




Summary of Public Comments and Responses:

2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 
	


                                                                  November 2016



Summary of Public Comments and Responses: 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
                                       
                                       


                                       
                     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                        Office of Atmospheric Programs
                            Climate Change Division
                               Washington, D.C.


                                   FOREWORD
Together with the preamble to the final rule, this document provides EPA's response to public comments on the 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register on January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2536). We subsequently published a notice of extension of the public comment period on February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9797). 
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending specific provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to streamline and improve implementation of the rule, to improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the rule, and to clarify or provide minor updates to certain provisions that have been the subject of questions from reporting entities. In conjunction with this action, we are finalizing confidentiality determinations for the reporting of certain data elements to the program. We are also finalizing action in response to a petition to reconsider specific aspects of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.
During the 75-day public comment period, EPA received 45 unique comment letters in response to the January 15, 2016 proposal. These comments were submitted by industry representatives and associations, environmental organizations, and private citizens. This document provides EPA's responses to the significant public comments regarding these proposals. EPA received one comment letter from industry representatives following the close of the comment period. Although EPA is not required to respond to these comments, to the extent practicable EPA has responded to the late comments and our responses to such comments are also presented in this document. The verbatim text of each comment extracted from the original comment letters is included in this document, arranged by subject. For each comment, the name and affiliation of the commenter, the document control number (DCN) assigned to the comment letter, and the number of the comment excerpt are provided. Where possible, EPA separated comments on specific topics into their respective data categories. However, in some cases, commenters made broad statements about the proposed amendments to Part 98 or general comments on the approach that could not be easily separated by topic or data category without potentially affecting the intended meaning of the commenter's statements. In such cases, we either repeated the comment excerpt in its entirety in each of the relevant sections of this document or referred the reader to the response to another similar comment. 
EPA's responses to comments are generally provided immediately following each comment excerpt. 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 to the final rule. In some cases, a commenter incorporated by reference the comments of another company or organization. Rather than repeat these comment excerpts for each commenter, EPA has listed the comment excerpt only once under the name of the person, company or organization who submitted the comment and included a list of commenters who indicated their support for that comment in a footnote. Copies of all comment letters submitted are available at EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room or electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
      
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

For technical information, contact the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Hotline at:  http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrule_contactus.html.


                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section	Page
FOREWORD	iii
LIST OF COMMENTERS	x
1.0	Comments on EPA's Administrative Procedures and Implementation Schedule	1
1.1	Comments on EPA administrative procedures	1
1.2	General comments on the proposed implementation schedule	4
1.3	Comments on the proposed implementation schedule RY2017	5
2.0	Comments Re: EPA's Rationale for the Proposed Amendments	6
3.0	Revisions to the General Provisions	7
3.1	Streamlining: Revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify when reporters may cease reporting	7
3.2	Streamlining: Limiting resubmittal of reports to 5 years	11
3.3	Improve Quality: Clarification of missing data provisions	15
3.4	Improve Quality: Updates to Certificate of Representation (listing subparts)	19
3.5	Improve Quality: Addition of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(6) to report emissions under a new e-GGRT ID	20
3.6	Other Amendments: Revisions to request for extension for response or resubmittal of reports in e-GGRT (40 CFR 98.3(h)(4))	24
3.7	Other comments on proposed Subpart A Revisions (Table of Revisions)	26
3.8	Comments on Subpart A Issues not proposed	27
4.0	Revisions to Subpart C	32
4.1	Improve Quality: Reporting Moisture Content Used to Correct HHV  (Table C-1)	32
4.2	Improve Quality: Reporting cumulative maximum rated heat capacity for GP and CP configurations	35
4.3	Other Amendments: Revising Equation C-2b for HHV sampling received less frequently than monthly	41
4.4	Other Amendments: Revisions to Fuel Categories in Table C-1	43
4.5	Other Amendments: Revisions to Fuel Categories in Table C-2	44
4.6	Other Amendments: Updating test methods (ASTM D6866-12)	46
4.7	Comments on Subpart C Issues not proposed	49
5.0	Revisions to Subpart G	50
5.1	Improve Quality: Reporting of annual ammonia production where a CEMS is used to measure CO2	50
5.2	Other Amendments to Subpart G	51
5.3	Comments on Subpart G Issues not proposed	52
6.0	Revisions to Subpart I	55
6.1	Improve Quality: Revisions to Equation I-24	55
6.2	Improve Quality: Revisions to 40 CFR 98.96(y) - Triennial Technology Report	56
7.0	Revisions to Subpart N	59
7.1	Other Amendments: Clarification of use of default for fraction of calcination and carbonate mass fraction	59
7.2	Other comments on proposed Subpart N Revisions (Table of Revisions)	60
8.0	Revisions to Subpart O	60
8.1	Streamlining: Removing reporting requirements related to revised destruction efficiency - 40 CFR 98.156(d)(2), (3), and (4)	60
8.2	Improve Quality: Reporting of the method used to calculate revised destruction efficiency	61
9.0	Revisions to Subpart P (Table of Revisions)	61
10.0	Revisions to Subpart S	63
10.1	Improve Quality: Reporting annual emission factors for each lime product type produced, annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste sold, and annual average results of the chemical composition analysis for each type of lime product and calcined byproduct/waste sold	63
11.0	Revisions to Subpart V	65
11.1	Streamlining: Removing the annual approval request for an alternative method to calculate N2O	65
11.2	Improve Quality: Revising the source category to include all nitric acid producers	65
11.3	Improve Quality: Report date of installation of abatement technology	66
12.0	Revisions to Subpart X	66
12.1	Streamlining: Excluding pilot gas from flare gas GHG emissions (specific to subpart X)	66
12.2	Streamlining: Revision to use the mass balance method for an integrated EDC/VCM process	67
12.3	Improve Quality: Reporting annual average carbon content and annual average molecular weight of each feedstock and product when using the mass balance method	69
13.0	Revisions to Subpart Y	71
13.1	Streamlining: Excluding pilot gas from flare gas GHG emissions (General comments and/or comments specific to Subpart Y)	71
13.2	Streamlining: Identifying whether a flare has a flare gas recovery system (General comments and/or comments specific to Subpart Y)	72
13.3	Improve Quality: Revising the calculation method for CH4 from delayed coking units (heat balance method)	72
14.0	Revisions to Subpart Z	79
14.1	Improve Quality: Reporting annual phosphoric acid production capacity for each wet-process acid line	79
15.0	Revisions to Subpart AA	79
15.1	Streamlining: Clarification of subpart C methodologies for fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions (removal of Tier 4 CEMS)	79
15.2	Other Amendments: Revisions to missing data requirements for spent liquor solids (allowing alternative use of the daily mass of spent liquor solids reported under subpart MM)	80
15.3	Minor Revisions to Table AA-2	81
16.0	Revisions to Subpart CC	82
16.1	Improve Quality: Reporting of facility level annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock	82
17.0	Revisions to Subpart DD	86
17.1	Improve Quality: Reporting U.S. state, states, or territory in which the electric power system lies	86
17.2	Improve Quality: Reporting total miles of transmission & distribution lines in each state or territory	87
17.3	Improve Quality: Separate reporting for nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other SF6- and PFC-insulated equipment installed and retired during the year	91
17.4	Improve Quality: Separate reporting for number of pieces of hermetically sealed-pressured equipment and other SF6- and PFC-insulated equipment installed and retired during the year	95
17.5	Improve Quality: Alternative approach to report number of pieces of each type of equipment installed or retired by nameplate capacity range	96
17.6	Comments on Subpart DD Issues not proposed	98
18.0	Revisions to Subpart FF	99
18.1	Streamlining: Revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to clarify when abandoned underground mines may cease reporting	99
18.2	Improve Quality: Removal of option to use MSHA quarterly inspection reports for CH4 liberated from ventilation systems (40 CFR 98.324(b)(2))	100
18.3	Improve Quality: Alternative methods for measuring CH4 liberated from ventilation systems (e.g., surface level samples at the fan mouth)	103
18.4	Improve Quality: Increasing sampling frequency from quarterly to monthly	105
18.5	Comments on Subpart FF Issues not proposed	109
19.0	Revisions to Subpart HH	110
19.1	Improve Quality: Request for comment on option for reporters to use either an area-weighted average or a volume-weighted average approach to determine collection efficiency	110
19.2	Improve Quality: Revisions to include alternative final covers in area type A5 (Table HH-3)	112
19.3	Other Amendments: Revision of soil cover requirements and definition of intermediate or interim soil cover (Table HH-4)	119
19.4	Other Amendments: Revisions to the oxidation fraction for landfills with passive vents/passive flares or active vent systems (Table HH-4)	134
19.5	Comments on Subpart HH Issues not proposed	139
20.0	Revisions to Subpart MM (Table of Revisions)	143
21.0	Revisions to Subpart NN	144
21.1	Other comments on proposed Subpart NN Revisions (Table of Revisions)	144
22.0	Revisions to Subpart OO	145
22.1	Improve Quality: Revising the source category to include and require reporting from facilities that that produce, import, transform, export, or destroy F-HTFs that are not also F-GHGs.	145
23.0	Revisions to Subpart PP (Table of Revisions)	147
24.0	Revisions to Subpart RR	147
24.1	Improve Quality: Reporting whether the facility is injecting a CO2 stream to enhance the recovery of oil or natural gas	147
25.0	Revisions to Subpart TT	149
25.1	Improve Quality: Revisions to default DOC values in Table TT-1 (includes comments re: EPA's analysis of industrial waste DOC data)	149
26.0	Revisions to Subpart UU (Table of Revisions)	150
27.0	Confidentiality Determinations and Data Category Assignments	151
27.1	Comments re: proposed new and revised data elements assigned to data categories with categorical confidentiality determinations	151
27.2	Comments re: proposed individual confidentiality determinations for new and revised data elements in two direct emitter data categories and two supplier data categories	155
27.3	Comments re: proposed categorical and confidentiality determinations for existing Part 98 data elements for which no determination has been previously established	163
27.4	Comments on methodology for CBI assignments and/or determinations	171
28.0	Comments re: Impacts and Burden	172
28.1	Comments re: impacts/burden: Revision of Reporting Requirements	172
28.2	Comments re: impacts/burden: Monitoring Requirements for Underground Coal Mines	173
29.0	General support for the amendments	176
30.0	Out of Scope Comments	177

                              LIST OF COMMENTERS
                                      DCN
                                   COMMENTER
                                   AFFILIATE
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0023
Bruce Watzman
National Mining Association (NMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024
Lorraine Krupa Gershman
American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0025
Anne Germain and David Biderman
National Waste & Recycling Association and Solid Waste Association of North America
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026
Dow Chemical Company
Dow Chemical Company
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0027
Karin Ritter 
American Petroleum Institute (API)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0028
Kim A. Wolfe 
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0030
Stuart Sanderson 
Colorado Mining Association (CMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0031
William C. Herz
National Lime Association (NLA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0032
Darden Hood 
Beta Analytic Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033
Ted Michaels 
Energy Recovery Council (ERC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0034
Paul Gilman 
Covanta
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Emily Fisher
Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0037
Anonymous public comment

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0038
Brad Upton
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0040
Anonymous public comment

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0041
Kimberly S. L. Bauman 
Mississippi Lime Company
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0042
Mary Josie Blanchard 
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0043
David Isaacs
Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Karin Ritter 
American Petroleum Institute (API)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk 
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0046
Lauren E. Freeman, 
Hunton & Williams LLP
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0047
Jean E. Bogner
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Kerry Kelly and 
Amy Van Kolken Banister 
Waste Management (WM)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0050
J. Chanton

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0051
Bruce Watzman
National Mining Association (NMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0052
Richard Krock
Vinyl Institute (VI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0053
Angus E. Crane
North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0054
Stephen R. Gossett
Eastman Chemical Company
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0055
Darden Hood 
Beta Analytic Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0056
Patrick J. Renshaw 
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Anne Germain and David Biderman
National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058
William A. Collins, Jr.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Owen A. Kean
American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0060
Leslie Ritts
National Environmental Development Associations Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0061
Laura M. Goldfarb, Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson 
Arcelor Mittal Princeton
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0062
Ann Brewster Weeks 
Clean Air Task Force
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
David Friedman 
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Wade Foster
The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0065
Jesse E. Levine 
Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0066
Jennifer Cleary 
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0067
Niki Wuestenberg 
Republic Services
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0068
Chris Greissing 
Industrial Minerals Association-North America (IMA-NA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0069
Christine G. Wyman 
American Gas Association (AGA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0072
Bill Bissett
Kentucky Coal Association
 
Comments on EPA's Administrative Procedures and Implementation Schedule
Comments on EPA administrative procedures 
Commenter Name:  Lorraine Krupa Gershman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: The American Chemistry Council (ACC) respectfully requests that EPA extend the comment deadline for the Proposed Rule on the 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Rule by 30 days. This would extend the deadline for comments until March 28, 2016.
The proposed changes to the GHG Reporting Rule have an impact on many different reporting subparts, and as such necessitate an in-depth review by our experts. Some potentially significant changes are proposed to Subpart O, Subpart OO, along with multiple CBI changes and additions. And due to the timing of the release of this rule, many of the ACC member company technical experts who will provide input to this proposal are busy preparing for the submittal of 2015 GHG Reporting Rule data. Extending the comment period will provide ACC and our member companies with the time required to fully understand the numerous proposed changes and their potential impact on the operations of the business of chemistry. This in turn, will allow us to submit more substantive and detailed comments which we hope will help the Agency in its final decision-making.
Response: EPA considered the concerns of commenters and subsequently published a notice of extension of the public comment period for the proposed rule on February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9797). This extended the deadline for public comments from February 29, 2016 to March 30, 2016.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter 
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0027
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: The American Petroleum Institute ("API") hereby respectfully requests a 45-day extension of the public comment period for EPA's Proposed 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 2536, January 15, 2016. Given that comments are currently due on February 29, 2016, API respectfully requests that the comment period for this complex rule with an impact on many different reporting subparts affecting the oil and natural gas industry, be extended by 45 days to April 14th 2016, to ensure that API and all interested stakeholders have a full and fair opportunity to comment. This extension is necessary to allow API to present EPA with relevant information necessary to support an informed, reasoned, and defensible final rule. Given the importance of this proposal, API needs adequate time and opportunity to review the 20 additional "background" documents posted to the docket and to provide constructive input to EPA on the practical and technical consequences of this proposal.
Currently API member's GHG reporting staff are immersed in responding to and are thus very busy and focused on RY 2015 reports due March 2016. In addition API members are in the midst of responding to another of EPA's proposals that was recently published in the federal register, "Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems" 81 Fed. Reg. 4987 (January 29, 2016), and which also requires comments by February 29, 2016. We believe additional time is critical to ensure that API members can comment on and inform EPA of the potential consequences of the proposed amendments related to several of the Subparts affecting API members.
In light of the potentially significant impacts that the proposed rule would have on API's members, API respectfully believes that a 45-day extension of the comment period is warranted and will provide API the necessary time to provide more detailed comments better suited to assist EPA. 
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Bruce Watzman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0023
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: We are writing to request that the period for the submission of comments on the above referenced proposed rule be extended for 45-days beyond the current comment deadline.
As the agency is aware, the proposed rule will significantly and disproportionally impact underground coal mine operators. Indeed, 92 percent of the total costs of the proposal will be borne by underground coal mine operators with the next highest industry sector responsible for a mere 4 percent of the total costs of the rule. The dramatic impacts on underground coal operations result from a proposed change in the sampling methodology, the basis of which is an examination of sample results from only 3 mine sites and a contractor report, the foundation of which is a cursory critique of current sampling procedures.
The preparation of substantive and scientifically grounded comments cannot be accomplished within the limited time provided for in the proposed rule. As such, we request a 45-day extension of the comment deadline.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Stuart Sanderson 
Commenter Affiliation:  Colorado Mining Association (CMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0030
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: On behalf of the members of the Colorado Mining Association I am writing to request that the period for the submission of comments on the above referenced proposed rule be extended for 45-days beyond the current comment deadline.
As the agency is aware, the proposed rule will significantly and disproportionally impact underground coal mine operators. Indeed, 92 percent of the total costs of the proposal will be borne by underground coal mine operators with the next highest industry sector responsible for a mere 4 percent of the total costs of the rule. The dramatic impacts on underground coal operations result from a proposed change in the sampling methodology, the basis of which is an examination of sample results from only 3 mine sites
and a contractor report, the foundation of which is a cursory critique of current sampling procedures.
The issues are particularly serious here in Colorado as more than two-thirds of the state's production is from underground coal mines. This rule raises complex issues and reporting burdens and will have a substantial impact on our membership, which accounts overall for nearly $1 billion in sales and nearly $3 billion in overall economic benefit to the state.
The preparation of substantive and scientifically grounded comments cannot be accomplished within the limited time provided for in the proposed rule. As such, we request a 45-day extension of the comment deadline.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association and Solid Waste Association of North America
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0025
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: On behalf of the solid waste industry, the National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) request a forty-five day extension to the comment period for the 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determination for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (81 FR 2536). The NWRA and SWANA represent companies, municipalities and professionals in the solid waste industry. The NWRA is a not-for-profit trade association representing private solid waste and recycling collection, processing, and management companies that operate in all fifty states. SWANA is a not-for-profit professional association in the solid waste management field with more than 8,000 members from both the private and public sectors across North America.
Our members have a significant interest in this rule. However, they are simultaneously focused on preparing their 2015 submissions on the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. As you know, these reports are due at the end of March. We would greatly appreciate an extension beyond that date so that our members can focus on preparing comments to the proposed revisions once their reports are submitted.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Darden Hood 
Commenter Affiliation:  Beta Analytic Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0032
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: On behalf of the ASTM International and emitters submitting annual reports of % biogenic CO2 emissions, and with the objective for EPA to receive the most accurate % biogenic CO2 emission readings using ASTM-D6866, we request an extension of the comment period of 45 days.
Response: Regarding the commenter's request for extension, see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024, Excerpt 1. Regarding additional comments related to ASTM-D6866, see section 4.6 of this document.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Darden Hood
Commenter Affiliation:  Beta Analytic Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0055
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: On behalf of the ASTM International and emitters submitting annual reports of % biogenic CO2 emissions, and with the objective for EPA to receive the most accurate % biogenic CO2 emission readings using ASTM-D6866, we request an extension of the comment period of 30 days.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0032, Excerpt 1. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
General comments on the proposed implementation schedule
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: AFPM supports the staggered implementation of these proposed revisions. AFPM member companies need time to reconfigure data collection systems, calculation tools, and monitoring plans to incorporate the final changes. These revisions take time, and we support the fact that EPA has accounted for this time in the implementation schedule.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment, and is retaining the staggered implementation in the final rule. However, EPA has revised the implementation timeline to more clearly address when each rule change becomes effective and the reporting year to which the change applies. See Section I.E of the preamble to the final rule for the final implementation schedule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments on the proposed implementation schedule RY2017 
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: In the 2015 GHGRP Revisions, EPA proposes several other changes to Subpart G. These changes would require reporting of annual ammonia production for facilities with CEMS and require reporting of annual consumption and annual average carbon content of feedstock. TFI does however request that EPA delay any change in reporting requirements for Subpart G to RY 2018. Many TFI members also produce nitric acid and are subject to reporting under Subpart V. The Subpart V revisions will not take effect until RY 2018. TFI requests that the EPA align the effective reporting dates of Subpart G and Subpart V by delaying the effective date of changes to Subpart G to RY 2018.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed implementation schedule for subpart G. See Section III.E.3 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  14
Comment: API is concerned with the additional burden of adding a calibration requirement on fuel flow meters in 98.164 to be effective beginning RY2017. Facilities will need additional time to implement the additional requirements and will need to consider planned downtime and turnaround schedules. API proposes that this requirement apply no earlier than RY2018. In the event that a shut-down is needed to do the calibration, then EPA should consider allowing BAMM until the next turnaround. EPA is allowing in Subparts V, Y, FF, and OO additional time for reporters to "acquire, install, and calibrate...as well as implement any new changes...for the 2018 reporting year." API requests the same consideration be given for this requirement.
