A rnA UnitedSlatB5
I»1 Environmental Protection
I Agflncy
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA's Response
to Public Comments
Technical Corrections, Clarifying and
Other Amendments
l
-------
October 2010
Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other
Amendments
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Atmospheric Programs
Climate Change Division
Washington, D.C.
2
-------
FOREWORD
This document provides EPA's responses to significant public comments on EPA's Proposed
Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendments. EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in the Federal Register on June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33950). EPA received comments
on this proposed rule via one or more of the following methods: regulations.gov, e-mail, fax,
mail or courier. Copies of all comments submitted are available at the EPA Docket Center
Public Reading Room. Comment letters are also available electronically through
hllp: icii'ic.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109.
Where only one comment was received on a topic, this document provides a summary of that
comment. For each comment, the name and affiliation of the commenter, and the document
control number (DCN) assigned to the comment letter is provided. Where only one comment
was provided, EPA's response to the comment is provided immediately following that comment
excerpt. Where multiple comments were received on a topic EPA has summarized these like
comments and provided a single response. The summary includes references to the name and
affiliation of the commenters and the DCN assigned to each comment letter.
In some cases, EPA provided responses to specific comments or groups of similar comments in
the preamble to the final rulemaking. Rather than repeating those responses in this document,
EPA has referenced the preamble.
While every effort was made to include all the comments related to a particular issue regarding
EPA's Proposed Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendments on 40 CFR Part 98 in
the same section of this document, some comments inevitably overlap multiple subject areas.
For comments that overlapped two or more subject areas, EPA assigned the comment to a single
subject category based on an assessment of the principle subject of the comment.
No public comments were received on the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 86, and 40 CFR
part 98, subparts K (Ferroalloy Production), O (HCFC22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction), S
(Lime Production), CC (Soda Ash Manufacturing), EE (Titanium Dioxide Production), GG (Zinc
Production), and LL (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels).
in
-------
The primary contact regarding questions or comments on this document is:
Carole Cook (202) 343-9263
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Atmospheric Programs
Climate Change Division
Mail Code 6207-J
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
ghgreportingrule@epa.gov
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1. HOW THESE AMENDMENTS APPLY TO REPORTS SUBMITTED IN 2011 1
Cement Production 1
Iron and Steel Production 1
Landfills 2
Suppliers of Petroleum Products 5
2. SUBPART E—ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION 5
3. SUBPART H—CEMENT MANUFACTURING 9
4. SUBPART N—GLASS PRODUCTION 10
5. SUBPART P—HYDROGEN PRODUCTION 11
Definition of Source Category 11
References to "Process" Carbon Dioxide Emissions 11
GHGs to Report From Hydrogen Production Process Units 11
Calculating GHG Emissions 12
6. SUBPART Q—IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION 12
7. SUBPART V—NITRIC ACID PRODUCTION 14
8. SUBPART Z—PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTION 15
9. SUBPART HH—MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS 16
Definitions 17
Mass Weighing Requirements 19
Equations and Equation Parameters 20
10. SUBPART MM—SUPPLIERS OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS 24
Treatment of Denatured Ethanol 25
Blended Products and Blended Non-crude Feedstocks 25
Miscellaneous Technical Corrections in Subpart MM 26
Definition of Non-crude Feedstock 27
Fuel Gas vs. Still Gas, and Other Changes to Table MM-1 28
Crude Oil Definition and Reporting Requirements 28
Comments on Subpart MM That Are Beyond the Scope of the Proposed Amendments 32
11. SUBPART NN—SUPPLIERS OF NATURAL GAS AND NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS 33
12. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE CORRECTIONS AMENDMENTS 34
13. GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE AMENDMENTS 35
14. GENERAL OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENTS 35
15. OUT OF SCOPE COMMENTS - COMMENTS ON SUBPARTS INCLUDED IN THE
SEPARATE PROPOSED RULEMAKING: REVISION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS
OF THE MANDATORY REPORTING OF GREENHOUSE GASES RULE 36
v
-------
1. HOW THESE AMENDMENTS APPLY TO REPORTS SUBMITTED IN
2011
Several comment letters were submitted on the subject of how the proposed amendments would
apply to reports due by March 31, 2011, for 2010 information.
Cement Production
Commenter Name: Bryan Brendle
Commenter Affiliation: Portland Cement Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0033.1
Comment: PC A proposes to extend the due dates for the initial reports to June 30, 2011 for the
2010 GHG data only. Subsequent reports will be due on March 31 of each calendar year,
beginning in 2010. Modification of Subpart H for cement manufacturers and Subpart C for
stationary combustion will have significant impacts on the cement industry, influencing the
ability to file accurate reports.
Response: Please see Section I.D of the final rule amendments preamble for the response to
comments on how these amendments will apply to the 2010 reporting year. Like the final rule
amendments for other subparts, EPA has determined that the amendments to subpart H provide
additional clarification regarding the existing regulatory requirements, but do not generally affect
the type of information that must be collected or how emissions are calculated. More
specifically, many of the final rule amendments to subpart H provide additional flexibility for
implementing specific provisions of subpart H, but do not remove, as an option, the 2009 final
rule requirements. For example, with respect to determining the weight fraction of total MgO
and CaO, reporters indicated that it is more efficient to sample clinker as it exists the kiln rather
than from bulk storage; something that is done by some facilities on a daily basis. We decided to
amend the rule to allow facilities the option to determine a monthly value based on the arithmetic
average of the daily samples. With respect to measuring clinker, we amended subpart H to
provide additional flexibility for measuring clinker, but did not remove the original option in the
2009 final rule. The final rule amendments also provide additional procedures for estimating
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from raw materials. Given that these changes generally provide
additional flexibility above and beyond what was required in the 2009 final rule, we determine
that it is not necessary to extend the reporting deadline in the first year from March 31, 2011 to
June 30, 2011.
Iron and Steel Production
Commenter Name: John L. Wittenborn, Joseph J. Green, and Alexander D. Menotti
Commenter Affiliation: Counsel to the Steel Manufacturers Association and The Specialty
Steel Industry of North America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0025.1
1
-------
Commenter Name: Kevin M. Dempsey
Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0028.1
Commenter Name: Robert F. Casselberry
Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Steel Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0031.1
Comment: All three commenters stated that if EPA chooses to include all decarburization
vessels as proposed, they should not be included in the 2010 reporting. Two commenters (0025,
0028) explained that making this change retroactive to the 2010 reporting year is untenable
because companies were obligated to develop comprehensive GHG Monitoring Plans in early
2010 and to begin recordkeeping in January 2010 in order to be able to report for the entire 2010
reporting year by March 2011.
One commenter (0028) stated that by expanding the decarburization vessel definition in Subpart
Q to include vacuum degassing and other refining operations beyond AODs, facilities with these
operations will need to make adjustments to their monitoring plans, conduct additional sampling
of inputs and outputs for these operations, make programmatic modifications to tracking
software, and re-train employees. The commenter claimed that it will be impossible to collect
the necessary samples of steel and dusts or sludges and perform analyses representative of the
months that have elapsed since the beginning of 2010 in order to perform a mass balance, and it
is also unrealistic to expect companies to consider the option of establishing a site-specific
emission factor for these units because of all of activities that would be required to perform
testing. The commenter recommended that EPA follow the course set in its July 12, 2010 final
rules adding four new source categories to the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (75 FR 39735).
The commenter said that EPA recognized that it would be unrealistic to require those operations
to report emissions for 2010 and made these new rules effective with the 2011 reporting year.
Two commenters (0025, 0028) recommended that if EPA proceeds with the proposed changes,
those requirements should be effective no sooner than 2011 and should be reportable in March
2012. One commenter (0031) believes that by amending a rule to include data acquisition and
management after a reporting period has already begun is arbitrary and capricious and will
significantly add to the burden the regulated community faces when attempting to collect
meaningful data. The commenter stated that any such amendment should be prospective in
nature and not impact calculations and sampling already underway.
Response: Please see Sections I.D and II.I of the final rule amendments preamble for the
response to comments regarding how these amendments will apply to the annual reports
submitted to EPA by March 31, 2011.
Landfills
Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly and Leslie C. Wong
Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0022.1
2
-------
Commenter Name: Edward W. Repa
Commenter Affiliation: National Solid Wastes Management Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0027.1
Commenter Name: Angela D. Marconi
Commenter Affiliation: Delaware Solid Waste Authority
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0029.1
Comment: One commenter (0027) stated that in Section I.D. (75 FR 33952) of the preamble to
the proposed rule amendments, EPA establishes the tenor of the proposed amendments by
stating:
"EPA is planning to address the comments on these proposed amendments and publish
the final amendments before the end of 2010. Therefore, reporters would be expected to
calculate emissions and other relevant data for the reports that are submitted in 2011
using the 2009 Final MRR as amended. We have determined that it is feasible for the
source to implement these changes for the 2010 reporting year since the revisions
primarily provide additional clarification regarding the existing regulatory requirements,
generally do not affect the type of information that must be collected, and do not
substantiality affect how emissions are calculated."
However, two commenters (0027 and 0029) believed that the proposed amendment in many
instances substantially change the requirements for municipal solid waste landfills (Subpart HH).
The commenters believe that EPA should not be retroactively imposing these requirements for
reports that are to be submitted in 2010 and should, according to commenter 0027, in some cases
provide an opportunity for formal public comment. The commenter asserted that sufficient
documentation was not provided for some changes (for example the change to equation HH-4),
to allow a complete review by the public.
One commenter (0022) stated that, on the whole, the Agency's proposed clarifications are
helpful and do not impose additional applicability, monitoring or information collection.
However, the commenter agreed with commenters 0027 and 0029 that in some specific
instances, the proposed clarifications do raise new issues or impose new or substantially changed
monitoring and/or information collection requirements which go beyond mere clarification or
explanation. The three commenters noted that it is not appropriate for EPA to impose material
changes retroactively for reports to be submitted in early 2011; and, if they were so finalized, it
would not be feasible for affected reporters to comply with them in the March 31, 2011, report.
One material change, in particular, noted by commenter 0022, relates to data collection and
reporting requirements under 40 CFR 98.346(h), which requires reporters to provide, "an
indication of whether passive vents and/or passive flares that are not considered part of the gas
collection system as defined in 40 CFR 98.6 are present at the landfill." The commenter noted
that this represents a new data element and would require companies to contact landfill engineers
at several hundred landfills to collect this new information. The commenter does not believe that
imposition of new data collection elements is appropriate in a "technical clarification"
3
-------
rulemaking, particularly as any such changed requirements will not be finalized until a mere
matter of weeks prior to the required submittal of 2010 emissions reports. They recommend that
EPA finalize this data element, but delay its collection to January 1, 2011, and delay its reporting
to March 31, 2012 and thereafter.
Response: In general, based on more specific details provided in the comment letters, the
commenters appear to be referring to two items that they perceived resulted in changes to the
monitoring or reporting requirements: 1) the need to determine the leachate recirculation rate;
and 2) the need to report the presence of a passive gas collection system.
First, with regard to the new explanation following Table HH-1 that reporters select their k
values based on the amount of leachate recirculation that occurs at the landfill, no additional
monitoring is required. Company records or engineering estimates are acceptable. This is made
clear in the footnote to Table HH-1 in the final rule. The additional reporting requirement
regarding the frequency of leachate recirculation requires no calculation, but merely selecting an
option from a drop down menu. Reporters also have the options of doing what was included in
the October 2009 final rule, and use the greater value instead of considering their leachate
recirculation rate.
Second, the new reporting requirement to indicate if passive vents or passive flares are present at
a landfill is not a reporting requirement that needs to be tracked all year. Instead, it requires only
an annual response to a yes/no question about whether passive vents or passive flares were
present at the landfill during the reporting year. No further detail is requested or required. As
explained in Section II.P of the Preamble, this information is important to collect and it is a
simple element that reporters have ample time to incorporate into their reporting process.
We note that we did make one additional change to the reporting requirements based on
comments received on the proposed rule related to allowing the use of an MCF of less than 1.0 if
aeration is used at the landfill. As explained in Section II.P of the Preamble, a facility may
use an MCF of less than 1.0 if there is active aeration at the landfill. If such an MCF is used,
additional information must be provided about the aeration system in use. Thus, a landfill
wanting to use an MCF of less than 1.0 would need to provide additional information regarding
2010 operations. However, it is expected that few facilities have aeration in use and would
therefore be able to use a lesser MCF. In addition, even if aeration is in place, the facility still
has the option of using the 1.0 default for MCF rather than provide the additional reporting
elements, thus, no landfill is necessarily required to report the additional information for 2010 as
they could elect to use the default MCF value of 1.
The commenters may also be referring to changes in the perceived applicability of subpart HH to
certain construction and demolition landfills based on the proposed definition of "dedicated
construction and demolition landfill." According to the commenters, the proposed definition was
more restrictive than their historical interpretation of "construction and demolition landfill"
based on RCRA Subtitle D definition in 40 CFR 257.2. We have revised the definition of
"construction and demolition landfill" using language from 40 CFR 257.2 to more clearly define
the types of landfills that are not required to report under subpart HH..
4
-------
For additional information, please see Sections I.D and II.P of the final rule amendments
preamble for the response to comments on how these amendments will apply to the 2010
reporting year. Finally, regarding the concern that the amendments should provide the
opportunity for formal public comment, EPA notes that the proposed rule was available on the
web on May 27, was published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2010 and was open for a 45-
day public comment period until July 30, 2010. While a public hearing was offered, none was
requested. Please see Section II.P of the June 15, 2010 proposal preamble for the rationale for
these changes.
Suppliers of Petroleum Products
Commenter Name: Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0019.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: API indicated that there are two EPA proposed amendments for which refiners may
not be able to meet the March 31, 2011 reporting deadline. First, API indicated that defining
"batch" in a manner that would require monthly reporting of crude oil volumes may necessitate
modifications to current refinery sampling and monitoring practices. Second, API indicated that
refineries may not be able to comply with the new language clarifying that GHG emissions
should not be calculated for products that entered the refinery but were not refined or otherwise
used on site.
Response: Please see Section I.D of the final rule amendments preamble for the response to
comments regarding how these amendments will apply to the 2010 reporting year. For a specific
response to the first part of the comment about reporting 2010 data according to the new
definition of "batch", please see Section II.R of the final rule amendments preamble. With
respect to the second part of the comment about not calculating 2010 GHG emissions for
products leaving the refinery if those products had entered the refinery but were not further
refined or otherwise used on site, the commenter did not provide information as to why refineries
may be unable to comply. EPA does not concur with the second part of this comment. In this
case, refineries do not have to collect or report new information; rather they are reporting less
information. While there may be minor additional burden for some reporters to subtract GHG
emissions for those products that no longer need to be reported, EPA sees no reason why
reporters would be unable to comply.
2. SUBPART E—ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION
One comment letter was submitted on the proposed amendments to subpart E.
5
-------
Commenter Name: Sidney H. Johnson
Commenter Affiliation: INVISTA S.a r.l. ("INVISTA")
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0017.1
Comment: INVISTA suggested further changes to Equation E-l to consider that a group of
adipic acid production units could share the same abatement technology. The commenter
suggested that the language in 40 CFR 98.53(c) be modified to include identical language from
the preamble as follows (in bold):
Using the results of the performance testing paragraph (b) of this section, you must
calculate an emission factor for each adipic acid unit (or for a group of units if the same
abatement is used) according to Equation E-l of this section: . . . .
EFN2o,n = Average facility-specific N2O emission
factor for each adipic acid production unit
(or for a group of units) (lb N2O generated/ton acid produced).
The commenter also suggested similar changes (in bold) to the language at 40 CFR 98.54(a),
98.56(j), and 98.57(c), as follows:
98.54(a): You must conduct a new performance test and calculate a new emission factor for
each adipic acid production unit (or group of units if the same abatement is used) according to
the frequency specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section.
98.56(j): If you conducted a performance test and calculated a site-specific emissions factor
according to 98.53(a), each annual report must also contain the information specified in
paragraphs (j)(l) through (j)(7) of this section for each adipic acid production unit (or group of
units if the same abatement is used).
98.57(c): Number of facility operating hours and the number of operating hours for each unit (or
group of units if the same abatement is used).
Response: EPA has added language to 40 CFR 98.53(b)(1) in the final rule to add flexibility for
facilities that have a group of units that exhaust to the same abatement equipment. However,
EPA does not believe that the additional language referring to a group of units in 40 CFR
98.53(c), 98.54(a), 98.56(j), and 98.57(c) is needed. The added language would not add
meaningful content to the rule and the issue of a group of units that share a common abatement
device has been addressed through the language added at 40 CFR 98.53(b)(1).
Please see also Section II.C of the preamble to the final rule amendments for additional
information on changes made to the final rule to address different process unit and control device
combinations.
Comment: INVISTA suggested that the subscript letter "N" in term EFN2o,n used in equation E-
1, be explained and changed to avoid confusion with the "N" in Equations E-2 and E3a. The
commenter also suggested that the word "generated" be struck from the definition of EFN2o,n in
Equation E-l to reflect that the emission factor may now be determined either before or after
6
-------
abatement. If measured after abatement, the emission factor represents a reduced amount from
the amount of N20 generated.
The commenter suggested a similar change to Equation E-3a and E-3b where the terms EFN2o,n
and EFN20 respectively, are used.
Response: Please see Section II. C of the preamble to the final rule for the response regarding
changing of subscripts and removal of the term "generated."
Comment: INVISTA agreed with the proposed amendments that changes are necessary to
calculate emissions correctly when abatement technology is not operated 100 percent of the time.
The commenter requested that additional changes be made to Equation E-3a in 40 CFR
98.53(g)(1). The commenter suggested the use of Pa instead of PaN and to move the summation
over the range of 1 to N to include only the (DFN*AFN) term.
Response: Please see Section II.C of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response
regarding accounting for instances where the abatement technology is not operated 100 percent
of the time, and for additional information on changes made to the final rule to address different
process unit and control device combinations.
Comment: INVISTA noted that facilities that perform the annual stack testing on an adipic acid
unit after abatement and then calculate emissions per Equation E-3b in 40 CFR 98.53(g)(2) are
not actually required to evaluate their abatement technology destruction efficiency or their
abatement utilization factor.
The commenter suggested that EPA add rule language to clarify that facilities are still required to
report the abatement information in 40 CFR 98.56(c), (f), (g), and (h), even if they use Equation
E-3b. According to the commenter, requiring only those facilities that perform stack testing
prior to abatement to report detailed information on abatement would be unnecessarily arbitrary.
Response: A change to the rule is not necessary in order to require that facilities report
abatement information even if they use Equation E-3b. The rule already requires that all
facilities subject to Subpart E must report abatement and that "each annual report" must contain
the items listed in paragraphs 40 CFR 98.56 related to use of any abatement technology.
Specifically they must report the following regardless of whether the testing occurs before or
after abatement: annual process N2O emissions from adipic acid production during which N2O
abatement technology is operating (tons), (e) number of abatement technologies used (if
applicable) (f) types of abatement technology used (if applicable), (g) abatement technology
destruction efficiency for each abatement technology (percent destruction), and (h) abatement
utilization factor for each abatement technology (fraction of annual production that abatement
technology is operating) (see 40 CFR 98.56(c) ). EPA has not changed these requirements.
Comment: INVISTA suggested that 40 CFR 98.54(a)(1) be changed to be consistent with the
language in 40 CFR 98.53(b)(2) in order to clarify the requirements:
Conduct the performance test annually. The test must be conducted at a point during
production in the vent system piping that is representative of the average emissions from
your process well-mixed stream composition and it must be performed during normal
7
-------
process operating conditions. You must document the methods used to determine the
representative point normal conditions.
Response: The purpose of this language in 40 CFR 98.54(a)(1) is to elaborate the requirements
outlined in 40 CFR 98.53(b)(2) to ensure that emissions data are captured when the process is
operating normally. The term "average emissions" was used to avoid testing at the beginning of
a production run or at the end of the production run. Testing during either of those times could
result in non-representative conditions. As long as the choice of the test timing is documented
and the methods used to determine the test timing are documented, this requirement is met. EPA
has changed "average emissions" to "average emissions rate" to be clearer about this intent,
because this is the parameter obtained during the performance test, but does not agree that further
revisions, like those proposed by the commenter, are needed for clarification. The language in
40 CFR 98.54(a)(1) is consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR 98.53(b)(2).
The rule offers flexibility in determining the timing of the performance testing. In both
finalizing the promulgated rule and subsequent questions from reporters, EPA learned that adipic
acid production facilities do monitor N2O on a nearly continuous basis for process reasons and
therefore, facilities do have some information on the emissions profile under varying production
runs. This information could help inform selection of time of testing. Further, there is literature
and existing data from continuous monitoring in other countries that could be used to determine
an appropriate point for measurement in the adipic acid process. Also, where continuous process
monitors are not currently available, historic data could be used. The rule provides facilities
flexibility on methods to determine this testing point. Further, facilities can also apply to EPA to
use alternative methods for determining N20 emissions.
Comment: INVISTA suggested additional language to clarify that performance testing is
allowed before or after abatement technology. Specifically, the commenter suggested amending
40 CFR 98.53 to include the specific language from the preamble as follows (in bold):
98.53(b)(i) You must conduct the test on the waste vent gas stream from the nitric acid
oxidation step of the process, referred to as the test point, according to the methods
specified in 98.54(b) through (f). This testing may be performed either before or after
N20 abatement technology.
The commenter also recommended changing "waste gas stream" to "vent gas stream" and to use
consistent terminology within Subpart E to describe the process stream that is being tested. It is
alternately referred to as the "waste gas stream" [in 40 CFR 98.53(b)(1)], the "vent stream" [in
40 CFR 98.53(d)(2)], the "emissions stream" [in 40 CFR 98.53(d)(3)] and the "air stream" [in 40
CFR 98.53(g)(1) DFn definition]. The commenter recommended the term "vent stream" be used
in each of these instances.
Response: EPA agrees that additional clarification was appropriate about the location of testing.
EPA notes that paragraphs 40 CFR 98.53(g)(1) through (g)(4) were amended to reflect cases
where performance testing could occur before or after any abatement technology. Specifically,
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2) and (g)(3) are applicable to testing that occurs prior to abatement and
paragraph (g)(4) is applicable to testing that occurs either without abatement or after an
8
-------
abatement technology With these changes, EPA determined that the clarification provided by the
commenter was not necessary.
EPA agrees with the proposed changes to the term "waste gas stream" and "air stream." The
terms have been consistently changed to "vent stream" in 40 CFR 98.53(b)(1), 98.53(d)(3), and
98.53(g)(1).
3. SUBPART H—CEMENT MANUFACTURING
Two comment letters were submitted on the proposed amendments to subpart H.
Commenter Name: J. Brian Gasiorowski
Commenter Affiliation: Lafarge North America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0020.1
Commenter Name: Bryan Brendle
Commenter Affiliation: Portland Cement Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0033.1
Comment: Two commenters (0020, 0033) noted that reporting requirements in 40 CFR
98.86(a)(2) and 98.86(b)(3) require cement manufacturers to report monthly cement production
from each kiln at the facility. The commenters pointed out that cement kilns produce clinker -
not cement. The clinker from each cement kiln is subsequently sent to a mill and pulverized into
a fine powder, and mixed with other ingredients to produce cement. Plants that operate multiple
kilns may combine the clinker from all kilns and store the combined clinker before feeding it to
the cement mill. Because of the variability of the amount of clinker produced by different kilns, and
the varying methods of storage, the commenters proposed that EPA require cement manufacturers to
report the total quantity of cement produced by the facility on an annual rather than monthly, kiln-
specific basis.
Response: Because the requirement to report cement production was for verification of reported
emissions data, and was not actually used in emissions calculations, we have revised the rule to
require facilities to report cement production on an annual, facility-wide basis. Due to the
variations in storage time between clinker production and cement production, cement production
data on a monthly basis do not provide significantly more information than data on an annual
basis to warrant the additional data collection. Moreover, it appears that the requirements in 40
CFR 98.86(a)(2) and 98.86(b)(3) are not consistent with cement plant manufacturing practices,
and therefore should not be required on a kiln-specific basis.
