Methane Emissions from United States Natural Gas Gathering and Processing

New facility-level methane (CH₄) emissions measurements obtained from 114 natural gas gathering facilities and 16 processing plants in 13 U.S. states were combined with facility counts obtained from state and national databases in a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate CH₄ emissions from U.S. natural gas gathering and processing operations. Total annual CH₄ emissions of 2421 (+245/–237) Gg were estimated for all U.S. gathering and processing operations, which represents a CH₄ loss rate of 0.47% (±0.05%) when normalized by 2012 CH₄ production. Over 90% of those emissions were attributed to normal operation of gathering facilities (1697 +189/–185 Gg) and processing plants (506 +55/-52 Gg), with the balance attributed to gathering pipelines and processing plant routine maintenance and upsets. The median CH₄ emissions estimate for processing plants is a factor of 1.7 lower than the 2012 EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) estimate, with the difference due largely to fewer reciprocating compressors, and a factor of 3.0 higher than that reported under the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Since gathering operations are currently embedded within the production segment of the EPA GHGI, direct comparison to our results is complicated. However, the study results suggest that CH₄ emissions from gathering are substantially higher than the current EPA GHGI estimate and are equivalent to 30% of the total net CH₄ emissions in the natural gas systems GHGI. Because CH₄ emissions from most gathering facilities are not reported under the current rule and not all source categories are reported for processing plants, the total CH₄ emissions from gathering and processing reported under the EPA GHGRP (180 Gg) represents only 14% of that tabulated in the EPA GHGI and 7% of that predicted from this study

Methane Emissions from United States Natural Gas Gathering and Processing

New facility-level methane (CH₄) emissions measurements obtained from 114 natural gas gathering facilities and 16 processing plants in 13 U.S. states were combined with facility counts obtained from state and national databases in a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate CH₄ emissions from U.S. natural gas gathering and processing operations. Total annual CH₄ emissions of 2421 (+245/–237) Gg were estimated for all U.S. gathering and processing operations, which represents a CH₄ loss rate of 0.47% (±0.05%) when normalized by 2012 CH₄ production. Over 90% of those emissions were attributed to normal operation of gathering facilities (1697 +189/–185 Gg) and processing plants (506 +55/-52 Gg), with the balance attributed to gathering pipelines and processing plant routine maintenance and upsets. The median CH₄ emissions estimate for processing plants is a factor of 1.7 lower than the 2012 EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) estimate, with the difference due largely to fewer reciprocating compressors, and a factor of 3.0 higher than that reported under the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Since gathering operations are currently embedded within the production segment of the EPA GHGI, direct comparison to our results is complicated. However, the study results suggest that CH₄ emissions from gathering are substantially higher than the current EPA GHGI estimate and are equivalent to 30% of the total net CH₄ emissions in the natural gas systems GHGI. Because CH₄ emissions from most gathering facilities are not reported under the current rule and not all source categories are reported for processing plants, the total CH₄ emissions from gathering and processing reported under the EPA GHGRP (180 Gg) represents only 14% of that tabulated in the EPA GHGI and 7% of that predicted from this study

Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Compressor Stations in the Transmission and Storage Sector: Measurements and Comparisons with the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Protocol

Equipment- and site-level methane emissions from 45 compressor stations in the transmission and storage (T&S) sector of the US natural gas system were measured, including 25 sites required to report under the EPA greenhouse gas reporting program (GHGRP). Direct measurements of fugitive and vented sources were combined with AP-42-based exhaust emission factors (for operating reciprocating engines and turbines) to produce a study onsite estimate. Site-level methane emissions were also concurrently measured with downwind-tracer-flux techniques. At most sites, these two independent estimates agreed within experimental uncertainty. Site-level methane emissions varied from 2–880 SCFM. Compressor vents, leaky isolation valves, reciprocating engine exhaust, and equipment leaks were major sources, and substantial emissions were observed at both operating and standby compressor stations. The site-level methane emission rates were highly skewed; the highest emitting 10% of sites (including two superemitters) contributed 50% of the aggregate methane emissions, while the lowest emitting 50% of sites contributed less than 10% of the aggregate emissions. Excluding the two superemitters, study-average methane emissions from compressor housings and noncompressor sources are comparable to or lower than the corresponding effective emission factors used in the EPA greenhouse gas inventory. If the two superemitters are included in the analysis, then the average emission factors based on this study could exceed the EPA greenhouse gas inventory emission factors, which highlights the potentially important contribution of superemitters to national emissions. However, quantification of their influence requires knowledge of the magnitude and frequency of superemitters across the entire T&S sector. Only 38% of the methane emissions measured by the comprehensive onsite measurements were reportable under the new EPA GHGRP because of a combination of inaccurate emission factors for leakers and exhaust methane, and various exclusions. The bias is even larger if one accounts for the superemitters, which were not captured by the onsite measurements. The magnitude of the bias varied from site to site by site type and operating state. Therefore, while the GHGRP is a valuable new source of emissions information, care must be taken when incorporating these data into emission inventories. The value of the GHGRP can be increased by requiring more direct measurements of emissions (as opposed to using counts and emission factors), eliminating exclusions such as rod-packing vents on pressurized reciprocating compressors in standby mode under Subpart-W, and using more appropriate emission factors for exhaust methane from reciprocating engines under Subpart-C

Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Compressor Stations in the Transmission and Storage Sector: Measurements and Comparisons with the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Protocol

Equipment- and site-level methane emissions from 45 compressor stations in the transmission and storage (T&S) sector of the US natural gas system were measured, including 25 sites required to report under the EPA greenhouse gas reporting program (GHGRP). Direct measurements of fugitive and vented sources were combined with AP-42-based exhaust emission factors (for operating reciprocating engines and turbines) to produce a study onsite estimate. Site-level methane emissions were also concurrently measured with downwind-tracer-flux techniques. At most sites, these two independent estimates agreed within experimental uncertainty. Site-level methane emissions varied from 2–880 SCFM. Compressor vents, leaky isolation valves, reciprocating engine exhaust, and equipment leaks were major sources, and substantial emissions were observed at both operating and standby compressor stations. The site-level methane emission rates were highly skewed; the highest emitting 10% of sites (including two superemitters) contributed 50% of the aggregate methane emissions, while the lowest emitting 50% of sites contributed less than 10% of the aggregate emissions. Excluding the two superemitters, study-average methane emissions from compressor housings and noncompressor sources are comparable to or lower than the corresponding effective emission factors used in the EPA greenhouse gas inventory. If the two superemitters are included in the analysis, then the average emission factors based on this study could exceed the EPA greenhouse gas inventory emission factors, which highlights the potentially important contribution of superemitters to national emissions. However, quantification of their influence requires knowledge of the magnitude and frequency of superemitters across the entire T&S sector. Only 38% of the methane emissions measured by the comprehensive onsite measurements were reportable under the new EPA GHGRP because of a combination of inaccurate emission factors for leakers and exhaust methane, and various exclusions. The bias is even larger if one accounts for the superemitters, which were not captured by the onsite measurements. The magnitude of the bias varied from site to site by site type and operating state. Therefore, while the GHGRP is a valuable new source of emissions information, care must be taken when incorporating these data into emission inventories. The value of the GHGRP can be increased by requiring more direct measurements of emissions (as opposed to using counts and emission factors), eliminating exclusions such as rod-packing vents on pressurized reciprocating compressors in standby mode under Subpart-W, and using more appropriate emission factors for exhaust methane from reciprocating engines under Subpart-C

Primary Gas- and Particle-Phase Emissions and Secondary Organic Aerosol Production from Gasoline and Diesel Off-Road Engines

Dilution and smog chamber experiments were performed to characterize the primary emissions and secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation from gasoline and diesel small off-road engines (SOREs). These engines are high emitters of primary gas- and particle-phase pollutants relative to their fuel consumption. Two- and 4-stroke gasoline SOREs emit much more (up to 3 orders of magnitude more) nonmethane organic gases (NMOGs), primary PM and organic carbon than newer on-road gasoline vehicles (per kg of fuel burned). The primary emissions from a diesel transportation refrigeration unit were similar to those of older, uncontrolled diesel engines used in on-road vehicles (e.g., premodel year 2007 heavy-duty diesel trucks). Two-strokes emitted the largest fractional (and absolute) amount of SOA precursors compared to diesel and 4-stroke gasoline SOREs; however, 35–80% of the NMOG emissions from the engines could not be speciated using traditional gas chromatography or high-performance liquid chromatography. After 3 h of photo-oxidation in a smog chamber, dilute emissions from both 2- and 4-stroke gasoline SOREs produced large amounts of semivolatile SOA. The effective SOA yield (defined as the ratio of SOA mass to estimated mass of reacted precursors) was 2–4% for 2- and 4-stroke SOREs, which is comparable to yields from dilute exhaust from older passenger cars and unburned gasoline. This suggests that much of the SOA production was due to unburned fuel and/or lubrication oil. The total PM contribution of different mobile source categories to the ambient PM burden was calculated by combining primary emission, SOA production and fuel consumption data. Relative to their fuel consumption, SOREs are disproportionately high total PM sources; however, the vastly greater fuel consumption of on-road vehicles renders them (on-road vehicles) the dominant mobile source of ambient PM in the Los Angeles area

Correction to Measurements of Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Gathering Facilities and Processing Plants: Measurement Results

Correction to Measurements of Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Gathering Facilities and Processing Plants: Measurement Result