Response: EPA is revising the implementation schedule of the final rule such that the revisions related to calibration of fuel flow meters in subpart P will become effective on January 1, 2018 and will be reflected in RY2018 reports that are submitted in 2019. See Section III.AA. of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: [Note: This comment refers to proposed revisions to subpart DD that require facilities to separately report the nameplate capacities and numbers of pieces of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment installed and retired during the year.]
To implement this reporting requirement, facilities likely would have to update their asset management tracking systems.[25] The level of burden this would entail largely would depend on a facility's size (with larger facilities facing a greater burden), as well as on the number of geographic areas that a facility spans. Some entities may not have enough time to update their tracking mechanisms and databases for the 2017 compliance period (as reported in 2018). If EPA does finalize the requirement to segregate reporting of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment from other types of SF6-containing equipment, the Group requests that EPA extend the deadline for meeting this requirement an additional year, so that the requirement applies for the 2018 compliance period (as reported in 2019).
Footnote:
(25) For instance, at least one Group member would have to revise their Environmental Management Information System ("EMIS") program, which currently is set up to automatically generate their report in XML format. Changing the EMIS program would incur additional costs and burdens.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed implementation schedule for subpart DD. See Section III.Q.3 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments Re: EPA's Rationale for the Proposed Amendments 
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: The agency states that at least some of the amendments are "needed to ensure that accurate data are being collected under the rule and would expand monitoring or reporting requirements that are necessary to improve verification and improve the accuracy of data used to inform the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks"[2] (the "Inventory"). TFI supports consistency between the GHGRP and the Inventory.
Footnotes:
(2) 81 Fed. Reg 8,713 (Feb. 22, 2016)
Response: This comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to the General Provisions 
Streamlining: Revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify when reporters may cease reporting  
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: ACC supports clarifications related to the process for discontinuation of reporting, as these changes will make it easier for reporters to exit the program at the appropriate time.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. EPA is finalizing the proposed changes, with the exception of minor revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) and (5). See Section III.A.1 and 2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA is proposing a number of provisions to clarify the mechanism for reporting, when reporting is no longer required, and under what Subparts the facility is reporting. In general, these seem to make sense to assure that the Agency understands which facilities are reporting and when they are no longer required to report.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. EPA is finalizing the proposed changes, with the exception of minor revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) and (5). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: We agree that there should be provisions for reporters to stop reporting when a process or operation is curtailed or ceases or when a source no longer meets the definition of a source category. With the changes that we continue to see in our industries, it is appropriate to provide a clear path to exit the reporting regime when the reporter no longer meets the requirements for submitting reports.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. EPA is finalizing the proposed changes, with the exception of minor revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) and (5). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: The EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify policies allowing reporters to cease reporting under Part 98. The existing provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) provide options for reporters to discontinue reporting if annual emissions are less than 25,000 mtCO2e for five reporting years or less than 15,000 mtCO2e for three reporting years, or if process operations are permanently shut down. There has been confusion among reporters as to whether these off-ramp provisions apply to both direct emitters and suppliers, given the use of the term "emissions" in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) since suppliers report the quantity of product supplied into the economy and the emissions that would occur if the products were completely released, combusted, or oxidized when used by their customers. In the preamble, the EPA indicated that their original intention was that these off-ramp provisions apply to both suppliers (subparts LL through QQ) and direct emitters (subparts A through KK and subparts SS and TT), as well as the Injection of Carbon Dioxide source category (subpart UU).
AFPM supports this clarification.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. We received no adverse comment on the proposed changes to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2), and we are finalizing the proposed changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: The EPA is proposing to add a new paragraph under §98.2(i) to clarify that the provisions of 40 CFR §98.2(i)(1) and (2) apply to suppliers.
AFPM supports this addition.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. We received no adverse comment on the proposed changes to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4), and we are finalizing the proposed changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Several of the proposed revisions clarify how and when a facility ceases reporting emissions: (1) EPA proposes to revise 40 C.F.R. § 98.2(i) to make clear that both direct emitters and suppliers may cease reporting if annual emissions are less than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e) for five reporting years or less than 15,000 mtCO2e for three reporting years. See id. at 2547; and (2) EPA proposes to clarify that, under 40 C.F.R. § 98.2(i)(3), facilities can discontinue reporting under relevant subparts if a process or operation has ceased, even if other operations necessitate continued reporting under other subparts, provided that the owner or operator submits notification to EPA and explains the reasons for cessation of operation. See id. at 2547-48.
In general, these proposed clarifications addressing cessation of reporting are reasonable, appropriate and consistent with EPA's stated goal of streamlining and improving the implementation of the Reporting Rule. However, these proposed revisions require that some sort of notice be provided to EPA without specifying the form or content of this notice. Notice is not defined in the existing Reporting Rule regulations, nor is there an existing notice form provided on the e-GGRT website. In the final revisions to the Reporting Rule, EPA should clarify the form and content of such notice and the method for providing notice to EPA. Consistent with the goals of these proposed revisions, the required notice should be streamlined and not impose unnecessary burdens on reporters. Further, EPA should make clear that, while the Agency requires notice as to cessation of operations or reporting, EPA will not deny a request to cease reporting that otherwise complies with the requirements of Part 98.
Response: The notification process will be available in e-GGRT as an easily-identified, simple process guided by system prompts. No additional data submission will be required for any subpart for which a reporter is ceasing to report. EPA is relying on the existing design of e-GGRT as the cessation notification mechanism by allowing the reporter to clear the subpart check box on the Facility Overview screen in e-GGRT when completing the reporting forms for the first full year after which the subpart processes or operations ceased. Reporters who desire to notify the EPA in advance of the deadline in the final rule will be able to submit a notification to the EPA informing them of the process closure using the Help Desk or another equally streamlined and simple procedure in e-GGRT. See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information. 
The notice for ceasing reporting is not an application that EPA must either approve or deny before it takes effect. A facility or supplier that submits a notification automatically qualifies to cease reporting. The only additional requirement is to maintain the records demonstrating that the facility or supplier has met the requirements to cease reporting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: The requirements of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) allow reporters to discontinue reporting if all processes or operations cease operation (e.g., plant closure). There has been confusion among reporters as to whether there is a similar provision to cease reporting for situations where a single process or operation ceases operation. The EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to specify that reporting is not required for any process or operation that ceases operation in the reporting years following the reporting year in which the process or operation ceased operation, provided the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator and explains the reasons for the cessation of operation.
In the preamble, the EPA notes that 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) does not apply to seasonal or other temporary cessation of operations, and that reporting must resume for any future calendar year during which any of the GHG-emitting processes or operations resume operation.
AFPM supports this clarification. However, there is a concern that if a reporter does not notify EPA by the March 31st deadline following the cessation of applicable processes or operations, that they would then be required to report zero emissions ad infinitum. There may be a circumstance where a process or operations are ceased temporarily, but after the March 31st deadline it is determined that the cessation is permanent. In this situation, the change occurred before the March 31st deadline, but it was not determined until after the notification deadline that the change is permanent. AFPM requests clarification that the operator would still be able to notify EPA of this change before March 31st of the next year and would not be subject to reporting for the reporting year following notification.
Response: EPA is finalizing a requirement that the notification for cessation be submitted no later than March 31 following the first reporting year in which the subpart processes or operations have ceased or no longer meet the definition of the applicable subpart for an entire reporting year. See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: The EPA is proposing to add a new provision in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(5) to clarify that if the operations of a facility or supplier are changed such that a process or operation no longer meets the "Definition of Source Category" as specified in an applicable subpart, then the owner or operator is exempt from reporting under any such subpart for the reporting years following the year in which change occurs, provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting for the process or operation no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. For any future calendar year during which the process or operation meets the "Definition of Source Category" as specified in an applicable subpart, the owner or operator would be required to resume reporting for the process or operation.