Comment: One commenter (0020) expressed concern that the monthly verification of the feed-
to-clinker ratio, required under 40 CFR 98.94(d), is unduly burdensome. The commenter
suggested that EPA change the rule to require quarterly verification instead of monthly.
9
-------
Response: Please see Section II.D of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response on clinker monitoring and reporting requirements.
Comment: One commenter (0033) stated that the cement kiln dust (CKD) measurement
requirements under 40 CFR 98.84(e) should be revised to be consistent with the clinker
measurement requirements under 40 CFR 98.84(d). Specifically, 40 CFR 98.84(d) allows
facilities to determine monthly clinker quantities by either reconciling weigh hopper or belt
weigh feeder measurements against inventory measurements or by direct weight measurement of
raw feed and applying a feed-to-clinker ratio. In contrast, 40 CFR 98.84(e) requires facilities to
determine quarterly CKD quantities by direct weight measurement. The commenter pointed out
that the CKD quantity has a lesser impact on C02 emission calculations than the clinker quantity.
Therefore, the rule should not have more stringent measurement requirements for CKD than for
clinker. The commenter also stated that direct weight measurement devices should not be
required to be installed if they are currently not being utilized at the facility, and requested that
facilities be permitted to use the same methods currently in place for accounting purposes to
determine the quantity of CKD not recycled to the kiln.
Response: Please see Section II.D of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response on CKD monitoring requirements.
Comment: One commenter (0020) proposed revising the language in 40 CFR 98.87 as follows:
• Remove 40 CFR 98.87(a)(3) since it does not add any substantive requirements beyond
what is already stated as required in the introductory part of 40 CFR 98.87(a).
• Reword 40 CFR 98.87(b) to read "you must retain the records specified in this paragraph
(b) for each Portland cement manufacturing facility" instead of reading "you must retain
the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (b) of this section for each Portland
cement manufacturing facility."
Response: We have made the edits suggested by the commenter to clarify the language in 40
CFR 98.87(a) and (b).
4. SUBPART N—GLASS PRODUCTION
One comment letter was submitted on the proposed amendments to subpart N.
Commenter Name: Monica (no surname provided)
Commenter Affiliation: None provided.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0012
Comment: The commenter reviewed the Technical Corrections & Other Amendments
document on EPA's website and would like to request that lithium carbonate and strontium
carbonate should be included in the rule in Table N-l with their associated emission factors.
10
-------
Response: Please see Section II.F of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response on adding emissions factors for lithium carbonate and strontium carbonate.
5. SUBPART P—HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
One comment letter was submitted on the proposed amendments to subpart P.
Commenter Name: Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0019.1
Definition of Source Category
Comment: API noted that EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.160(c) to clarify that
hydrogen production facilities located within other facilities are also included in the source
category if they are not owned by, or under the direct control of, the other facility's owner and
operator. This clarification was necessary to correct a misunderstanding that the original rule
text limited the source universe to hydrogen production facilities located within petroleum
refineries. API supports this revision as it clarifies how refineries were interpreting the rule.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. The definition of the source category for
subpart P in the final rule, like the proposed rule, includes merchant hydrogen facilities located
within other facilities if they are not owned by, or under the direct control of, the other facility's
owner and operator.
References to "Process" Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Comment: API noted that EPA is proposing to amend subpart P to remove several references to
"process" CO2 emissions. EPA is proposing to clarify the text in the rule by removing references
to the term "process" from the rule language. API supports this revision as it clarifies the
requirements for hydrogen plants.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. The final rule, like the proposed rule,
removes the references to "process" C02 emissions.
GHGs to Report From Hydrogen Production Process Units
Comment: API noted that EPA is proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 98.162(b)
for owners or operators to report C02, CH4 and N20 combustion emissions from each hydrogen
production process unit using the emissions calculation methods in subpart C. This provision
results in double counting of combustion-related emissions from hydrogen production process
units, as these combustion emissions are already accounted for when following the calculation
11
-------
methods in 40 CFR 98.163(a) or (b). Emissions of CO2 would still be reported under 40 CFR
98.162(a) using the procedures in 40 CFR 98.163(a) or 98.163(b). API supports this revision as
it clarifies the requirements for hydrogen plants.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. The final rule, like the proposed rule,
removes the requirements in 40 CFR 98.162(b).
Calculating GHG Emissions
Comment: API noted that EPA is also proposing to amend language describing the calculation
of GHG emissions from gaseous, liquid, and solid fuels and feedstocks in 40 CFR 98.163. The
clarified language would specify that each gaseous, liquid, or solid fuel and feedstock would
need to be calculated based on its respective equations detailed in the rule language. This
removes the concern that the current language was unclear as to which fuel and feedstock stream
would be used to calculate C02 emissions. API supports this revision. This clarification
confirms API's interpretation of the rule.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. The final rule, like the proposed rule,
retains the clarification on the calculation of GHG emissions from gaseous, liquid, and solid
fuels and feedstocks in 40 CFR 98.163.
Comment: API noted that EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.166(c) to strike "quarterly"
and "kg" (kilogram). Some facilities subject to subpart P may also be subject to subpart PP—
Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide. Quarterly reporting of C02 quantities (in kilograms) was not
consistent with subpart PP. API supports this revision.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. The final rule, like the proposed rule,
amends 40 CFR 98.166(c) to strike "quarterly" and "kg" (kilogram).
6. SUBPART Q—IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION
Three comment letters were received on the proposed amendments to subpart Q.
Commenter Name: John L. Wittenborn, Joseph J. Green, and Alexander D. Menotti
Commenter Affiliation: Counsel to the Steel Manufacturers Association and The Specialty
Steel Industry of North America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0025.1
Commenter Name: Kevin M. Dempsey
Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0028.1
12
-------
Commenter Name: Robert F. Casselberry
Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Steel Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0031.1
Comment: Two commenters (0025, 0028) said that the proposal to clarify the definition of
decarburization vessels to include all decarburization vessels rather than just argon-oxygen
decarburization (AOD) was not merely a technical correction or clarification, but was instead a
substantive change to subpart Q as promulgated. According to the commenters, the new
definition of decarburization vessel, which includes a list of the covered processes and the phrase
"or other decarburization vessels," is much too broad and inclusive. The commenters noted that
most steel plants, whether integrated or electric arc furnace producers, employ several different
kinds of refining processes to improve the quality of the steel produced, and some of these
refining processes, such as AODs, are primarily intended to reduce carbon. However, the
commenters stated that other processes, such as vacuum degassing, electro-slag remelting, and
vacuum-arc remelting, are primarily intended to reduce dissolved gases such as hydrogen,
nitrogen, and oxygen in the molten steel, and carbon reduction is only incidental. According to
the commenters, making these processes subject to subpart Q would require facilities to make
numerous adjustments to their monitoring plans and conduct additional sampling. For these
reasons, the commenters believe that the proposed amendment would add significant new
requirements and represent a substantive change rather than being merely a clarification. One
commenter (0031) said that the time and effort to verify GHG emissions from vacuum degassing
would be extremely burdensome and could increase the resources needed to comply with subpart
Q by 50 percent. The commenter stated that the added burden of data collection, measurements,
recordkeeping, and reporting of these emissions is not justified by the addition of vacuum
degassing and other refining operations to the mandatory reporting requirements.
Two of the commenters (0028, 0031) estimated that the additional processes included in the
proposed amendment contribute "substantially less than 1 percent" of the emissions from the
sector, and one commenter (0025) estimated they contributed only 0.02 percent of the emissions.
One commenter (0025) said that because these emissions are relatively insignificant and would
be extremely difficult to quantify for reporting purposes, they should continue to be excluded
from reporting obligations. The commenter also rejected the rationale that emissions from all
decarburization vessels should be reported because EPA is also proposing to limit reporting of
emissions from flares to those burning coke oven gas or blast furnace gas only (an amendment
that the commenter supports), which would obviate reporting of vacuum degasser flare
emissions. The commenter said that the emissions are so low they would be difficult to detect,
and measuring such emissions through either the carbon-mass balance approach or a site-specific
emission factor would be burdensome and potentially infeasible. The commenter concluded that
EPA has not provided a rational basis for inclusion of decarburization vessels within the GHG
Reporting Rule.
Two commenters (0025, 0028) recommended that if EPA proceeds by adding a definition for
"decarburization vessel," the definition should be revised. One commenter (0025) suggested that
the definition be clarified such that it includes only vessels for which the primary purpose is
decarburization. The other commenter (0028) asked that it be revised to read, "any vessel used
to further refine molten steel with the primary intent of reducing carbon content of the steel that
also requires flaring the off-gas to oxidize CO to CO2."
13
-------
All three commenters stated that if EPA chooses to include all decarburization vessels as
proposed, they should not be included in 2010 reporting (see Section 1 of this document, "How
these amendments apply to Reports Submitted in 2011").
Response: Please see Sections I.D and II.I of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response to these comments on the proposed amendments for decarburization vessels.
7. SUBPART V—NITRIC ACID PRODUCTION
Two comment letters were submitted on the proposed amendments to subpart V.
Commenter Name: Sidney H. Johnson
Commenter Affiliation: INVISTA S.a r.l. ("INVISTA")
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0017.1
Commenter Name: Thomas Siegrist
Commenter Affiliation: Koch Nitrogen Company, LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0030.1
Comment: Two commenters (0017 and 0030) requested that 40 CFR 98.223(b)(1) be modified
to match the preamble to the final rule concerning sampling. The commenters asked that 40
CFR 98.223(b)(1) be revised (see bold) to clearly state that sampling can occur either upstream
or downstream of abatement:
You must conduct the performance test at the absorber tail gas vent, referred to as the test
point, for each nitric acid train according to §98.224(b) through (f). If N2O abatement
technology has been installed in a train, that train's performance test may be
conducted either upstream or downstream of the abatement technology.
Response: EPA agrees that additional clarification beyond the proposal was appropriate
regarding the location of testing. EPA notes that paragraphs 40 CFR 98.223(g)(1) through (g)(4)
were amended to reflect cases where performance testing could occur before or after any
abatement technology. Specifically, paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2) and (g)(3) are applicable to testing
that occurs prior to abatement and paragraph (g)(4) is applicable to testing that occurs either
without abatement or after an abatement technology. With these changes, EPA determined that
the clarification provided by the commenter was not necessary.
Comment: One commenter (0030) requested that the units for the average site-specific N2O
emissions factor for nitric acid train "t" (EFN2ot) be changed from "lb N2O generated/ton nitric
acid produced, 100 percent acid basis" to "lb N20/ton nitric acid produced, 100 percent acid
basis." The calculated emission factor for facilities that conduct a performance test downstream
of abatement actually represent the pounds of N2O emitted, rather than the pounds of N2O
generated. With the suggested change to removed the word "generated," the units become
applicable to performance tests conducted either upstream or downstream of abatement.
14
-------
Response: EPA agrees with this change. The units of the emission factor were changed from
"lb N20 generated/ton of nitric acid produced, 100% acid basis" to "lb N20/ton of nitric acid
produced, 100% acid basis."
Comment: According to one commenter (0030), facilities do not have information to determine
a point during the campaign which is representative of the average emissions over the entire
campaign. The commenter requested that 40 CFR 98.224(a)(1) be modified as indicated to
ensure that performance tests are conducted during representative operations while enabling
operating facilities to document and demonstrate compliance with this objective:
Conduct the performance test annually. The test should must be conducted at a point
during the campaign which is representative of the average emissions over the entire
campaign under normal process operating conditions. Facilities must document the
methods used to determine the representative point of the campaign demonstrate that
the performance test was conducted at a time representative of normal operation
when the performance test is conducted.
Response: Please see Section II.K of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response to comments on the selection of the test conditions.
Comment: One commenter (0017) noted that the regulation for Adipic Acid is similar to the
regulation for Nitric Acid and asked that EPA compare the clarifications made to each of these
subparts for consistency.
