What?: EPA issued its first air quality rule for the Oil & Gas Industry under the Clean Air Act back in 2012 (with many provisions only taking effect in 2015). This rule is formally known as 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOOO. While the rule covered several forms of air pollution from Oil & Gas infrastructure, it did not cover greenhouse gasses, in particular methane. Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. As part of its belated attention to the climate change issue, EPA is now amending the rule to include methane (as well as extending some of the provisions for other pollutants).

Deadline: Friday December 4, 2015. (The original deadline of November 17 was extended.)

Why Does It Matter?: Climate Change is one of the most significant threats facing humanity in the 21st century. Methane, the primary constituent of “natural gas”, is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. The science has been updating the comparative potency of methane vs. the primary greenhouse gas — CO₂ — current numbers are roughly 35 times over extended periods, 87 times over shorter periods. (CO₂ lasts in the atmosphere approximately 100 years, but methane lasts a much shorter time, roughly 20 years. Because there has been so much delay in dealing with climate change, that 20 year shorter time frame is exactly the kind of time frame in which we must make significant progress in curbing greenhouse gasses to avoid hitting tipping points that can cause huge new increases in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.) Many climate experts have described controlling methane emissions as the “low-hanging fruit” for acting to forestall the most horrendous possible extremes of climate change.

This new proposed rule is an important step; we need to tell the EPA that we are in general support. However, we also need to be clear that EPA has a long way to go to have an Oil & Gas air rule that achieves real tangible health protection for those living near Oil & Gas infrastructure, such as compressor stations. Scientific research, such as the landmark paper by Howarth & Ingraffea, has clearly established that there is a threshold end-to-end methane emission level from the fracked gas industry which would make fracked gas worse than coal in its climate change impact. Obama himself seems to be aware of this issue, but still believes in an all-of-the-above energy policy, still believes the bogus bridge fuel argument that natural gas is an appropriate intermediate energy source to get us to an all-renewable future, still believes the bogus argument that fracking is safe if done right, and still believes that the methane problem can be kept under control by simply eliminating leaks.

Thus the bulk of the new proposed rule focuses on what is known as LDAR — Leak Detection and Repair. To control leaks, EPA is proposing new requirements for industry to use Optical Gas Imaging. This is a generic term which basically means the same thing as what we know as FLIR photography. We have very strong reasons for wanting to promote the use of FLIR technology, because it is a way of making hydrocarbon emissions from Oil & Gas visible. Most forms of air pollution from well pads and compressor stations are invisible to the naked eye (and many of the most serious forms of air pollution are also odorless). FLIR video is the most powerful tool available for raising awareness of just how much air pollution is streaming out of Oil & Gas infrastructure every day; for EPA to be requiring industry to use it to control methane leaks is a good first step, which we should generally applaud.

Even this very small step is going to be resisted by industry. So we need to make our voices heard. And we need to let EPA know that the rule does not go nearly far enough, in several respects (details below).

How?:
What should we be recommending to the EPA?:

Here are some sample talking points:

• We are pleased that EPA is offering its proposed update to 40 CFR Part 60, “Proposed Climate, Air Quality and Permitting Rules for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry”, (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-4776), and generally support it. However the proposed rule does not go far enough.
  
  
• States must be instructed that in their State Implementation Plans (SIPs), requirements for either a permit process or some other means of verification must be spelled out.
  
  E.g. in our state, Pennsyvania, Oil & Gas wells have a blanket exemption from the requirement for any form of air quality permit. This is known as Exemption 38 in PA-DEP’s list of exemptions from air quality permitting, PA-DEP document 275-2101-003, “Air Quality Permit Exemptions”, http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-96215/275-2101-003.pdf in which it states the following:
  
  “The owner or operator will comply with all applicable state and federal requirements including notification, record keeping, and reporting requirements as specified in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOOO. The owner or operator will also demonstrate compliance with the exemption criteria using any generally accepted model or calculation methodology within 180 days after the well completion or installation of a source. The owners and operators of sources not meeting the provisions of subsections a-d of this category may submit an RFD form to the Department. If the RFD is not approved by the Department, an application for authorization to use a general permit or a plan approval application is to be submitted to the Department, as appropriate.“
  
  Basically, Pennsylvania leaves it to the operator of an Oil & Gas well to self-evaluate compliance with 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOOO. This is not acceptable, and EPA must use this rulemaking to make clear to the states that they must have their own procedure for verifying compliance.
  
  
• LDAR results must be public.
  
  
• LDAR is not enough! Air quality permits must include blowdowns, malfunctions and other uncontrolled releases.
  
  It seems clear that the basic motivation on the part of EPA for this proposed rule is the control of methane emissions, since methane is a potent greenhouse gas. To put it crudely, the atmosphere doesn’t care “why“ methane is being released; a release is a release, whether it be from blowdown, malfunction, leak, or normal operation. All forms of methane release must be controlled.
  
  
• Methane releases should be also converted to VOC release amounts.
  
  Where methane is released in quantity into the atmosphere, this is likely to also release a much smaller but still possibly significant quantity of VOC. In one notable case in our state, Pennsylvania, a facility known as the Bernville Compressor Station suffered an accidental release lasting 41 minutes. By the operator’s own estimation, enough VOC was included in the release to amount to no less than 61 tons. I.e. this one release caused emission of more VOC in under one hour than the threshold amount for Major Source in one year! EPA must make clear to the states that all such releases must be tracked, and not only for methane, but VOC as well. Where such VOC releases, added to “normal“ operating PTE (Potential To Emit) exceed a Major Source threshold, the facility must thereafter be designated as a Major Source. PTE is a potential. Where the actual has exceeded that potential, potential must thereafter include the actual.
  
  (In the Bernville incident, Texas Eastern used the formula
  
  Volume of Gas in scf * 0.0007 = VOC in pounds.)
  
  
• The proposed rule must be extended to cover existing sources.
  
  
• Twice a year to perform LDAR checks using Optical Gas Imaging is not often enough. The proposed rule should be amended to require checks at least quarterly.
  

Background: For those wanting to dig into the documents: