Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations state to develop a regulation and submit it to EPA for approval into the SIP in accordance with the relevant timing provided for by the CAA. Additionally, it is likely that any significant change in the operation of the existing facilities which would impact their PTE would be subject to preconstruction review by MDE. The same is true for the construction of new sources. At this time, because Maryland does not have any sources subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, no regulation is required to be developed and submitted for EPA
approval. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter and are finalizing our approval of Marylands negative declaration.
Comment 2: The commenter asserts that EPA should disapprove MDEs June 18, 2020 submittal because it relies on TANKS modelling, which utilizes outdated information, including temperature/climate data which is all over 10 years old. The commenter further takes issue with the use in the model of 70 degrees Fahrenheit F as an average temperature, asserting that summer temperatures routinely exceed that mark, and that it is settled science that as temperatures rise, so do VOC emissions. The commenter asserts that EPA cannot assume with a straight face that these tanks will only operate at 70 degrees F, that the 70 degrees F
assumption is only valid for indoor, climate-controlled situations, and that MDEs negative declaration should be disapproved because the model was improperly performed and did not consider current and realistic temperature and climatic data. Finally, the commenter asserts that the model should be run using average climatic data for each month.
Response 2: EPA disagrees with the commenters assertions. First, the CTG
provides flexibility and does not require a specific method for calculating VOC
emissions. The model rule language provided in the CTG requires only that emissions must be calculated using a generally accepted model or calculation methodology. 4 The new source performance standards of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa, also applying to the oil and natural gas sector include similar language. See 40 CFR
60.5395aa3. E&P TANKS is a generally accepted model, and therefore an appropriate tool for calculating VOC emissions for the purpose of this negative declaration. In fact, the model was one of the resources utilized by EPA in the development of 4 See section A.2i of Model Rule Language; 2016
Oil and Gas CTG; Appendix A at A8.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:01 Sep 23, 2021

Jkt 253001

the CTG.5 Second, while EPA
acknowledges that ambient temperatures impact VOC emissions from storage vessels, we do not agree that the assumption of 70 degrees F as an average temperature within the model is inappropriate. Furthermore, contrary to the commenters assertion, the use of 70 degrees as an average is not an assumption that the tank will never operate above that temperature.
MDE identified six facilities that had tanks potentially subject to the CTG: the Dominion Cove Point LNG facility, the Dominion Myersville compressor station, the Enbridge Eastern Accident compressor station, the Enbridge Accident underground storage facility, the Williams Transco Ellicott City compressor station, and the TransCanada compressor station. The documentation provided by MDE
included submittals from the potentially impacted sources, including the results of TANKS modelling to evaluate their particular storage vessels. Of the six facilities identified, only the Dominion facilities appear to have run the model with an across the board assumption of 70 degrees as the ambient temperature.6 See attachments AD of MDEs June 18, 2020 submittal.
Temperature data from the National Weather Service for the Baltimore 7 area for 2020 show that only three months June, July and Augustexceeded an average monthly temperature of 70
degrees 75.1, 82.6, and 78.7 degrees, respectively.8 The other nine months were below 70. Using 70 degrees as an average for all twelve months is therefore a conservative approach, as the over-estimating for nine months offsets the potential under-estimating for the other three. Furthermore, Dominion reported emissions for six tanks, five at the Cove Point facility, and one at the Myersville compressor station. Of those tanks, only one reported any emissions at all. That tank, a 38,152 gallon tank, containing hydrocarbons, reported emissions of only 0.02 tpy AND is equipped with a control device emissions are piped via a closed loop to a flare. See Attachment A of MDEs June 18, 2020 submittal. The modelling for the Enbridge tanks, as 5 See
2016 Oil and Gas CTG at 43.
submittal did not include documentation for the modelling runs at the TransCanada compressor station. Rather, an email from the company to MDE indicated that they performed TANKS modelling on four tanks, with a total emission estimate across all units of 0.66 tpy. See attachment D of MDEs June 18, 2020 submittal.
7 Data for the Cove Point area was not immediately available, but Baltimore is close enough to provide a representative example.
8 See https www.weather.gov/media/lwx/
climate/bwitemps.pdf 6 MDEs
PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

52995

well as the Williams Transco tanks, appears to have taken into account daily temperature variations and other variables to calculate actual monthly averages. See Attachments B and C of MDEs June 18, 2020 submittal. This approach, which is in line with the commenters assertion, also results in emissions that, in all cases, are well below the 6 tpy threshold. We find these analyses and MDEs reliance upon them to be reasonable. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter and are finalizing our approval of Marylands negative declaration.
Comment 3: The commenter asserts that EPA must disapprove MDEs negative declaration because the standards are not scientific or related to scientific procedures and are not consistent with the states development priorities for air, water, and noise.
Further, the commenter asserts that the SIP is not consistent with EPAs study on methane emissions from drilling operations, that the guidelines cannot be promulgated under the states authority because they were derived from an out-of-date methodology used in 2012, and that MDEs own review of EPAs 2012 study of hydraulic fracturing fluid emissions identified a number of concerns about the findings.
Response 3: EPA disagrees with the commenters assertion that we must disapprove MDEs June 18, 2020
submittal. First, the commenter makes several references to hydraulic fracturing fracking, but none of the wells addressed by MDEs submittal employ fracking as a means of extraction. Indeed, Maryland has imposed a fracking ban, and does not allow the practice within the State. See Md. Code Ann. Environment section 14107.1. Therefore, fracking plays no role in MDEs negative declaration or EPAs approval. Second, it is not entirely clear to which allegedly out of date methodology and allegedly unscientific standards the commenter is referring. If the commenter is referring to the CTG itself, the validity of the CTG
is not at issue in this action and will not be addressed here. This action relates only to MDEs certification that there are no sources within the State subject to the CTG. The commenter has not identified any flaws specific to MDEs methodology for making that determination, nor with EPAs proposed approval. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter and are finalizing our approval of Marylands negative declaration.
IV. Final Action EPA is approving Marylands negative declaration as a revision to Marylands
E:FRFM24SER1.SGM

24SER1