Response: Please see Section II.K of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response on amendments to subpart V that are consistent with the commenter's
recommendations on subpart E.
8. SUBPART Z—PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTION
One comment letter was submitted on the proposed amendments to subpart Z.
Commenter Name: Diana M. Jagiella
Commenter Affiliation: The Mosaic Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0032.1
Comment: Mosaic requested that Equation Z-l be updated. Regarding the inorganic carbon
determinations, Equation Z-l assumed that the AFPC test is for inorganic carbon and the
equation provides for calculation of CO2 emissions using inorganic carbon content as an input.
However, the AFPC test is for CO2 directly, making Equation Z-l inapplicable as written. The
commenter suggested a technical amendment (removing the factor to convert from inorganic
carbon to CO2) to correct this minor misalignment.
Response: Please see preamble Section ILL on subpart Z- Phosphoric Acid Production for the
response on updating equation Z-l.
15
-------
Comment: Mosaic stated that a grab sampling protocol for phosphate rock samples will be
incorporated into the 10th edition of AFPC manual and that the manual will be updated Version
1.92 of the AFPC manual. The commenter noted that AFPC Manual 10th Edition 2009 Version
1.9 does not contain a protocol for grab sampling. The commenter noted that the proposed
amendments cite and incorporate by reference the AFPC Manual 10th Edition, without
referencing a year or a version, and suggested that the added protocol for grab sampling would
seem to be incorporated into subpart Z, under the proposed amendments, without any further
action needed by EPA or by AFPC. The commenter noted that 40 CFR 98.7, states that
materials are incorporated by reference "on the date of approval," and took this to mean that the
proposed amendments were, in effect, changing the documents being incorporated. Thus, the
commenter believed that since the protocol will be incorporated into the AFPC method prior to
publication of the final rule amendments, facilities may begin using the AFPC grab sampling
protocol at the time the rule amendments become effective. The commenter requested that EPA
clarify that this interpretation of the proposed amendments to the references to the AFPC manual
is correct.
Response: EPA agrees that it is important to allow phosphoric acid facilities to follow the latest
standard protocol for grab samples of phosphate rock. In light of this, EPA has finalized
requirements to provide flexibility and requires use of an industry consensus standard or industry
standard practice for collecting grab samples. As an example, the Association of Fertilizer and
Phosphate Chemists (AFPC) Manual 10l Edition- Version 1.92 and future versions of that
manual would be an acceptable standard. Therefore, for consistency, EPA has updated the
reference in both 98.264(a) and (b) to allow use of industry consensus standards or industry
standard practices.
9. SUBPART HH—MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
Several comment letters were submitted on the proposed amendments to subpart HH.
Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly and Leslie C. Wong
Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0022.1
Commenter Name: Niki Wuestenberg
Commenter Affiliation: Republic Services
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0024.1
Commenter Name: Edward W. Repa
Commenter Affiliation: National Solid Wastes Management Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0027.1
Commenter Name: Angela D. Marconi
Commenter Affiliation: Delaware Solid Waste Authority
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0029.1
16
-------
Commenter Name: Sparsh Khandeshi, Meleah Geertsma, Craig Segall
Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Sierra Club
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0034.1
Definitions
Comment: Several commenters (0022, 0024, 0027) stated that the new definition of "dedicated
construction and demolition (C&D) waste landfills" is problematic and inappropriate because it
is inconsistent with the C&D landfill definition already long-established in 40 CFR 257.2,
"Criteria for the Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices," it represents a
significant material change to the MRR GHG reporting applicability requirements, and it
changes the data collection requirements for landfills retroactively. The RCRA Subtitle D
definition in part 257.2 is:
"Construction and demolition (C&D) landfill means a solid waste disposal facility
subject to the requirements of subparts A or B of this part that receives construction and
demolition waste and does not receive hazardous waste (defined in § 261.3 of this
chapter) or industrial solid waste (defined in § 258.2 of this chapter). Only a C&D
landfill that meets the requirements of subpart B of this part may receive conditionally
exempt small quantity generator waste (defined in § 261.5 of this chapter). A C&D
landfill typically receives any one or more of the following types of solid wastes:
roadwork material, excavated material, demolition waste, construction/renovation waste,
and site clearance waste."
According to the commenters, a dedicated C&D landfill as defined in the proposal rarely exists
and most states allow C&D landfills to accept yard waste and other forms of household trash,
pointing to the use of the word "typically" with regard to the types of wastes received, and
suggesting that site clearance waste includes yard waste among other materials. The commenters
urged EPA to delete the new C&D landfill definition in 40 CFR 98.348 and replace it with the
definition found in 40 CFR 257.2. On the other hand, one commenter (0034) expressed concern
with excluding "dedicated C&D waste landfills" even with the proposed definition and requested
EPA to quantify the methane emissions from these C&D landfills.
Response: Please see Section II.P of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response to these comments.
Comment: Several commenters (0022, 0024, 0029) expressed appreciation over the amended
definition of "gas collection systems or landfill gas collection systems" to confirm and clarify
that passive vents/flares are not considered part of a landfill gas collection system for purposes of
40 CFR 98, Subpart HH. However, these commenters opposed the reporting requirement to
provide "an indication of whether passive vents and/or passive flares that are not considered part
of the gas collection system as defined in 40 CFR 98.6 are present at the landfill." The
commenters argued that this represents a new data element that would require significant
17
-------
additional burden to collect. The commenters recommend that EPA finalize this data element,
but delay its collection to January 1, 2011, and delay its reporting to March 31, 2012 and
thereafter. On the other hand, one commenter (0034) expressed concern that EPA's decision to
exempt "passive" gas collection systems from flow meter reporting may inadvertently exempt
substantial emissions sources. The commenter noted the uncertainty as to the number of landfills
with passive vent controls and that the cumulative emissions from these passive collection
systems could be significant. The commenter requested EPA include any data on this point in
the record for the final rulemaking and include passive gas collection systems fully in the rule if
warranted. This commenter (0034) supported additional reporting requirements in 40 CFR
98.346 regarding descriptions of gas collection systems.
Response: Please see Section II.P of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response to these comments on the request for a delay in the reporting of whether passive vents
and/or passive flares are present.
As for the one commenter's (0034) concern that EPA is exempting passive gas collection
systems from flow meter reporting, this exemption will not affect the emission sources that are
reported under subpart HH. Subpart HH already includes provisions for calculating and
reporting GHG emissions from landfills with passive vent and/or passive flare systems that do
not rely on flow meter reporting.
Comment: One commenter (0029) noted that they operate a closed landfill that incorporates the
use of small fans with passive flares. According to this commenter, the use of these devices does
not qualify as a landfill gas collection system per 40 CFR 98.6 due to the lack of central
treatment. Another commenter (0022), while voicing support of the amended definition of a gas
collection system, also stated that "the amendment correctly recognizes that passive systems do
not collect and route gas to a single location as occurs in an active system."
Response: The proposed amendments contained the following revised definition, in which the
bolded text indicates the text added under the proposed amendment:
"Gas collection system or landfill gas collection system means a system of pipes used to
collect landfill gas from different locations in the landfill by means of a fan or similar
mechanical draft equipment to a single location for treatment (thermal destruction) or
use. Landfill gas collection systems may also include knock-out or separator drums
and/or a compressor. Landfill gas collection systems do not include "passive"
systems, whereby landfill gas flows naturally to the surface of the landfill where an
opening or pipe (vent) is installed to allow for natural gas flow."
Pursuant to this definition, the distinguishing feature delineating an "active" gas collection
system from a passive gas collection system is the presence of a fan or similar mechanical draft
equipment, rather than the type of destruction device (i.e., "active" versus "passive" flare).
Therefore, the system described by the first commenter is considered a "gas collection system or
landfill gas collection system" because it uses a fan. The size of the fan is not a relevant factor
for determining if the system is "passive." Passive systems are clearly characterized in the
amended definition as having unaided gas flow. The amendments did not alter the language
regarding "a single location for treatment," therefore it is unclear what is meant by the second
18
-------
commenter's statement, but it suggests that this commenter may have similar misinterpretations
as the first commenter. Additionally, the number of flares present at the landfill does not alter
the definition of gas collection system. A large landfill that has two separate series of pipes and
fans that each direct landfill gas to two separate flares would have two separate gas collection
systems.
Based on these comments, we believe that some landfill owners and operators may be
misinterpreting the intent of the proposed clarifications. Any series of pipes and even a single
pipe with multiple holes to allow landfill gas to be conveyed from different points (either
vertically or horizontally) within the landfill to a destruction device can be considered "to collect
gas from different locations within the landfill.. .to a single location for treatment." Therefore,
while we are finalizing the proposed amendments to clarify our intent to require monitoring of
only the "active" gas collection systems, we are also including an additional sentence within the
final amended definition to note that, "A single landfill may have multiple gas collection
systems."
Comment: One commenter (0029) stated that the proposed definition presented in 40 CFR
98.348 for "destruction device" is inconsistent with the definition already contained in 40 CFR
98.6 of the original rule. The commenter requested that, in agreement with the definition
presented in 40 CFR 98.6, the proposed definition for "destruction device" in 40 CFR 98.348
should include conveyance through a pipeline for use/combustion offsite as a type of destruction
device.
Response: There is no inconsistency between the definition of "destruction" in 40 CFR 98.6 and
"destruction device" in 40 CFR 98.48. The term "destruction device" in 40 CFR 98.348
specifically refers to the device used to effect combustion of methane and does not include a
pipeline because the simple conveyance of gas through a pipeline does not effect combustion.
The 40 CFR 98.348 definition of "destruction device" does not mandate that the device be
located at the landfill facility, and we further clarify in this response that the destruction device
may be located off-site. When the term "for destruction" is used, the definition of "destruction"
in 40 CFR 98.6 prevails, and clearly indicates that destruction can occur off-site and the transport
of landfill gas via pipeline to an off-site destruction device constitutes "destruction." Both terms
require that methane transported offsite for destruction be included in facility totals.
Mass Weighing Requirements
Comment: Several commenters (0022, 0024, and 0027) stated that the requirement in 40 CFR
98.343(a)(3) to use scales when scales are in-place for all vehicles, except passenger vehicles and
light-duty pick-up trucks, or containers delivering waste, would be problematic. They asserted it
is not possible to physically weigh all loads entering the landfill because their weight may
exceed the scales' capability or the dimensions of the waste may not allow the waste load to pass
through the physical constraints of the scale and scale-house. Some commenters (0022, 0024,
0027, and 0029) noted that state and local requirements may require accounting of certain waste
types on a volumetric basis despite the landfill having scales. The commenters suggested that
having to maintain two sets of records in order to comply with all established regulatory
requirements is an unnecessary burden and contrary to acceptable accounting practices. One
19
-------
commenter (0024) suggested that the clarification to require all waste loads to be weighed via a
scale was a substantial material change because the final rule could be interpreted to allow
tipping fee receipts or company records for the 2010 reporting year and beyond, and not just
direct measurement. The commenters (0022, 0024, 0027) generally recommended that 40 CFR
98.343(a)(3) be revised so that waste loads could be measured by using either methodologies as
appropriate for the waste type disposed, even if scales were present at the landfill. The
commenters suggested EPA allow facilities to estimate the weight/volume of the delivered waste
material using methods and factors allowed or required by state or local agencies or other
methods documented in the facility's relevant GHG Monitoring Plan.
Response: Please see Section II.P of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response to these comments.
Comment: One commenter (0029) assumed that the proposed amendments in 40 CFR
98.343(a)(3) addressed the weight estimation methods for passenger vehicles and light duty
pickup trucks. The commenter was opposed to these requirements for passenger vehicles and
light duty trucks and requested the methods provided in this section be removed and replaced
with estimation methods deemed acceptable by local practice. According to the commenter, the
second method provided in the rule may be useful; however the recording of inbound weight for
this method would be a waste of time and effort. The measurement of inbound weight is
rendered meaningless without an outbound weight with which to compare it. Therefore, the
commenter requested that the requirement to record inbound weight be removed. The commenter
suggested that rather than utilizing the method proposed that routine checks be performed on the
assumed vehicle weights.