AFPM supports this addition.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. EPA is finalizing the proposed changes, with the exception of minor revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(5). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Streamlining: Limiting resubmittal of reports to 5 years 
Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA should limit resubmittal of reports to the five years prior to the current reporting year. Currently, EPA allows facilities to resubmit past year GHG Reporting Rule reports going back to the first year of the program if a substantive error is identified in a report. The Class of '85 supports EPA's proposed policy to limit resubmittal of reports in which a substantive error is identified to the five years prior to the current reporting year.[6] Based on EPA's determination that (i) "the number of reports that are resubmitted falls drastically after the active verification period of 6 months, and continues to fall over time" and (ii) there is a "significant burden to the EPA for maintaining the reporting forms needed for facilities to resubmit reports for past years," EPA proposes to set a five-year limit for resubmittals.[7] This corresponds to the five-year recordkeeping requirement in 40 C.F.R. § 98.3. The proposed change would not require revising the regulatory text.
The Group supports this five-year limit on resubmittals. As EPA acknowledges, "this change will have minimal impact on the quality of the data set, as resubmissions for past years to date have not impacted overall sector or total emission trends." [8] The Group encourages EPA to implement this policy.
Footnotes:
(6) See 81 Fed. Reg. at 2,548. For example, for the 2016 reporting year, facilities could resubmit reports from reporting years 2011-2015 but not from 2010 or any prior year.
(7) Id.
(8) Id.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. In the final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.3(h) to limit the requirement for resubmittal of prior year reports to the recordkeeping requirement time period specified in 40 CFR 98.3(g). However, these amendments will not prevent facilities from voluntarily resubmitting reports for up to five years. See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: AF&PA and AWC agree with limiting resubmittals of reports to five years prior to the current reporting year. In particular, we agree that resubmittals should only be required if a substantial error is identified. Because the rules have been changing as the program has developed, many of our members have wanted to provide updated reports to improve the accuracy of their information. But, we assume that as the GHG reporting program matures and the rules become settled, the need to resubmit reports will diminish and thus the five year period should be sufficient.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. In the final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.3(h) to limit the requirement for resubmitting prior year reports to the recordkeeping requirement time period specified in 40 CFR 98.3(g). However, these amendments will not prevent facilities from voluntarily resubmitting reports for up to five years. See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: AFPM supports the revision to limit resubmittal of reports to five years prior to the current reporting year. It is a significant burden for reporters to maintain reporting forms for previous years. This change provides relief for reporters by eliminating the need to maintain different versions of the e-GGRT reporting format that are older than 5 years.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. In the final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.3(h) to limit the requirement for resubmitting prior year reports to the recordkeeping requirement time period specified in 40 CFR 98.3(g). However, these amendments will not prevent facilities from voluntarily resubmitting reports for up to five years. See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: EPA proposes to limit resubmittals of reports to five years prior to the current reporting year. Currently, EPA requires facilities to resubmit past reports in which a substantive error is identified and allows resubmittals going back to the first year of the Reporting Rule program. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 2548. EPA states that it is burdensome for the Agency to maintain the forms needed for facilities to resubmit reports for past years and that, to date, resubmissions have not affected overall sector or total emission trends. See id.
In general, limiting the time for resubmittals is reasonable and appropriate. However, EPA's discussion of resubmittals addressed the impact on the Agency and on aggregate emissions data. It did not address the potential impact of any limitation on resubmittals on reporters. At the present time, reports submitted to EPA are not tied to regulatory obligations to limit or otherwise address GHG emissions.[1] In the future, however, regulatory requirements could be defined by the quantity of emissions reported under Part 98. If this were the case, reporters should be able to resubmit reports to ensure accuracy and to avoid penalties.[2] Before finalizing any limit on the ability to resubmit reports, EPA carefully should consider the role the Reporting Rule may play in future regulatory programs addressing GHG emissions from particular sources.
Footnotes:
(1) Regulations addressing GHG emissions from new and modified EGUs under section 111(b) and existing EGUs under section 111(d) rely on emissions data reported under Part 75 not Part 98. See 40 C.F.R. § 60.5555(c); 40 C.F.R. § 60.5860.
(2) At this time, electric utilities reporting under Part 98 use the best available data and the calculation methodologies set forth in Part 98. To date, resubmittals primarily have been driven by EPA changes to reporting and calculation methodologies.
Response: EPA acknowledges that the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) is intended to supplement and complement existing U.S. government programs related to climate policy and research, and may potentially inform future regulations that may limit or otherwise address GHG emissions. If a future regulation were to be promulgated that relied on GHGRP data for compliance purposes, EPA would re-evaluate whether reporters should be able to voluntarily resubmit prior year reports at that time by taking into account the specific requirements of the relevant regulations. There are no changes to the final rule as a result of this comment, because it is premature to attempt to make such judgments without knowing how GHGRP data may be used in future regulatory programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman, Hunton & Williams LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0046
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: In Subpart A, EPA proposes two changes to the procedures for addressing potential errors in electronic reports. Under § 98.3(h), owners and operators are required to submit a revised annual GHG report within 45 days of discovering a substantive error in a previously submitted report. 40 C.F.R. § 98.3(h)(1). EPA also is authorized to notify owners and operators when it believes that an annual GHG report contains a substantive error, and owners and operators are required to respond to that notice within a certain period of time. Id. § 98.3(h)(2). One of the options for response is to submit a revised report. The rules also authorize extension of the time to respond, including a second extension as long as the request is submitted at least 5 business days prior to the expiration of the first automatic extension. Id. § 98.3(h)(4).
EPA proposes to revise this scheme first by adopting a "policy" of limiting resubmission of electronic reports to "five years prior to the current reporting year." 81 Fed. Reg. at 2548. In support, EPA refers to the 5-year recordkeeping requirement in Part 98, the burden on EPA of maintaining forms needed for resubmittal, and the fact that few facilities seek to resubmit reports older than 5 years old. Id. However, EPA does not propose any regulatory language to affect this change.
UARG agrees that there should be a limit on the period for resubmittal and that 5 years is a reasonable period. However, UARG does not agree that result can be accomplished without any regulatory change. In order to make the rule consistent with EPA's proposed policy, the Agency must limit an owner or operator's obligation to submit a revised report, and EPA's authority to trigger submission of a revised report, to the same "five years prior to the current reporting year" for which EPA intends to apply its policy. Although UARG agrees that the lack of a recordkeeping requirement may make it unlikely that an owner or operator would on its own discover an error more than 5 years old, EPA can hardly prohibit an owner or operator from complying with the rule if one is discovered. As a result, if the rule is not revised, EPA still would be obligated to maintain the forms necessary for owners and operators to comply with the resubmission requirement should it be triggered under the existing rule. Moreover, revision of the rule to limit EPA's authority to trigger resubmission also would resolve any question about whether a facility could be expected to respond to an EPA notification of potential error after the 5-year recordkeeping period has expired. In short, UARG supports the intent behind EPA's proposed policy and urges EPA to revise the rule language accordingly.
Response: In the final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.3(h) to limit the requirement for resubmittal of prior year reports to the recordkeeping requirement time period specified in 40 CFR 98.3(g). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  11
Comment: EPA is requesting comment on a proposal to limit resubmittal of a given year's reports to the five years prior to the current reporting year. EPA states that it selected five years because there is a five-year recordkeeping requirement in Part 98.3(g). The five-year reporting requirement only applies to facilities using the Input Verification Tool (IVT) when reporting. WM does not use the IVT in reporting, and is thus only subject to a three-year recordkeeping requirement as EPA notes in its footnote (81 FR 2548). Therefore, we recommend that EPA instead establish the resubmittal period based on the recordkeeping requirements applicable to a particular reporter (either three years or five years). This change would ensure that EPA's policy for accepting resubmitted reports is consistent with the recordkeeping provisions promulgated in 40 CFR 98.3(g). In addition, EPA should not require reporters to re-submit reports that are beyond the record retention requirements. 
Response: In the final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.3(h) to limit the requirement to resubmit prior year reports to the recordkeeping requirement time period specified in 40 CFR 98.3(g). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA is requesting comment on creating a policy to limit resubmittal of reports to 5-years prior to the current reporting year. EPA is setting the 5-year limit based on the record retention requirements for reporters using the Input Verification Tool (IVT), although the Agency notes not all reporters use the IVT and that reporters not using IVT are only required to maintain records for three years. Instead of creating a 5-year limit on report resubmittals for all facilities, EPA's policy should be consistent with record retention provisions created under 40 CFR 98.3(g) and allow resubmittals only during the record retention time period. These records should then subsequently be purged from the e-GGRT system based on the record retention requirements since the data is no longer required to be maintained.
Response: In the final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.3(h) to limit the requirement to resubmit prior year reports to the recordkeeping requirement time period specified in 40 CFR 98.3(g). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Clarification of missing data provisions 
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA should not change the existing reporting requirements related to missing data procedures. ACC is concerned the proposed changes to the missing data procedures under Subpart A are vague and unworkable. Section 98.3(c) of Subpart A lists the items facilities must submit to EPA in their annual reports. Prior to this proposal, section 98.3(c)(8) required facilities to document "each parameter for which a missing data procedure was used according to the procedures of an applicable subpart and the total number of hours in the year that a missing data procedure was used for each parameter." In the current proposal, however, EPA has significantly expanded this requirement by adding the following sentence: "Parameters include not only reported data elements, but any data element required for monitoring and calculating emissions." (81 FR 2549)
ACC believes that this proposal is unnecessary, will be difficult to implement, and will increase the burden on both reporters and the Agency. The preamble does not provide a compelling rationale for EPA's new approach. To the contrary, the Agency has not described any problems with current missing data procedures that would necessitate expanded data reporting. Nor has EPA explained why the current approach, which relies on recordkeeping by the reporting facilities, needs to be modified.
In the initial GHGRP rule, promulgated in 2009, EPA included general regulatory requirements under Subpart A for all subparts, and extended these requirements with certain subpart-specific approaches. For example, in Subpart C, there is a requirement that "you must document and retain records of the procedures used for all such estimates" of the missing data (98.35(b)(2)). Similarly, in subpart Y, there is a requirement that the "owner or operator shall document and keep records of the procedures used for all such estimates" (98.255(c)).
The combination of the existing Subpart A requirements and, where necessary, additional subpart-specific recordkeeping provisions satisfy the rationale that EPA uses in the preamble describing its intention that "the effect [of using missing data procedures affecting the accuracy] be documented, such that the accuracy of the reported emissions may be better understood" (81 FR 2549)[.] Since the reporting facility has the documented information, EPA already has the authority to request it or inspect to review it. There is no reason to revise the current language to expand the reporting requirements.
If this proposed revision is finalized, however, the impacts on the e-GGRT and the Inputs Verification Tool (IVT) systems are likely to be significant. The missing data procedures apply to many different types of data, making it difficult to set up the entry fields in the software. Moreover, each reported data element would require a confidential business information (CBI) determination, to ensure that no business sensitive information is released to the public. Due to the unknown types of data that facilities might use to support missing data calculations, if finalized this proposal would likely create significant challenges and problems as EPA attempts to anticipate and accommodate new and unique data elements into the regimented software system used for reporting.
ACC strongly urges EPA to retain the current missing data procedures. The alleged benefits of the proposal (better understanding of the accuracy of emission estimates) do not justify the difficulty of implementing it and the complications it would cause for reporters.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(8). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: EPA has added additional language to 98.3(c)(8) around missing data reporting procedures that would take effect for 2017 reporting. API is concerned about the significant expansion of the reporting burden, in the amount of missing data information that must be reported and the feasibility associated with the change in wording from data element to parameter. This is a significant expansion of the amount of missing data information that must be reported. For example -including all "parameters" for applicability with missing data procedures can be problematic on a parameter like monitoring process flow -- how would missing data procedure be used on a valve indicator or positioner (i.e. open or close position on a valve) used to monitor process flow. Also, if readings from multiple devices contributed to one data element, it is not clear on how to handle the missing data from these multiple devices. With the potential proliferation of new data parameters to be reported, it is unclear how these parameters will be handled in e-GGRT and the Inputs Verification Tool.
In addition, to assess the impact of this change, we need to look at the specific language in the applicable subparts. For instance, in Subpart C, in addition to the specific language which provides for how to substitute for the missing data (98.35(b)(1)), there is also a requirement that "you must document and retain records of the procedures used for all such estimates" of the missing data (98.35(b)(2)). Similarly, in subpart Y, the provisions specify how to substitute missing data (98.255(b) and (c)). There is also a requirement that the "owner or operator shall document and keep records of the procedures used for all such estimates" (98.255(c)).
These record keeping provisions satisfy the rationale that EPA uses in the preamble describing its intention that "the effect [of using missing data procedures affecting the accuracy] be documented, such that the accuracy of the reported emissions may be better understood" (81 FR 2549). Since the reporting facility already has the documented information, EPA has the current authority to request it or inspect to review it. There is no reason to revise the current language to expand the reporting requirements.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(8). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: The EPA is proposing revisions to the missing data requirements to clarify that the provisions apply not only to reported parameters, but to any parameter used to monitor or calculate emissions. The EPA contends that the use of missing data procedures can affect the accuracy of an emission estimate regardless of whether that parameter is reported. The EPA indicates it is their intention that the effect be documented, such that the accuracy of the reported emissions may be better understood.
AFPM believes EPA's addition of the new sentence "Parameters include not only reported data elements, but any data element required for monitoring and calculating emissions" should not be added to Subpart A. The existing language and §98.3(a) already direct reporters to follow the procedures for missing data that are specified in relevant Subparts. It is within each of the Subparts that missing data requirements related to specific measured, monitored and/or calculated parameters are specified. For example, in Subpart C, there is a requirement that "you must document and retain records of the procedures used for all such estimates" of the missing data (98.35(b)(2)). In subpart Y, a requirement that the "owner or operator shall document and keep records of the procedures used for all such estimates" (98.255(c)).
The current record keeping provisions meet the intent that EPA describes in the preamble that "the effect [of using missing data procedures affecting the accuracy] be documented, such that the accuracy of the reported emissions may be better understood." (81 FR 2549)[.] With the reporting facility already having the documented information, EPA could simply request it or conduct an inspection to review it. There is no need to revise the current language to expand the reporting requirements.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(8). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Christine G. Wyman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Gas Association (AGA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0069
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Subpart A: proposed revisions to clarify missing data provisions, 40 C.F.R. § 98.3(c)(8). EPA is proposing to revise the "missing data provisions" to clarify that the provisions apply not only to reported parameters, but also to any parameter used to monitor or calculate emissions. 81 Fed. Reg. 2549. AGA agrees that missing data can affect the accuracy of an emission estimate. However, an informed engineering judgment can be used in many circumstances to estimate data. In these circumstances, the data would not be considered "missing." AGA encourages EPA to recognize the use and benefit of engineering judgment and ensure that any final rule would not treat data estimated through engineering judgment as "missing."
Response: Missing data procedures are those procedures that EPA allows a reporter to use whenever a quality-assured value of a parameter that is used to calculate GHG emissions according to the methods prescribed in the rule is unavailable. Missing data procedures are provided in each subpart and state the "required parameters" and the procedures that may be followed to provide substitute data in keeping with the methodologies in the subpart. Reporters must consult each applicable subpart to determine the parameters for which missing data procedures are provided and for whether engineering estimates are allowed. If engineering judgment is allowed by a subpart as a method for estimating a parameter used to estimate emissions, then the missing data procedures are not automatically triggered. There are no changes to the final rule as a result of this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Updates to Certificate of Representation (listing subparts) 
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  20
Comment: We also support the proposed requirement to list all of the subparts under which a facility/supplier intends to report in the Certificate of Representation.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. We are finalizing the proposed requirement with minor revisions. See comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063, Excerpt 11 for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  11
Comment: In the Preamble, EPA indicates that the revised content of the certificate of representation (COR) would apply only to newly submitted CORs for facilities that have not previously reported to the GHGRP, and EPA implies that this list would not need to be revised if the reporter later determines that a particular subpart is or is not applicable. Therefore, AFPM suggests additional clarification be added to paragraph (6) related to revised CORs. Suggested text is shown below in yellow shading:
      (6) A list of the subparts that the owners and operators anticipate will be included in the annual GHG report. The list of potentially applicable subparts is required only for an initial certificate of representation that is submitted after [date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] (i.e., for a facility or supplier that previously was not registered under this part). The list of subparts is not required for a revised COR. [highlighted text follows] The list of anticipated subparts does not need to be revised with revisions to the COR or if the actual applicable subparts change.
