repair requirements across the industry and extend restrictions on methane and VOC emissions from equipment currently used across industry downstream of production sites. Among the highlights:
- Regulation of both VOCs and methane. In previous rules, EPA imposed restrictions on VOC emissions, which the agency found had the co-benefit of also reducing methane emissions. Now, EPA expressly proposes to regulate methane, in addition to VOCs. This includes adding methane standards to sources already regulated for VOC emissions, as well as new methane and VOC standards for additional emission sources. EPA is not, however, proposing to change current VOC standards for sources addressed in the 2012 NSPS.
- Inclusion of oil wells completed using hydraulic fracturing. EPA would further seek to extend its reach into oil production and development by proposing to require hydraulically fractured oil wells to employ measures to reduce methane and VOC emissions. For production wells, owners/operators would have to employ “reduced emissions completions” (RECs) in combination with a combustion device, except where technically infeasible. For exploratory and site delineation wells a combustion device would be required, but not REC.
- Expanded leak detection and repair program. Under the proposal, oil and gas production well sites, natural gas transmission compressor stations and natural gas production gathering and boosting stations, would survey for fugitive emissions semi-annually using optical gas imaging (OGI) and promptly perform any needed repairs. At well sites, this covers ancillary equipment in the immediate vicinity of the well that are necessary for or used in production, including separators, storage vessels, heaters and dehydrators. However, EPA would exclude sites that only have wellheads, as well as certain lower production sites.
EPA is seeking comment on whether the survey should be done annually, as well as whether EPA Method 21 which uses a portable VOC monitor should be used instead of OGI technology. The proposal also overlaps with existing rules (Part 60, Subpart W) that require compressor stations with emissions that exceed 25,000 Metric Ton CO2 equivalent to report fugitive emissions and EPA has asked for comment on how to address this. Also, some well owners/operators already have voluntary leak detection programs, and EPA has asked for comment on how those could satisfy or be integrated under a final rule.
- Additional restrictions on compressors, controllers and pumps. EPA has also proposed restrictions on methane and VOC emissions from certain equipment located at oil and gas well sites, as well as at downstream natural gas operations, that generally match the types of restrictions that EPA imposed in its 2012 NSPS on VOC emissions from these equipment located at natural gas production sites. As proposed, new and modified wet seal centrifugal compressors, reciprocating compressors and natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers and pneumatic pumps would need to meet methane and VOC emission reductions or be subject to operating requirements. EPA would exclude compressors at oil and natural gas well sites, finding that they are typically small and low emitting.
- Issues raised in petitions for reconsideration. EPA also proposes to address a number of issues raised in administrative reconsideration petitions on the 2012 NSPS (and subsequent amendments) including amended requirements for storage vessel control device monitoring and testing; recordkeeping for repair logs for control devices that fail a visible emissions test; clarification of the deadline for the initial annual report under the 2012 NSPS; flare design and operation standards; leak detection and repair (LDAR) for open-ended valves or lines; compliance period for LDAR for newly affected units, exemption to notification requirement for reconstruction, disposal of carbon from control devices; and the definition of capital expenditure for determining when a modification could occur.
- Application to existing sources. EPA’s proposal would not apply automatically to existing sources, but it will be important to understand how an existing source could become subject to the new requirements. For example, EPA would consider a well site to be modified and subject to the proposed requirements when a new well is completed or an existing well is fractured, or refractured, after the effective date of the rule. The standards would not, however, apply to existing well sites where additional drilling activities were conducted on an existing well so long as those activities did not include fracturing or refracturing. How EPA interprets these triggers would inform when existing sites could face these requirements, if finalized.
- A social cost of methane. EPA’s cost-benefit analysis of the proposal rests, in part, on the calculation of the “social cost of methane” (SC-CH4). Similar to the controversial social cost of carbon, SC-CH4 is a modeled estimate of monetized future damages. Using the same suite of integrated assessment models and discount rates as the social cost of carbon, EPA estimates that the proposed rule would avoid between $80 million and $550 million in damages by 2020 through a reduction in methane emissions.
Control Techniques Guidelines: While the NSPS addresses new or modified sources, the CTGs provide guidance to states for reducing VOC emissions from existing equipment and processes in the oil and natural gas industry.
- CTGs are not binding regulations, but can lead to state rules. CTGs do not impose legal requirements, but provide recommendations to state and local air agencies on establishing reasonably available control technology (RACT) for reducing emissions from covered processes and equipment. Moreover, in general, for ozone nonattainment areas and states in ozone transport regions, the Act requires state implementation plans (SIPs) to include RACT for each category of VOC sources covered by an EPA CTG document until the area reaches attainment.
- Based on EPA’s 2012 NSPS and latest proposal. The draft CTGs provide recommendations for storage tanks, pneumatic controllers and pumps, centrifugal and reciprocating compressors, equipment leaks from natural gas processing plants and other potential sources of fugitive emissions. The recommendations are similar to the 2012 NSPS, as well as EPA’s new proposal. While the CTGs refer to VOCs, EPA’s goal to address methane is clear, as the agency acknowledges that it based most of the VOC emission estimates presented in the CTGs on available methane emissions data.
The Definition of “Adjacent” for Aggregation: EPA is proposing to change how it aggregates upstream and midstream onshore oil and gas emission points for NSR and Title V permitting.
- EPA’s preferred option relies on “proximity.” For multiple emission points to be “aggregated” into a single “stationary source” or “major source,” they must be “contiguous or adjacent.” EPA previously had interpreted “adjacent” to include emission points that were “functionally interrelated,” even if several miles apart. The Sixth Circuit rejected that interpretation, holding “adjacent” could only mean physical proximity. EPA has now proposed as its “preferred option” to interpret “adjacent” to mean physical proximity, requiring emission points to be located on sites within one-quarter mile of each other before they can be aggregated. EPA requests comment on whether to use a different distance.
- “Functional Interrelatedness” test is still on the table. EPA is also soliciting comments on whether to reinstate the “functional interrelatedness” test by amending its regulatory definitions of “stationary source” and “major source.” The proposal states that factors that could contribute to a finding that emission points are “functionally interrelated” could include a connection by pipeline, the delivery of product from one emission point to another via train or truck or whether one type of emission point could operate when the other is not. The proposed rule also solicits comments on various additional factors that a permitting agency could use to determine that emission points are functionally interrelated.
If you have any questions regarding this Sidley Update, please contact the Sidley lawyer with whom you usually work, or
Samuel B. Boxerman
Sidley Austin provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship.
Attorney Advertising - For purposes of compliance with New York State Bar rules, our headquarters are Sidley Austin LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, 212.839.5300; One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, 312.853.7000; and 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, 202.736.8000.