Response: The commenter appears to have misinterpreted the proposed requirements for light
duty trucks and passenger vehicles. While landfills owners or operators may elect to weigh
individual loads in these vehicles according to the methods in 40 CFR 98.343(a)(3)(i)(A) or (B),
they may also use the methods in 40 CFR 98.343(a)(3)(ii). Section 98.343(a)(3)(ii) allows the
landfill owner or operator to develop a typical waste load mass per passenger vehicle and/or per
light duty pick-up truck, then simply record the number of passenger vehicles and light duty
pick-up trucks entering the landfill, and use those data to calculate the cumulative waste
quantities received from passenger vehicles and light duty pick-up trucks. The proposed
amendments include no requirement to measure each incoming passenger vehicle or light duty
pick-up truck. As such, we find that the proposed amendments adequately address the concerns
expressed by this commenter, and we are finalizing the proposed amendments to allow passenger
vehicles or light duty pick-up trucks to use alternatives to the direct mass weighing requirements
in 40 CFR 98.343(a)(3)(i).
Equations and Equation Parameters
Comment: Two commenters (0022, 0027) indicated that the requirement to use a methane
correction factor (MCF) of 1 will overestimate methane generation from landfills that are
actively aerated and recommended that facilities be allowed to use alternative MCF values based
on site-specific conditions (e.g., the use of in-situ aeration).
20
-------
Response: Please see Section II.P of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response to these comments.
Comment: One commenter (0022) noted that the new defaults for inert wastes in Table HH-1
are designated for use only by those landfills capable of segregating and measuring the waste
they accept by composition using EPA's proscribed waste categories, which include: food waste,
garden, paper, wood and straw, textiles, diapers, sewage sludge and, now, inerts. These
categories are not used as a means of categorizing waste receipts at U.S. MSW landfills and few
if any MSW landfills will be able to adjust for large quantities of inerts that may be disposed of
at a specific landfill. The commenter noted that the MSW landfill sector in the U.S. typically
records waste type receipts using the broad categories of MSW bulk waste, construction and
demolition (C&D) bulk waste, inert waste, sewage sludge, and yard and garden waste. The
commenter recommended that the inert defaults be included in Table HH-1 in the section for the
"Bulk Waste Option" to allow landfills to take large shipments of bulk inert wastes into account
in their landfill gas generation models.
Response: Please see Section II.P of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response to this comment.
Comment: One commenter (0022) noted some technical issues with the proposed amendments
to Equation HH-4 and the related requirements in 40 CFR 98.343(b). As proposed, 40 CFR
98.343(b)(2) requires methane and, if necessary, temperature, pressure, and moisture content to
be measured once each calendar week. Many landfills measure these parameters more than once
per calendar week for various operational reasons. When available, "extra" readings improve
measurement accuracy and, therefore, should be encouraged. However, as proposed, the
provision is not clear with regard to how the "extra" readings should be incorporated in the
equation (i.e., average the readings, use only one reading, etc.). The commenter suggested
averaging the values within the measurement period, which is consistent with the definition of
(CcH4)n in equation HH-4 and subpart HH should refer to these parameters as averages.
Response: We did not intend to limit the use of measurement data to once per day or once per
week. We have revised the definition of the temperature and pressure variables in Equation HH-
4 to indicate "average temperature" and "average pressure." We have also revised the language
in 40 CFR 98.343(b)(2)(ii), (iii)(A), and (iii)(B), to further clarify our intent to allow
measurements to be made more often than once per calendar week. Specifically, the final
amendments require monitoring of gas CH4 concentration, temperature, pressure, and (if
required) moisture content "at least once each calendar week; if only one measurement is made
each calendar week, there must be at least three days between measurements." We are clarifying
through this response that it is acceptable (and preferable) to calculate and use the average value
when multiple measurements are made during a given week. However, we are concerned that
specifically requiring the calculation of the average value when multiple measurements are made
during a given week could be considered to be an additional calculation requirement and that
some landfill owners and operators may not have maintained records of these "additional
measurements." Therefore, we are not adding further clarifications that "require" averaging.
Nonetheless, we believe the final rule amendment language adequately allows for the
calculations of average values as requested by the commenter. If multiple measurements are
21
-------
made and an average for the week taken, per the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR
98.3(g)(2), individual measurements used to calculate the average must be retained as a record.
Comment: One commenter (0027) stated that EPA proposed substantial changes to Equation
HH-4 from the 2009 final rule without providing support documentation or a rationale for
making these changes. This lack of rationale does not allow for a complete review and comment
by the regulated community.
Response: The commenter is mistaken. The rationale for the proposed amendments was
provided in the preamble to the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments were
published in the Federal Register and the public was given 45 days to submit comments.
Therefore, we consider that we have fulfilled our obligation to provide for public review and
comment of the proposed amendments.
The need for the proposed clarifying amendments can be illustrated through the large number of
questions received by EPA on this issue. Page 15 of the May 20, 2010 memorandum "Summary
of questions raised on various subparts of the final Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
(40 CFR Part 98) after promulgation that are being addressed in the proposed technical
corrections and other amendments" (Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0004) indicates
that at least ten submittals to the hotline posed questions or requested clarification on Equation
HH-4 specifically with regard to correcting for moisture content. The significant number of
submittals to EPA on the same topic demonstrates confusion and clearly indicates the need for
correction or clarification to the rule language.
Comment: Two commenters (0022, 0027) indicated that the amendment to Table HH-1
regarding leachate recirculation imposed substantial new data collection requirements that would
require significant operational changes to implement. According to the commenters, most
landfills that recirculate leachate do not measure and track the volume that is recirculated during
each event and would not be able to provide these data for the 2010 calendar year. Furthermore,
one of the commenters (0027) suggested that landfills would incur significant expense to install
appropriate leachate measurement and ancillary equipment for a nominal impact on landfill GHG
emissions calculation.
Response: Please see Section II.P of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response to these comments.
Comment: Two commenters (0022, 0027) stated that the Agency should not establish
mandatory default values for "k" in the bulk waste section of Table HH-1, but retain the
proposed default values for optional use and specifically allow for reporters to determine "k" by
their own method, as documented in the facility's relevant GHG Monitoring Plan. According to
the commenters, many physical factors influence the decay rate or "k" of the organic material
present in an MSW landfill. While moisture content in the landfill is a significant influence on
decay rate, it is not the exclusive influence, and is often not even the dominant influence. The
commenters believe it is not scientifically defensible to impose a mandatory, static decay rate for
all landfills accepting bulk MSW based solely upon the single factor of moisture content. The
commenters suggested that "flexibility should be allowed so that each MSW landfill may use site
specific data to calculate "k" as is recommended in the Agency's LandGem User's Guide and
22
-------
AP-42 Emission Factors for MSW Landfills." The commenters suggested that the reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 98.346(a), which require reporters to provide the frequency of leachate
recirculation, could be further amended to require that reporters indicate whether they are relying
on one of the default values for "k" provided for MSW bulk waste in Table HH-1, or if they are
using their own procedure and site specific data, as provided in the facility's respective GHG
Monitoring Plan. The commenters also suggested that footnote "a" to Table HH-1 be amended
to read as follows: "Use these default values for "k" if you do not calculate your own "k" value
using site-specific data and a procedure included in the GHG Monitoring Plan. If you use these
default values, recirculated leachate.
Response: Although AP-42 indicates that significant variability in the decay rate constants may
be observed at individual landfills, AP-42 and LandGEM do not provide a recommended means
by which one should determine this site-specific "k" value. In fact, there is no real test method
by which to determine this "k" value. The final rule provides an option where "k" values can be
selected based on waste composition. We are also finalizing an "alternative bulk MSW option"
that will allow landfills owners and operator greater flexibility to characterize their waste streams
without the detail required by the waste composition option (see Section II.P of the preamble for
the final rule amendments for additional details regarding this amendment). We find that the
alternative bulk MSW option provides adequate flexibility by landfill owners and operators to
use site-specific parameters in the methane generation equation. We also find that it is
inappropriate to allow individual landfills to derive their own bulk waste "k" value. EPA does
not know of any industry standard practices for determining the decay rate, nor do the
commenters provide this information.
Comment: One commenter (0027) stated that the proposed changes to Table HH-1 are unclear
as presented. It defines inerts as "e.g. glass, plastic, metal, cement" and sets the DOC value as
0.00. Although the amended text is not shown in context, it appears to be part of the "Waste
model - All MSW landfills" option in the original 2009 final rule. One has to assume that this
correction was made so that the amended equation HH-1 could be calculated because the original
text found in the 2009 final did not contain all the needed variables to perform the calculation. If
this assumption is correct, then the DOC value is incorrect because a zero (0.00) cannot be used
when the multiplication required in the amended Equation HH-1 is performed. The commenter
recommends that EPA clarify where the DOC fits into Table HH-1 of the 2009 final rule and
ensure that the values will allow for the proper calculation of amended Equation HH-1.
Response: In the final amendments, Table HH-1 has been amended to, among other things,
more clearly delineate the default factors appropriate for each of the modeling alternatives. The
value for DOC and k for inert waste materials are still listed as 0.00. We find no difficulty
applying this value in Equation HH-1; it simply yields no methane generation. This is
specifically the purpose of this waste category. It effectively allows facilities to properly reduce
the calculated methane generation rate for landfills that receive a high fraction of inert wastes.
Comment: One commenter (0022) stated that the reference in the definition of inerts to
"cement," should be "concrete," as cement is the binder used to hold aggregate in concrete
together to form a solid matrix.
23
-------
Response: Agreed. We have revised the description of inert material to refer to concrete rather
than cement.
Comment: One commenter (0027) expressed disappointment that the technical corrections did
not include any revision to the portions of the rule that address methane oxidation. According to
the commenter, substantial research has shown that methane oxidation occurs at levels much
higher than the 10 percent allowed in the rule. The commenter recommend that EPA allow
reporters to determine site-specific methane oxidation rates based on emerging research, as it
becomes available, and to limit methane oxidation to 10 percent only when site-specific data are
unavailable.
Response: No rule change has been made as a result of this comment. The changes to Part 98
suggested by the commenter are outside the scope of the specific amendments proposed for
public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15, 2010.
10. SUBPART MM—SUPPLIERS OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Commenter Name: Dan F. Hunter
Commenter Affiliation: ConocoPhillips Compay
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0016.1
Commenter Name: Sydney H. Johnson
Commenter Affiliation: INVISTA S.a r.I.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0017.1
Commenter Name: Philip E. Guillemette
Commenter Affiliation: Flint Hills Resources, LP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0018.1
Commenter Name: Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0019.1
Commenter Name: Maria K. Benyshek
Commenter Affiliation: Conoco Philips
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0021.1
Commenter Name: Karen St. John
Commenter Affiliation: BP America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0023.1
24
-------
Commenter Name: Allen S. Lasater
Commenter Affiliation: Koch Industries, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0026.1
Commenter Name: Sparsh Khandeshi, Meleah Geertsma, Craig Segall
Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Sierra Club
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0034.1
Treatment of Denatured Ethanol
Comment: We received three comments (0018, 0019, and 0021) related to our proposed
amendments regarding the treatment of denatured ethanol. Two comments (0018, 0021)
supported the proposed change. The third (0019) commented that reporting of gasoline-ethanol
blends (i.e., a petroleum product that contains denatured ethanol and is a blended biomass-based
fuel) was burdensome and suggested that only the petroleum portion of these blends should be
reported. That commenter stated that the blending of ethanol with gasoline should not be
considered "to be further refined or otherwise used on site" (40 CFR 98.396(a)(1)) and that
therefore, ethanol should not have to be reported.
Response: Please see Section II.R of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response to these comments.
Comment: EPA received one comment (0019) that blending ethanol with gasoline should not
be considered an activity that involves a petroleum product that is "further refined or otherwise
used on site" (40 CFR 98.396(a)(1)) and, therefore, refiners should not have to report ethanol as
a non-crude feedstock.
Response: EPA does not concur with this comment. Please Section II.R of the preamble for the
final rule amendments for the response to these comments.
Comment: EPA received one comment (0019) that indicated that EPA itself concluded, among
other things, that denatured ethanol "is never used on site."
Response: In the proposal, EPA stated that "denatured ethanol that enters the refinery as a
feedstock always leaves the refinery as a product and is never used on site." EPA recognizes that
this statement is not accurate. For example, denatured ethanol may enter a facility and be
blended with a petroleum product on site. Therefore, it would be considered "used on site."
This statement is not made in the final rule, and guidance issued on this topic is accurate.
Blended Products and Blended Non-crude Feedstocks
Comment: EPA received two comments (0018, 0019) in support of the optional method
proposed to calculate C02 emissions that would result from the complete oxidation or
25
-------
combustion of a blended product or blended non-crude feedstock. One of these commenters
(0019) requested clarification on how emissions from fuel mixtures should be estimated without
the use of carbon content measurements.
Response: EPA concurs with the comments in support of the proposed amendment. In the final
rule, EPA has added 40 CFR 98.393(i) to allow reporters an option for calculating CO2
emissions of blended products or non-crude feedstocks. Section 98.393(i) has been finalized as
it was proposed with the addition of one requirement to report whether the blend is a blended
product or a blended non-crude feedstock. In addition, EPA has made a harmonizing,
grammatical edit to 40 CFR 98.396(a)(16) and (a)(17) in order to clarify that reporters following
the optional method should report the C02 emissions of the blended product under 40 CFR
98.396(d)( 1 )(ii) rather than under 40 CFR 98.396(a)(16) or (a)(17).
In response to the request for clarification, EPA notes that we proposed that the optional method
could only be used if the reporter uses Calculation Method 1 (default emission factors) for all
blending components. EPA proposed this limitation for simplicity and quality control. EPA did
not receive any rationale in the comments to open the optional method to reporters using
Calculation Method 2 (site specific emission factors from sampling and testing). Therefore, EPA
is finalizing 40 CFR 98.393(i) as proposed, limited to Calculation Method 1.
Comment: EPA received one comment (0018) in support of expanding the proposed optional
method in 40 CFR 98.393(i) to include blended biomass-based fuels. As part of the expansion,
the commenter recommended that EPA exclude the biomass component of a blended biomass-
based fuel from Equations MM-12 and MM-13. The commenter also stated that the biomass
component of a blended biomass-based fuel would not need to be reported under 40 CFR
98.396(a)(3) or (a)(7) because those reporting requirements were proposed to account for
individual components of a blended product. In response to a request by EPA for input on how
to include blended biomass-based fuels in the optional method without jeopardizing or
contradicting the procedures in 40 CFR 98.393(h), the commenter recommended that EPA allow
the reporter to pick either 40 CFR 98.393(i) or 40 CFR 98.393(h) to account for blended
biomass-based fuels. The commenter framed this recommendation as a way to allow reporters to
choose between reporting the entire quantity of the blended-biomass based fuel or the individual,
petroleum-based components.
Response: After carefully reviewing this comment, EPA has determined that the commenter
recommended expanding 40 CFR 98.393(i) for the sole purpose of creating a mechanism to
exclude reporting on the biomass component of a biomass-blended fuel. Please see the response
to comments on the treatment of denaturant in ethanol in Section II.R of the preamble for the
final rule amendments for an explanation of why an amendment to exclude reporting on biomass
components of a blended biomass-based fuel is outside of the scope of the specific amendments
proposed for public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15, 2010. EPA can identify
no other rationale in the comment for expanding 40 CFR 98.393(i). Therefore, EPA does not
concur with this comment and is excluding blended biomass-based fuels from the optional
method in 40 CFR 98.393(i) in the final rule amendments.
Miscellaneous Technical Corrections in Subpart MM
26
-------
Comment: EPA received one comment (0019) on the proposal to amend Equation MM-9 in 40
CFR 98.393(h)(2) to correct the emission factor (EF) subscript from "i" to "j". The commenter
supported this amendment.
Response: EPA concurs with this comment and with the proposed amendment. In the final rule,
EPA has corrected the emission factor (EF) subscript from "i" to "j."
Comment: EPA received two comments (0018, 0019) on the proposal to amend the procedure
in 40 CFR 98.393(f)(1) for calculating emission factors for solid products when using
Calculation Method 1. Both commenters supported this amendment.
Response: EPA concurs with these comments and with the proposed amendment. In the final
rule, EPA has clarified that reporters should multiply the default carbon share factor in column B
of Table MM-1 by 44/12.
Comment: EPA received two comments (0018, 0019.1) in support of the proposed clarification
that petroleum products that enter and leave a facility without being further refined or otherwise
used on site do not need to be reported.
Response: EPA concurs with the comments in support of the proposed amendment. In the final
rule, EPA has amended 40 CFR 98.396(a)(5) and (a)(6) so that reporters need not report on
petroleum products and natural gas liquids that are not further refined or otherwise used on site.
Definition of Non-crude Feedstock
Comment: EPA received two comments (0018, 0019) regarding the definition of non-crude
feedstock. One commenter (0018) was supportive of the proposal to add the phrase
"supplemental fuel burned to provide heat or thermal energy" to the definition of non-crude
feedstock, but suggested removing the phrase "otherwise used on site." The other commenter
(0019) asked for clarification of the definition and stated that they assume that they would not
need to report "natural gas or fuel oil purchased from a local utility to fire boilers or heat
buildings" as a non-crude feedstock since emissions resulting from those sources would already
be reported under Subparts C and Y.
Response: EPA has concluded that the phrase "supplemental fuel burned to provide heat or
thermal energy" adds unnecessary confusion to the definition of non-crude feedstock and has
deleted this phrase from the final definition. The phrase "supplemental fuel burned to provide
heat or thermal energy" was meant to be an example of how a non-crude feedstock might be
used and was not intended to represent the only possible use of non-crude feedstocks. However,
supplemental fuel burned to provide heat or thermal energy remains an example of how
petroleum products may be "otherwise used on site." In other words, refiners that use a
petroleum product (e.g., fuel oil) or natural gas liquid (NGL) to fire boilers or heat buildings at a
refinery would report the petroleum product or NGL as a non-crude feedstock under Subpart
MM. Natural gas is not a petroleum product or NGL, and therefore should not be reported as a
non-crude feedstock regardless of use. While emissions associated with the combustion of fuel
oil at a refinery may be reported under another subpart, fuel oil is still required to be reported as
27
-------
a non-crude feedstock under Subpart MM. EPA requires refineries to report all non-crude
feedstocks under Subpart MM that enter the facility in order to subtract the emissions that would
result from the oxidation or combustion of those products from their calculations. Such
methodology allows EPA to collect data on the entire petroleum and natural gas liquids system
without any double-counting. Furthermore, comprehensive facility-level data can help us
conduct a more robust mass balance assessment for data verification purposes.
EPA does not concur that "otherwise used on site" should be deleted from the definition of non-
crude feedstock. Deleting that phrase would change the intended definition of a non-crude
feedstock as described in the proposal. Please see Section II.R of the preamble for the final rule
amendments for the response on treatment of denaturant in ethanol, which includes more
information on the meaning of "otherwise used on site."
Fuel Gas vs. Still Gas, and Other Changes to Table MM-1
Comment: In the proposal preamble, EPA requested comment on whether Table MM-1 should
be amended so that refiners would have to report quantities of "fuel gas" rather than "still gas"
(75 FR 33962). EPA received two comments (0018, 0019) in response to the request. Both
commenters supported such an amendment, but neither provided a rationale for such an
amendment. In addition, both commenters noted that gas is tracked in units of standard cubic
feet, rather than barrels, and requested clarification on how to report on gas under these
circumstances. One commenter (0018) requested a factor that could be used for converting
standard cubic feet to barrels.
Response: EPA has not made a change to this final rule as a result of these comments because
the commenters did not provide sufficient rationale for replacing "still gas" with "fuel gas" in
Table MM-1. EPA has carefully reviewed the requests in the comments to provide guidance on
converting standard cubic feet to barrels for purposes of reporting under 40 CFR 98. EPA needs
more time to conduct additional research on this issue. In the meantime, the commenter should
use their best professional judgment to convert from cubic feed to barrels.
Comment: One commenter (0021) recommended that EPA expand Table MM-1 to include
commonly used feedstocks and products.
Response: No rule change has been made as a result of this comment. EPA has carefully
reviewed the recommendation in this comment to add additional products to Table MM-1. EPA
needs more time to conduct additional research on this issue and may address this issue in a
future rulemaking. Reporters should continue to select the most appropriate product listed in
Table MM-1 for purposes of selecting a default factor for Calculation Method 1 and reporting
volumes and other information required under 40 CFR 98.396.
Crude Oil Definition and Reporting Requirements
28
-------
We received several comments related to amendments to the crude oil definition, the proposed
definition of "batch", and other technical amendments related to crude oil reporting
requirements.
Comment: EPA received several comments on our proposal to amend the definition of crude oil.
Two commenters supported the proposed definition of crude oil because it is identical to the
definition used for reporting to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and it will be easier
for reporters to calculate and report the same data for both agencies' crude oil reporting
requirements. One commenter suggested that EPA expand it even further by adding the word
"nitrogen" to describe non-hydrocarbons, referencing atmospheric conditions rather than just
atmospheric pressure, removing the requirement that hydrocarbon liquids must be comingled
with a crude stream, and including natural gas processing plant liquids captured by gravity
separation. Therefore, the commenter did not support using a definition of crude oil that is
identical to the definition used by EIA. Two commenters submitted information about situations
where a petroleum product is re-injected into a crude supply line or back into a reservoir. One of
these two commenters reported that they inject a mixture of products, some of which meet the
proposed definition of crude and some of which do not, and specifically requested clarification
on how to treat such a mixture with respect to crude oil and petroleum product reporting.
Response: Please see Section II.B of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response to comments on the definition of "crude oil".
Comment: One commenter (0023) explained that her refinery exports diverse sources of light
liquid hydrocarbons, which are generally, but not always, combined with crude oil in a crude
supply line by the importing customer. The light liquid hydrocarbon mixture consists of
naphthas from refineries, wellhead condensate, and natural gas condensate. The commenter
requested that if the definition of crude oil is amended in such a way that wellhead condensate or
natural gas condensate are crude oil, her facility can either report the entire light liquid
hydrocarbon mixture as a petroleum product or exclude from the petroleum product reporting
requirements the portion of the light liquid hydrocarbon mixture that is injected into the crude
supply line by the importing customer.
The commenter also requested that her facility be allowed to determine the emission factor of the
entire mixture as if it were one petroleum product when it leaves the facility. The commenter
suggested three options, one of which entails an amendment to 40 CFR 98.394(c).
Response: EPA's proposed definition of crude oil excluded liquids produced at natural gas
processing plants and wellhead condensate if they are not comingled and measured with the
crude stream. EPA received comments on these elements from one commenter, stating that EPA
should include natural gas processing plant liquids captured by gravity separation in the crude oil
definition and should remove the requirement that hydrocarbon liquids must be comingled with a
crude stream to meet the crude oil definition. After consideration of these comments, EPA
decided to finalize these elements of the proposed definition. Please see Section II.B of the
preamble for the final rule amendments for the response to comments on the definition of "crude
oil" and the rationale for why EPA did not delete these elements from the definition. Therefore,
if you receive the wellhead condensate independently, then it does not meet the definition of
crude oil and you must report it as a non-crude feedstock when you receive it. Furthermore, the
29
-------
natural gas condensate you receive does not meet the definition of crude oil and it must be
reported as a non-crude feedstock when it is received.
To report these products as non-crude feedstock under 40 CFR 98.396, you should select the
most appropriate product listed in Table MM-1 for purposes of selecting a default factor for
Calculation Method 1. When evaluating your products, you should examine the definitions of the
individual products listed in Table MM-1 that have corresponding default factors rather, than the
product category headings. Since "wellhead condensate" and "natural gas condensate" are not
listed in Table MM-1, you may determine that these products are best categorized under the
heading "naphtha" based on the definition of "naphtha" in 40 CFR 98.6. If you choose to
develop your own emissions factors using Calculation Method 2, you must follow the procedures
specified in 40 CFR 98.393 (f)(2) and 98.394(c) for each non-crude feedstock.
