2The following are critical concerns with the proposed rules:
The proposed rule expands listed categories and applies NSPS to new affected facilities in uniqueand unprecedented ways that are outside the Agency’s authority. There are NSPS sourcesincluded in the proposed rule that emit little to no regulated pollutant or are construction-relatedemissions sources that are temporary (i.e., not routine), neither of which should be included in therule.
EPA’s schedule will not allow adequate time to review and analyze all stakeholder comments,develop necessary revisions to the rules, and complete internal and interagency reviews. Fourmonths between close of the comment period and promulgation of a final rule is unrealistic andunacceptable for these significant rules impacting an industry as large and vital to the U.S.economy as the oil and gas industry.
The equipment prescribed to conduct Reduced Emission Completions will simply not beavailable in time to comply with the current final rule schedule. We believe it will take years tomanufacture sufficient specialized equipment and adequately train operators how to safelyconduct these operations.
EPA cost analyses are based on “average model facilities” that do not represent all equipment andcompliance costs and, without proper variability analysis to represent the wide variety of operations in the O&G industry, fail to identify when the controls are no longer economic.
The system of notifications, monitoring, recordkeeping, performance testing and reportingrequirements for compliance assurance are overly burdensome for the small and/or temporaryaffected facilities that EPA is regulating. This is a waste of time and resources for both industryand the EPA.
EPA has expanded an already conservative risk analysis to include “MACT allowable” emissionsand wrongly concluded that additional requirements are needed. The modeling of
emissions under the existing rules indicates that the public is protected with an ample margin of safety.Therefore, API urges the Agency to:1.
Consult with State air pollution control agency representatives on the expansion of the sourcecategory for the new and unique affected facilities as required by CAA §111(f)(3) and re-proposecertain new affected source regulations as necessary.2.
Extend the final rule deadline one year to April 5, 2013 to adequately address stakeholdercomments.3.
Allow sufficient compliance time (varying from 60 days to at least 2 years) to comply with theequipment specific NSPS requirements following promulgation of the final rule (see technicalcomments).