Quiero saber acerca de...

52994

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
States subject to RACT requirements are required to enact controls for sources subject to CTGs that are at least as stringent as those found within the CTG, either via the adoption of regulations or by issuance of single source permits that outline what the source is required to do to meet RACT.
On March 6, 2016 80 FR 12264, EPA
issued a final rule entitled Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule. In the preamble to the final rule, EPA makes clear that if there are no sources covered by a specific CTG source category located in an ozone nonattainment area or an area in the OTR, the state may submit a negative declaration for that CTG. See 80 FR 12264, 12278. The same negative declaration is allowed by the 2015
ozone NAAQS implementation rule.1
On October 27, 2016 81 FR 74798, EPA published in the Federal Register the Release of Final Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. This CTG provided information to state, local, and tribal air agencies to assist in determining RACT
for VOC emissions from certain VOC
emission sources within the oil and natural gas industry. The 2016 Oil and Gas CTG replaces an earlier 1983 CTG
entitled Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants.
December 1983. EPA450/383007
1983 CTG 49 FR 4432; February 6, 1984. See 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, p. 8
1.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis According to Marylands June 18, 2020 submittal, MDE conducted a review of potential sources subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. This review consisted of a search of Marylands oil and gas well records, air permit records, EPA greenhouse gas reporting records, and the Standard Industrial Classification SIC system. MDEs search identified a total of 13 facilities in Maryland operating in the production, processing, or transmission and storage segments of the oil and natural gas industry. However, none of 1 The majority of the provisions for implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS including those related to negative declarations were retained without revision for purposes of implementing the 2015
ozone NAAQS. See Implementation of the 2015
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone:
Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan Requirements 2015 Ozone Implementation Rule 83 FR 62998 December 6, 2018; and 40 CFR
51.1301.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:01 Sep 23, 2021

Jkt 253001

these facilities had storage tanks or production wells that met or exceeded the applicability criteria of the CTG.
MDE identified five facilities in the natural gas transmission sector, but determined that none of them had storage tanks with the potential to emit PTE more than 6 tons per year tpy of VOCs, which is the threshold for applicability of the CTG.2 Additionally, MDE identified eight active individual production wells, but determined that none of these exceeded the 15 barrel equivalents per day per well, which is the threshold for CTG applicability.3
Other specific requirements of the 2016
Oil and Gas CTG and the rationale for EPAs proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
III. EPAs Response to Comments Received EPA received four sets of comments on our proposed approval of Marylands June 18, 2020 negative declaration SIP
submittal. One comment was generally in favor of EPAs proposed action and will not be addressed in this action. A
summary of the other comments and EPAs response is provided herein. All comments received are included in the docket for this action.
Comment 1: The commenter asserts that the tanks and production wells identified by MDE as being potentially subject to the CTG, but determined by MDE to not meet the applicability thresholds and therefore not subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, should have mechanisms to limit their PTE to ensure that they remain below the thresholds.
The commenter provides the example of synthetic minor permits. The commenter further asserts that relying on emission factors or other engineering estimates would be arbitrary given the many variables involved.
Response 1: EPA disagrees with the commenters assertions. First, AP42
emissions factors and the engineering estimates i.e. modelling relied upon in Marylands submittal are generally accepted and are used regularly in place of direct emissions measurement.
Therefore, MDEs reliance upon them for the purposes of this negative declaration is not arbitrary. EPA
further disagrees with the commenters assertion that the reported facilities should have synthetic minor permits or other enforceable limits on their PTE, and that it is implausible to claim that these facilities could have PTEs below the applicability thresholds absent such limits. In support of this claim, the commenter offers merely the many 2 See 3 See
PO 00000

2016 Oil and Gas CTG at 36.
Id. at 37.

Frm 00044

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

variables involved, such as varying composition of the gas over time. EPAs review of Marylands submittal shows that the referenced sources all report emissions well below the thresholds.
For the potentially affected storage vessels tanks, Maryland provided extensive documentation, including calculations that considered ambient temperature variations, throughput, and chemical composition of the liquids stored in the tanks. All emissions reported were considerably under the applicability threshold for storage vessels. For example, of the six potentially affected tanks identified at the Dominion Cove Point facility, the highest emissions reported were 0.02
tpy of VOC, which is significantly below the 6 tpy threshold. See Attachment A
of MDEs June 18, 2020 submittal. The overwhelming majority of the tanks analyzed reported emissions of only a fraction of a ton per year. The highest reported emissions were for the two condensate storage tanks at the Accident compressor station. Each of those had calculated emissions of 1.2 tpy, still well below the threshold. See Attachment B of MDEs June 18, 2020
submittal.
Similarly, EPA disagrees that the identified production wells need enforceable limits on their production.
First, the commenter has provided no evidence to contradict MDEs evaluation of the wells outputs. Second, MDE
certified in their submittal that their evaluation of the production wells was based on a search of their permit records. Each of the listed wells was constructed under a permit issued by Maryland. MDE is therefore well positioned to review the data associated with each of those permits and make an accurate determination of each wells output. EPA finds no reason to determine that MDEs determination with respect to the wells was unreasonable.
EPA believes that there is a sufficient margin between the reported emissions and the applicability threshold to determine that the identified sources do not need enforceable PTE limits in order for EPA to approve Marylands negative declaration. Furthermore, Federal regulations are only necessary if a covered source exceeds the applicability thresholds established by the CTG.
Maryland has certified that none of the sources within its jurisdiction exceed these thresholds. Should any of the reported sources exceed the thresholds in the future; or should a new source of the type covered by the existing CTG
emitting more than either threshold be constructed in the state after approval of a negative declaration, EPA expects the
E:FRFM24SER1.SGM

24SER1