To report the mixture of the three products leaving the refinery, you should treat the mixture as
one product and either follow Methodology 1 for the entire mixture, follow Methodology 2 for
the entire mixture, or follow 40 CFR 98.394(i) by reporting on the individual components of the
mixture.
EPA considered the information provided in this comment for the specific amendment to the
definition of "crude oil" proposed for public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15,
2010. Please see Section II.B of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the response to
comments on the definition of "crude oil" and on how petroleum products injected into a crude
supply or reservoir should be treated. EPA determined that the petroleum product must be
injected into a crude supply or reservoir by the facility that received or produced it in order to
meet the definition of crude oil. EPA concluded that the quality assurance of the data diminishes
greatly once it leaves the hands of the reporter, and that the actions of an importing customer
cannot be adequately monitored and verified under the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
in the final rule. Therefore, the light liquid hydrocarbon mixture continues to meet the definition
of petroleum product and does not meet the definition of crude oil in the final rule.
Comment: We received several comments related to the proposed definition of "batch". One
commenter (0019) supported defining a batch as the annual volume of a type of crude oil
characterized by an EIA crude stream code (rather than monthly volumes) if EPA maintains the
requirement to report API gravity, sulfur content, and country of origin of crude oil. One
commenter (0018) expressed support for the proposed definition of batch but cautioned that it
would limit refiners to report the country of origin as "unknown" when the crude oil batch is a
blend of crude oil from several known countries. The commenter therefore advised EPA to
allow refiners to report on the components in a crude oil blend and to amend the quantity
determination requirements so that refiners can use information obtained from normal business
practices on blend component volumes. The commenter further noted that, similar to the
problem of reporting a single country of origin, refiners receiving a crude oil blend would be
unable to identify a single EIA crude stream code. Therefore, the commenter recommended that
EPA include "annual crude volumes by EIA crude stream codes" in the definition of batch only
if it is presented as one of multiple reporting options. Two commenters (0019, 0021) advocated
that EPA limit the definition of batch to the annual volume of each EIA crude stream code
category and remove the requirement to report API gravity, sulfur content, and country of origin
for every batch.
30
-------
One commenter (0034) expressed concern about limiting the definition of batch to the annual
volume of each EIA crude stream code category if it means losing data on API gravity. The
commenter urged EPA to require refiners to report the sample data they already collect for EIA
reporting. The commenter also asked that EPA define "batch" in a way that captures the
differences in crude oil originating from the same country since different crude streams from the
same country can have different API gravity and sulfur contents.
Response: Please see Section II.R of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response on the definition of "batch" and other technical amendments related to the crude oil
reporting requirements.
Comment: We received two comments (0018, 0019) with input on ways to better align the
monitoring and QA/QC provisions related to crude oil reporting with normal business practices.
According to the two commenters, it is normal business practice for refiners to maintain data on
crude batch volumes and other parameters required in 40 CFR 98.396(a)(20). They described a
number of different sources they use to identify the sulfur content and API gravity of crude oil
batches (including components of blended crude oil volumes) such as grab samples, contract
laboratory records, crude assay reports, invoices, and pipeline receipt tickets. They explained
that the data contained in these sources are often collected outside of the refinery under normal
business practices, which may be inconsistent with the current requirements in the rule to use
standard methods to measure these data (resulting in the need to collect the same data again
inside the refinery). In addition, one of the two commenters (0018) explained that they maintain
data on the components of blended crude volumes but they may not be able to determine the
volume of the components of blended crude according to the quantity determination
requirements in 40 CFR 98.394(a)(1) since the components arrive at the refinery already
blended. Therefore, they will be forced to report the total volume of the blended crude oil and
the country of origin (or EIA crude stream code) as "unknown" even though they know
information about the volume components.
We also received two comments (0018, 0019) in support of the proposed elimination of
recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 98.397 related to the measurement of API gravity and
sulfur content of crude oil because it would support the use of data collected in normal business
records. We received one comment (0034) that objected to EPA's deletion of specific
recordkeeping requirements for API gravity and sulfur content measurements on the basis that
these records were important verification tools.
Response: Please see Section II.R of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response on the definition of "batch" and other technical amendments related to the crude oil
reporting requirements.
Comment: One commenter (0019) requested that EPA remove the language "at the point of
entry" in 40 CFR 98.396(a)(20) with regard to reporting volume, API gravity, and sulfur content
of crude oil to allow refiners to use information on the crude oil that they collect outside of a
refinery (e.g., at a tank or terminal).
Response: Please see Section II.R of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the
response on technical amendments related to crude oil reporting requirements. In response to
31
-------
this comment, we also made harmonizing edits to the language in 40 CFR 98.396(a)(20)(ii) and
(iii) to clarify that refiners are only required to report the API gravity and sulfur content that is
"representative" of the batch at the point of entry.
Comments on Subpart MM That Are Beyond the Scope of the Proposed
Amendments
Comment: Two commenters (0019, 0021) recommended that EPA exclude co-located terminals
from the reporting boundary of the refinery for purposes of subpart MM reporting.
Response: No rule change has been made as a result of these comments. The changes to Part 98
suggested by the commenters are outside the scope of the specific amendments proposed for
public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15, 2010.
Comment: One commenter (0018) recommended that EPA change the recordkeeping
requirements in subpart MM for petroleum products and NGLs.
Response: No rule change has been made as a result of these comments. The changes to Part 98
suggested by the commenters are outside the scope of the specific amendments proposed for
public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15, 2010.
Comment: Three commenters (0018, 0019, and 0021) recommended that EPA eliminate all
crude oil data reporting requirements within 40 CFR 98 subpart MM.
Response: No rule change has been made as a result of these comments. The changes to Part 98
suggested by the commenters are outside the scope of the specific amendments proposed for
public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15, 2010.
Comment: One commenter (0017) recommended that EPA amend the definition of "petroleum
product" to exclude petrochemical feedstocks such as synthetic organic chemicals or to expand
Table MM-1 to include them.
Response: No rule change has been made as a result of this comment. The changes to Part 98
suggested by the commenter are outside the scope of the specific amendments proposed for
public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15, 2010.
Comment: One commenter (0016) recommended that EPA amend the definition of "petroleum
product" to exclude residuum injected into a crude oil sales line and the definition of "petroleum
refinery" to exclude crude oil topping plants "north of the Brooks Range." Further, the
commenter recommended that these topping plants be exempt from both subpart MM and Y
(Petroleum Refineries) and only be required to report under subpart W (Petroleum and Natural
Gas Systems) due to their unique operations. They noted that they submitted additional
comments during the public comment period for 40 CFR part 98, subpart W (75 CFR 18608).
Response: The definitions of "petroleum product" and "petroleum refinery" were not changed
as a result of this comment. These changes to Part 98 suggested by the commenter are outside
32
-------
the scope of the specific amendments proposed for public comment in the Federal Register
notice of June 15, 2010. However, EPA considered the information provided in this comment
for the specific amendment to the definition of "crude oil" proposed for public comment in the
Federal Register notice of June 15, 2010. Please see Section II.B of the preamble for the final
rule amendments for the response to comments on the definition of "crude oil" and for a
discussion of how petroleum products injected into a crude supply or reservoir should be treated.
Further, the recommendation that topping plants only be subject to subpart W, and thereby
exempt from MM and Y, is also outside of the scope of the specific amendments proposed for
public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15, 2010.
Comment: One commenter (0021) recommended that EPA remove the requirement to report
product volumes by measurement type.
Response: No rule change has been made as a result of this comment. The changes to Part 98
suggested by the commenter are outside the scope of the specific amendments proposed for
public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15, 2010.
Comment: One commenter (0026) requested that EPA confirm his understanding of the
exporter provisions with respect to reporting under subpart MM of part 98.
Response: No rule change has been made as a result of this comment. The commenter has asked
EPA to only confirm the commenter's understanding of the exporter provisions in Subpart MM.
Since EPA has not proposed amendments to the exporter provisions cited by the commenter, the
subject of the comment is outside the scope of the specific amendments proposed for public
comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15, 2010
11. SUBPART NN—SUPPLIERS OF NATURAL GAS AND NATURAL GAS
LIQUIDS
Two comment letters were submitted on the proposed amendments to subpart NN.
Commenter Name: Steve Donatiello
Commenter Affiliation: None provided
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0014
Commenter Name: Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0019.1
Comment: EPA proposed to amend the definition of the term "Fuelh" in Equation NN-1 to
clarify that the abbreviation "Mscf' refers to "thousand standard cubic feet" in order to avoid
confusion on whether this abbreviation means "million standard cubic feet." EPA also proposed
33
-------
to add the subscript "h" to the terms for Fuel and HHV in Equation NN-1. One commenter
(0019) supported this revision.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Comment: One commenter (0014) recommended that EPA clarify how an LDC complies with
40 C.F.R. 98.406(c)(i). According to the commenter, an LDC could say they estimate quantities
for at least one of their 600,000 meters every day. "(c) Each reporter shall report the number of
days in the reporting year for which substitute data procedures were used for the following
purpose: (1) to measure quantity, (2) to develop HHV(s), and (3) to develop EF(s)."
Response: No rule change has been made as a result of this comment. The changes to Part 98
suggested by the commenter are outside the scope of the specific amendments proposed for
public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15, 2010.
12. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE CORRECTIONS AMENDMENTS
Commenter Name: Sparsh Khandeshi, Meleah Geertsma, and Craig Segall
Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council,
and Sierra Club
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0034.1
Comment: The commenters generally support the amendments to the extent they provide
additional data, improve the rule's clarity, or lessen burdens on reporters without compromising
data quality. They are concerned, however, that a few of the proposed changes related to subpart
HH and subpart MM may degrade data quality. They ask that the agency take a second look at
these proposals and address their concerns on the record. As many members of the
environmental community have explained at length in earlier comments [footnote: Please see
Comments of the Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Defense
Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of
Concerned Scientists, and Wild Earth Guardians (June 8, 2009) at 3-5.], the reporting rule must
be grounded upon comprehensive, reliable, and thorough emissions measurements. Congress
directed EPA to use its authority under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7414,
establish a system for "mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate
thresholds in all sectors of the economy, "[footnote: See Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (Dec. 26, 2007).] Amendments to
the proposed rule that defeat this purpose by excluding significant emissions sources, or
degrading data quality, would be contrary to the law and to Congress's intent. In the final
rulemaking for this corrections docket, the commenters trust that EPA will keep the purpose of
the rule firmly in view.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. Please see the response to comments on
Subpart MM, Definition of Batch, for the response to the comment that the proposed
amendments may affect data quality for reported emissions from petroleum refineries.
34
-------
Please see the response to comments on Subpart HH, Definitions, for the response to the
comment that the proposed amendments may exclude certain landfill emissions sources.
13. GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE AMENDMENTS
Commenter Name: Anonymous
Commenter Affiliation: None provided
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0009
Comment: The commenter is a Business and Ethics class and has studied this topic for the past
several weeks. The commenter indicated he has seen supporting documentation and case files
stating that the effect of regulating vehicle emissions is almost nil. He holds a pro position on
the need to start somewhere. The benefits, no matter how small, could be the start of a spiral that
continues to help the reduction of greenhouse gases. The commenter wants to express his
gratitude to the EPA for their continued efforts. He plans on keeping a diligent eye on the
progression of these efforts.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
14. GENERAL OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENTS
Commenter Name: G.H. Holliday
Commenter Affiliation: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0011.1
Comment: The commenter stated that he "vigorously" disagreed with the final and proposed
rules. The commenter asserted that proposed rule amendments demonstrated a lack of technical
knowledge possessed by EPA, demonstrated that in the preamble to the final rule published on
October 30, 2009, EPA listed 61 NAICS codes outlining the industries affected by the final rule.
The commenter noted that the preamble to the proposed rule listed only 21 industries. The
commenter suggested that either EPA did not know the impact of the final rule or, was trying to
show a reduction or revised estimate of the impacts of the rule.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that EPA did not know the impact of
Part 98, or that EPA is now trying to show a reduction of that impact. Table 1 in the preamble to
the final Part 98 (74 FR 56260 - 56261) cited by the commenter listed all the NAICS that were
potentially affected by the final Part 98, which promulgated standards for 30 source categories
affecting 60 specific industries, as well as facilities operating general stationary combustion
sources. Table 1 in the preamble to the proposed amendments to Part 98 (75 FR 33951) listed 22
potentially affected industries. The proposed amendments affected fewer industries because the
proposed amendments affected only 17 of the 30 source categories included in Part 98. Nowhere
in the preamble does EPA state that the estimated impact of Part 98 is being revised.
35
-------
Comment: The commenter argued that, based on an obtuse reading of the Clean Air Act and a
ruling by the Supreme Court, EPA has granted itself authority to require an accounting of the
quantities of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere. The commenter
asserted that EPA has no need for this information, since EPA has not demonstrated by physical
measurements a statistically significant increase in global atmospheric temperature. The
commenter provided a copy of a graph that he asserted showed a decrease in ocean temperature
by Dr. Roy Spencer, Univ. of Alabama. The commenter argued that EPA has no equivalent data
showing significant temperature increase to support the claim greenhouse gases cause climate
change. The commenter suggested that, instead, EPA relies on the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate change reports, and suggested that these have been discredited by physical
measurements and the disclosure of e-mail communications among climate researchers.
Response: The legal authority for Part 98 and the proposed amendments is described in the
preambles to the proposed and final Part 98 (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009, and 74 FR 56260,
October 30, 2009), as well as the Response to Comments document for the final rule.
Regarding the science of climate change, the process of amending Part 98 is not the appropriate
forum for that discussion. EPA has found that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and
engines contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health and welfare (74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009, "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act"). EPA considered
over 350,000 public comments, including the issues raised above by the commenter on this
reporting rule and many others, in making the final endangerment finding, and those issues are
addressed in the support documents for the final endangerment finding. See also EPA's Denial
of the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 75 FR 49556 (Aug. 13, 2010)
(EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171).
Comment: The commenter suggested that the tailoring of the Clean Air Act to limit the number
of facilities reporting is disgraceful and that the Agency does not have the authority to modify
the Clean Air Act or any other Statue. Such change requires an act Congress.
Response: A comment regarding the legal authority for the Final GHG Tailoring Rule is outside
the scope of the amendments proposed to the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule.
15. OUT OF SCOPE COMMENTS - COMMENTS ON SUBPARTS
INCLUDED IN THE SEPARATE PROPOSED RULEMAKING: REVISION
OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE MANDATORY REPORTING OF
GREENHOUSE GASES RULE
Commenter Name: Brad Musick
Commenter Affiliation: New Mexico Environment Department
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0010
36
-------
Comment: The commenter requests that EPA consider the following correction to 40 CFR
98.46 [Subpart D-Electricity Generation; Data reporting requirements]: Replace cross-reference
to 40 CFR 98.36(b) with 98.36(d). 40 CFR 98.36(b) references the Subpart C data reporting
requirement for "units that use the four tiers", whereas 40 CFR 98.36(d) references the Subpart C
data reporting requirements for "units subject to 40 CFR part 75." Since Subpart D applies to
electricity generating units that are subject to the requirements of the Acid Rain Program or are
required to report CO2 emissions according to 40 CFR part 75, it would appear that the
appropriate reporting requirements would be 40 CFR 98.36(d) because it pertains to such units.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
No rule change has been made as a result of this comment. EPA notes that the issue identified by
the commenter is addressed in proposed amendments to Part 98 published on August 11, 2010.
Any comments submitted regarding this issue to the docket for the August 11th proposed
rulemaking will be addressed in the context of the response to comments on that proposal.
However, the changes to Part 98 suggested by the commenter are outside the scope of the
specific amendments proposed for public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15,
2010.
Commenter Name: Doug Badon
Commenter Affiliation: Williams Olefins LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0013
Comment: Williams submitted a Best Available Monitoring Method (BAMM) request on
January 28, 2010, requesting, among other things, permission to use an alternate test method to
analyze the carbon content of its crude butadiene product. The commenter deemed this necessary
because none of the methods included in 40 CFR 98.244(b)(4) are appropriate for this analysis.
The method Williams requested to use is ASTM D2593 - 93 (Reapproved 2009) Standard Test
Method for Butadiene Purity and Hydrocarbon Impurities by Gas Chromatography (attached).
EPA approved this request on March 4, 2010; however, per the letter, as is mandated by the rule,
the BAMM extension expires on December 31, 2010, potentially leaving Williams with no valid
method to measure crude butadiene carbon content after that date. Williams personnel
participated in an EPA webinar entitled "Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule:
Detailed Training Session" on February 24, 2010. The narrator suggested that Williams submit
suggested comments for possible inclusion in future rule modifications/improvements via email
to ghgmrr@epa.gov, so, on that same day, Williams submitted a request to incorporate ASTM
D2593 - 93 (Reapproved 2009) Standard Test Method for Butadiene Purity and Hydrocarbon
Impurities by Gas Chromatography into 40 CFR 98.7(e) and 98.244 (b)(4). EPA responded on
April 22, 2010 that it was reviewing the analytical method and would consider it for future rule
amendments. Williams replied on May 28, 2010 with additional supporting information
justifying inclusion of this method in future rule amendments (attached). As noted in the
commenter's May 28, 2010 email, the American Chemistry Council's Olefins Panel Butadiene
Product Stewardship Task Group published the Butadiene Product Stewardship Guidance
Manual in April 2010, and Table 1.5 (attached) indicates that ASTM D2593 is the industry
standard for analyzing hydrocarbons in butadiene. The commenter has also inquired with a well-
known commercial laboratory that is considered a leader in the field of hydrocarbon testing and
37
-------
its experts indicated that none of the analytical methods currently included in the 2009 Final
MRR are suitable for this analysis. Williams appreciates the opportunity to comment in order to
ensure that appropriate analytical methods are included in the 2009 Final MRR to achieve the
highest data quality and accuracy in reported GHG emissions.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
No rule change has been made as a result of this comment. EPA notes that the issue identified by
the commenter is addressed in proposed amendments to Part 98 published on August 11, 2010.
Any comments submitted regarding this issue to the docket for the August 11th proposed
rulemaking will be addressed in the context of the response to comments on that proposal.
However the changes to Part 98 suggested by the commenter are outside the scope of the specific
amendments proposed for public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15, 2010.
Commenter Name: Luis A. Comass
Commenter Affiliation: Sunoco, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0015
Comment: According to Sunoco, there appears to be an error in the units of the carbon content
CC factor in equation C-5. The factor is described as Kg C/gallon of fuel. The correct units
should be Kg C/ Kg of fuel. These are the units of the CC factor in equations Y-l and Y-3.
Sunoco notes that this error is not addressed in the proposed revisions.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
No rule change has been made as a result of this comment. EPA notes that the issue identified by
the commenter is addressed in proposed amendments to Part 98 published on August 11, 2010.
Any comments submitted regarding this issue to the docket for the August 11th proposed
rulemaking will be addressed in the context of the response to comments on that proposal.
However, the changes to Part 98 suggested by the commenter are outside the scope of the
specific amendments proposed for public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15,
2010.
Commenter Name: Bryan Brendle
Commenter Affiliation: Portland Cement Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0033.1
Comment: PCA acknowledges that EPA is proposing technical corrections relating to moisture
monitoring, per the proposed rule signed by Administrator Jackson on July 20 in a separate
rulemaking. However, PCA addresses this issue within the context of the current rulemaking
because it poses a significant implementation issue for many of our members. Pursuant to 40
CFR 98.33(a)(4)(iii) for Tier 4 calculation methodology, cement manufacturers recommend that
EPA modify the continuous moisture monitoring requirement under Tier 4 in the event that a
CO2 CEMS measuring on a dry-basis is used. EPA has approved as a Best Available Monitoring
Method (BAMM) the use of the RATA moisture as a default value for 2010, and we feel that this
should be made as a rule change. If the CO2 concentration is measured on a dry basis, a
38
-------
correction for the stack gas moisture content is required. A cement plant shall either continuously
monitor the stack gas moisture content as described in §75.11(b)(2) of this chapter or, for certain
types of fuel, use a default moisture percentage from §75.11(b)(1) of this chapter. It appears that
EPA included this requirement based on procedures applicable to facilities covered by Part 75,
and this should not be applicable to facilities covered by Part 60 that are not currently required to
continuously monitor moisture levels of stack gasses. Facilities covered by Part 60 routinely
utilize the moisture value from Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATAs) in calculations requiring
corrections for moisture for other emissions that are continuously monitored by CEMS. EPA
does recognize that a default moisture can be appropriate for this purpose under the current GHG
reporting rule by allowing a default moisture percentage from §75.11(b)(1). However, for some
facilities with feed materials that affect moisture, such as cement kilns, these fuel-specific default
moisture factors are not appropriate. Therefore, we request that EPA modify the moisture under
40 CFR 98.33(a)(4)(iii) to include "a default moisture percentage as determined from the most
recent RATA performed pursuant to 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix F." As stated above, EPA
approved this method as a BAMM for numerous facilities for the first GHG reporting year. PCA
believes that continued approval of this method will not significantly affect the accurate
reporting of GHGs.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
No rule change has been made as a result of this comment. EPA notes that the issue identified by
the commenter is addressed in proposed amendments to Part 98 published on August 11, 2010.
Any comments submitted regarding this issue to the docket for the August 11th proposed
rulemaking will be addressed in the context of the response to comments on that proposal.
However, the changes to Part 98 suggested by the commenter are outside the scope of the
specific amendments proposed for public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15,
2010.
Commenter Name: Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0019.1
Comment: According to API, Table C-l of Subpart C provides default high heating values and
CO2 emission factors for various types of fuels. One section of the table provides default HHVs
for a list of petroleum products and all the emission factors are listed in units of MMBtu/gallon
(suitable for liquids). However, API noted that not all the products are liquids; some are solids
(petroleum coke), and some are gases (propane through butylenes could be either gas or liquid).
These would preclude using such default HHV for non-liquid fuels. EPA should amend Table C-
1 to provide the default fuel HHV values in units that are applicable to their physical state, i.e.
for solids, liquids and gases. (EPA should also correct Table C-l to substitute the current default
"Still Gas' HHV value, which is provided in the wrong units, with 1076 Btu/scf. However, the
EPA/DOJ 4/5/2010 letter indicates that EPA intends to remove the Still Gas emission factor from
Table C-l, so this correction is not necessary.)
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
39
-------
No rule change has been made as a result of this comment. EPA notes that the issue identified by
the commenter is addressed in proposed amendments to Part 98 published on August 11, 2010.
Any comments submitted regarding this issue to the docket for the August 11th proposed
rulemaking will be addressed in the context of the response to comments on that proposal.
However, the changes to Part 98 suggested by the commenter are outside the scope of the
specific amendments proposed for public comment in the Federal Register notice of June 15,
2010.
Commenter Name: Diana M. Jagiella
Commenter Affiliation: The Mosaic Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109-0032.1
Comment: Mosaic asserts that the definition of facility in 40 CFR part 98 could result in a very
large area encompassing multiple large facilities to be a single "facility" under the definition at
40 C.F.R. § 98.6. The only source of CO2 emissions from the phosphate rock mines is more than
one hundred diesel pumps, most of which are not owned by Mosaic but leased from multiple
vendors, and are used primarily for water management. There is an independent question
whether these pumps are "portable" for purposes of exclusion from reporting under the Rule.
Mosaic argues that tracking this many pumps to determine which were moved in less than 12
months, and thus fall into the definition of portable equipment and are not subject to the Rule,
and which were stationary for more than 12 months and therefore subject to reporting, is costly
and time consuming. They propose to pilot an approach for tracking portable equipment in
2010, and pending the results propose to EPA alternative approaches in future years.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
No rule change has been made as a result of this comment. The changes to Part 98 suggested by
the commenter are outside the scope of the specific amendments proposed for public comment in
the Federal Register notice of June 15, 2010.
40
------- |