Response: We agree that the rule does not require reporters to revise the list of potentially applicable subparts under any circumstances, even if additional subparts become applicable in the future. To clarify this, EPA has revised the final rule as recommended by the commenter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: EPA proposes to revise 40 C.F.R. § 98.4(i) to update the content of the certificate of representation (COR). See 81 Fed. Reg. at 2549. A COR is the tool by which a facility's designated representative (DR) is appointed. CORs contain basic information about reporting facilities and suppliers, including ownership and contact information for the DR. EPA proposes to require that all new CORs include a list of all of the subparts under which the facility or supplier intends to report. See id. This new requirement, in and of itself, is not burdensome. It would be burdensome, however, if this change required all existing DRs to re-submit revised CORs or if the CORs need to be updated and resubmitted in light of any revisions to the applicability of any subpart. EPA states that this would not be the case, see id., and should ensure that the final rule does not require re-submission of all previously filed CORs.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063, Excerpt 11. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Addition of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(6) to report emissions under a new e-GGRT ID 
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: We find that the proposal to inform EPA when a facility stops reporting under one e-GGRT number because emissions are being reported under a different e-GGRT number will help avoid confusion for both EPA and the affected facility.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Dow Chemical Company
Commenter Affiliation:  Dow Chemical Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Proposed 98.2(a)(6) requires the owner/operator to make notification that they merged or sold their entity to another. The rule should be flexible and allow either the former facility or the new owner/operator to make the notification. The previous owner/company may no longer exist or personnel may not be present to make the notification. 
Response: EPA agrees that the new owner should be allowed and able to notify EPA of a merger when the previous owner is not available to do so. The rule as written allows for the necessary flexibility in such a situation, thus no additional change to the rule is needed. EPA has previously provided guidance on the GHGRP website for how to register changes in ownership (see, for example:  http://www.ccdsupport.com/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=263585793). The following example illustrates how a merger would be registered in the situation presented by the commenter:
Assume that Facility A, owned by Company A, and Facility B, owned by Company B, are physically adjacent to one another and both have reported to the GHGRP in the past. Assume further that in 2018, Company B purchases and becomes owner of Facility A, thereby merging Facility A and Facility B into one facility. Consistent with the newly adopted section 40 CFR 98.2 (i)(6), the Designated Representative (DR) or Alternate Designated Representative (ADR) listed on Facility A's COR must submit a notification announcing the discontinuation of reporting and provide the e-GGRT identification number of Facility B by March 31, 2019. EPA intends to implement this requirement by developing the notification fields on the same e-GGRT page and along the same timeline as the existing notification fields for a cessation of operation. Thus, the merger notification fields would be available for Facility A's DR or ADR to complete anytime between approximately February 20, 2018, and March 31, 2019. 
If neither the DR nor ADR listed on Facility A's COR is available to make this submission, then Company B as the new owner must appoint a new individual to become the DR for Facility A. The new DR must then submit the notification to discontinue reporting by Facility A and provide the e-GGRT identification number for Facility B between approximately February 20, 2018 and March 31, 2019. A representative of Company B will be required to report all of the data for the combined AB Facility for calendar year 2018 between approximately February 20, 2019 and March 31, 2019. Therefore, new e-GGRT credentials will not be required to abide by this requirement. 
This example is consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 98.4 and illustrates the flexibility of the rule to handle diverse situations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: The EPA is proposing to add provision 40 CFR 98.2(i)(6) to include a requirement that a facility must inform the EPA whenever the facility (or supplier) stops reporting under one e-GGRT identification number because the emissions (or quantity supplied) are being reported under another e-GGRT identification number. The EPA anticipates that this would occur when one facility purchases another facility (in its entirety) that is physically adjacent. The emissions from the purchased process equipment would automatically become part of the facility for the purchaser, and the facility previously reported by the seller would no longer exist. The rule currently does not require reporting of any information from which the EPA could ascertain that the discontinuation of reporting was done for a valid reason or with which the discontinuing reporter could make a formal notification. To ensure that the EPA is aware of situations when an annual report for a facility or supplier is no longer required because the emissions will now be reported under a different facility, EPA is proposing the following changes: If a facility reported GHG emissions in the previous year, and the GHG emissions are being reported as part of another facility in the current reporting year, the prior facility must notify the EPA of the e-GGRT facility identification number under which the emissions are reported in the current reporting year. A similar requirement would apply to suppliers.
This provision does not add any additional burden and does achieve EPA's objectives for informing the EPA when emissions are reported under a different facility. However, AFPM recommends adding "previous" as indicated below and one additional sentence to provide further clarification to the proposed text. AFPM believes the additional sentence is needed for the situation where the previous owner no longer exists or does not submit notification to EPA on the e-GGRT identification number of the reconstituted facility. In this case, the current owner could provide the new e-GGRT identification number and inform EPA of the change.
§98.2(i)(6) If an entire facility or supplier is merged into another facility or supplier that is already reporting GHG data under this part, then the previous owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part for the facility or supplier, provided that the previous owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the discontinuation of reporting and the e-GGRT identification number of the reconstituted facility no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. If the previous owner cannot or will not provide the e-GGRT identification of the reconstituted facility, the current owner may provide this information to EPA.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026, excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: API recommends for clarification that the following text [i.e., the word "previous"] be added to 98.2(i)(6): "(6) If an entire facility or supplier is merged into another facility or supplier that is already reporting GHG data under this part, then the previous owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part for the facility or supplier, provided that the previous owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the discontinuation of reporting and the e-GGRT identification number of the reconstituted facility no later than March 31 of the year following such changes."
[Note that the comment letter erroneously cited "98.2(a)(6)".]
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026, excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: Several of the proposed revisions clarify how and when a facility ceases reporting emissions: With appropriate notice, in the event of a change in ownership or control, EPA proposes to allow a facility to cease reporting under one e-GGRT identification number and transfer reporting obligations to another facility using a different e-GGRT identification number under 40 C.F.R § 98.2(6). See id. at 2549-50.
In general, this proposed clarification addressing cessation of reporting is reasonable, appropriate and consistent with EPA's stated goal of streamlining and improving the implementation of the Reporting Rule. However, this proposed revision requires that some sort of notice be provided to EPA without specifying the form or content of this notice. Notice is not defined in the existing Reporting Rule regulations, nor is there an existing notice form provided on the e-GGRT website. In the final revisions to the Reporting Rule, EPA should clarify the form and content of such notice and the method for providing notice to EPA. Consistent with the goals of these proposed revisions, the required notice should be streamlined and not impose unnecessary burdens on reporters. Further, EPA should make clear that, while the Agency requires notice as to cessation of operations or reporting, EPA will not deny a request to cease reporting that otherwise complies with the requirements of Part 98.
Response: The notification process will be available in e-GGRT as an easily-identified, simple process guided by system prompts. No additional data submission, beyond the e-GGRT identification number of the re-constituted facility, will be required for any facility or supplier for which a reporter is ceasing to report. As necessary, EPA will provide further guidance on how to make the notification in e-GGRT. The notification for the merger or sale is not an application that EPA must either approve or deny before it takes effect. A facility or supplier that is merged into another facility or supplier and that submits a notification automatically qualifies to cease reporting. The only additional requirement is to maintain the records demonstrating that the facility or supplier has met the requirements to cease reporting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman, Hunton & Williams LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0046
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: In Subpart A, EPA also proposes to revise § 98.2(i)(6) to require that a facility inform EPA whenever it stops reporting under one Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT) identification number because emissions are being reported under another number (e.g., because one facility purchases another). Id. at 2549. UARG does not object to this requirement as long as the notification can be made in a format and using a method of submission (e.g., email or U.S. mail) that does not require access to e-GGRT. A facility owner or operator should be allowed to make the notification at the time of sale (or within a reasonable amount of time after sale) and should not be required to wait until the official reporting period or to retain e-GGRT credentials solely for that purpose. Otherwise, EPA should impose the reporting requirement on the new owner or operator.
Response: We agree that a facility owner or operator should be allowed to make the notification at the time of sale or within a reasonable amount of time after sale, and we stress that such an outcome is possible while relying on e-GGRT. We refer you to EPA's response to Comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026, Excerpt 1, in which we explain the flexible timeline for making this notification and how the new owner can make the notification if the previous owner is unable to do so. 
The commenter states that the notification should not require access to e-GGRT. For the existing notifications outlined in § 98.2(i), EPA makes sure that e-GGRT fields are available for reporters to complete themselves, but EPA also accepts written notification sent electronically to the GHGRP Help Desk. It is EPA's intention to continue this practice for the notification of merged facilities.
No change to the rule is necessary. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Other Amendments: Revisions to request for extension for response or resubmittal of reports in e-GGRT (40 CFR 98.3(h)(4))
Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: EPA should allow additional extension requests to be submitted up until the expiration of the automatic extension period. The Rule currently allows reporters a 45-day period, with an automatic 30-day extension, if needed, to respond to EPA's questions on a submitted report or to submit a revised report to correct a reporting error identified by EPA during report verification.[9] Additional requests for an extension currently must be submitted at least five days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension.[10] EPA proposes to simplify the process for requesting extensions by revising 40 C.F.R. § 98.3(h)(4) to eliminate the requirement that a request for an extension beyond the automatic 30-day extension be submitted at least five days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension.[11] Reporters still would have to submit a request for the additional extension, but could do so closer to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension.[12] The Group supports relaxing the time limit on submitting additional extension requests. Extensions enable reporters to prepare more thorough and accurate responses to questions and revised reports. EPA should eliminate as many barriers in the extension request process as possible and allow maximum flexibility to reporters for requesting extensions. The Group urges EPA to adopt this change and make clear in the final rule that reporters may submit requests for additional extensions up until the expiration date of the automatic 30-day extension period. 
Footnotes:
(9) See 81 Fed. Reg. at 2,550. For example, for the 2016 reporting year, facilities could resubmit reports from reporting years 2011-2015 but not from 2010 or any prior year.
(10) 40 C.F.R. § 98.3(h)(4).
(11) 81 Fed. Reg. at 2,550.
(12) Id.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. We received no adverse comment on these proposed changes, and we are finalizing the proposed changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: EPA proposes to simplify the process for requesting an extension for a reporter to respond to EPA's questions about filed reports or request to file a revised report to address errors identified by EPA during the verification process. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 2550. Currently, reporters have 45 days to respond to EPA in these circumstances and can receive an automatic 30-day extension. An additional 30 days may be granted, but the reporter must submit a request for this additional time at least five days before the end of the automatic 30-day period. See id. EPA proposes to revise 40 C.F.R. § 98.3(h)(4) to allow reporters to request an additional 30 days at any time prior to the end of the automatic 30-day period. See id. This additional flexibility is appropriate and reasonable.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman, Hunton & Williams LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0046
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: EPA further proposes to revise § 98.3(h)(4) to remove the requirement that requests for further extension of the time to respond to an EPA notification of potential error in a report be submitted 5 business days prior to expiration of the first extension. Id. at 2550. UARG agrees that this limitation is not necessary and should be removed.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  12
Comment: WM also supports EPA's proposal to revise 40 CFR 98.3(h)(4) to remove the requirement that a request for extension beyond the 30-day limit must be submitted five days in advance of the extension deadline. This will simplify the process for reporters, and allow them to focus their resources on responding to Agency questions and making any needed corrections.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  10
Comment: Currently, reporters are allowed a 45-day period to respond to the EPA's questions and may request an extension of 30 days, which is automatically granted, if needed. The Administrator may also grant an additional extension beyond the automatic 30-day extension, if the owner or operator submits a request for an additional extension at least 5 business days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension. The EPA is proposing to remove the requirement that the request for an extension beyond the automatic 30 days must be submitted at least 5 days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension. Reporters would still be required to submit a request for the additional extension, but they may do so closer to (but not after) the expiration date of the automatic 30-day extension.
AFPM supports this revision.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: We support EPA's proposal to revise 40 CFR 98.3(h)(4) to remove the requirement that the request for extension beyond the automatic 30 days must be submitted at least 5 days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension. This will simplify the process for requesting an extension so that reporters can appropriately respond to EPA questions and reduce unnecessary administrative burden for the reporter.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Other comments on proposed Subpart A Revisions (Table of Revisions)
Commenter Name:  Jennifer Cleary
Commenter Affiliation:  Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0066
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA proposed a number of changes to 40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart A, which are the general provisions of the mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule. AHAM does not oppose EPA's proposed changes which are aimed at streamlining the rule's implementation and improving the quality of data collected under the rule. 
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments on Subpart A Issues not proposed
Commenter Name:  Jennifer Cleary
Commenter Affiliation:  Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0066
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: AHAM respectfully requests that EPA consider allowing reporters to have some modest amount of discretion in revising reports when the revision would be a de minimus representation of the data. For example, currently it seems that if exports in one calendar year are returned during the next calendar year, a reporter would need to revise a report to show this as a "change." In reality, however, it is not a change. EPA should consider explicitly providing a threshold below which no revised report is required. EPA also could permit conservative reporting such that a reporter might not revise a report in the sort of situation identified above. 
AHAM urges EPA to expressly recognize this de minimus concept and companies' discretion to report conservatively in certain instances. For instance, if the charge of the fluorinated gas changes in an engineering revision of a model year, a company may be able to use that conservative (higher) charge volume in reporting for all derivatives of that basic model during the year. EPA should further consider specifically excluding components that may contain a fluorinated gas not utilized for a purpose of refrigeration and/or insulation. Examples include mechanical thermostats, drain valves and cold control sensors. The miniscule, if any, contribution to total CO2 equivalent of these types of data do not justify the significant burden and potential sources of error introduced by requiring this level of detail in the reporting. Further, in instances where the identity of a fluorinated gas cannot be determined from a supplier due to proprietary reasons, it may be useful to allow reporting of just the CO2 equivalent of the gas in certain instances, to facilitate reporting and avoid the ambiguity around the certification of inability to obtain the data from suppliers.
Response: Regarding revision and resubmission of annual reports, EPA solicited comment on limiting the resubmittal of reports to five years prior to the current reporting year. The issue of the conditions under which a report is required to be resubmitted is unrelated to the time period for which resubmittal is required or allowed and, therefore, is outside the scope of this rulemaking. There are no changes to the final rule as a result of this comment. EPA may consider these or similar edits in a future rulemaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Commenter Name:  Leslie Ritts
Commenter Affiliation:  National Environmental Development Associations Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0060
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Current Regulation - The current regulation at 40 CFR 98.3(h) requires the owner or operator of a facility subject to the Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule to submit a revised annual report within 45 days of discovering one or more "substantive errors." The regulation describes a substantive error as "an error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise prevents the reported data from being validated or verified." The term has not engendered much discussion but it could be interpreted quite broadly to require any error that is discovered in a submitted previously report to require resubmission of the prior report. NEDA/CAP submits that EPA should clarify that a "substantive error" does not include de minimis adjustments, which as we suggest below would be defined in the final rulemaking as (1) errors that collectively on a calendar year basis increase emissions by 1% or less of the previously reported emissions, per GHG emitted and (2) errors that collectively on a calendar year basis decrease emissions by 10% or less of the previously reported emissions, per GHG emitted.
History of EPA's Interpretation of "Substantive Error" - When the final rule was first published in 2009, §98.3(h) required follow up reporting of any error discovered in an annual report. In 2010, EPA changed that provision to require follow up reporting only for a "substantive error." EPA made this change to narrow the scope of the types of errors that would result in submitting revised reports. Specifically, EPA offered that the rule change was necessary "because some errors are not significant." 75 Fed Reg. at 79102 (Dec. 17, 2010). While NEDA/CAP agrees that insignificant errors should not be required to be reported, § 98.3(h)(3) remains difficult to interpret when it is applied to changes in calculated GHG emissions. The definition states that a substantive error includes "an error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise prevents the reported data from being verified." Id. This language suggests that any change in reported quantity, even a single pound of GHGs, might be considered a substantive error subject to follow up reporting. Given that the thresholds for GHG reporting are 25,000 metric tons, and that the calculation methods specified in Part 98 allow for calculations of partial tons even down to pounds, there must be a level at which very small adjustments to calculations result in relatively tiny changes to reported GHGs would be considered non-substantive. Any other reading of the term "substantive error" would be at odds with the plain meaning of the term and defeat the purpose of the 2010 rulemaking.
Merriam-Webster defines substantive as "considerable in amount or number" or "involving matters of major or practical importance to all involved." With this plain meaning, not all errors that impact the quantity of GHG emissions reported are substantive. For example, if 1,000 reporters discovered a refinement in their calculations that resulted in increasing each reporter's annual GHG emissions by 2 pounds, in aggregate this would have an impact of only one ton, but the rule would arguably require the submittal of 1,000 revised annual reports. That would cause a tremendous expenditure of time and resources, across the regulated community and for EPA, with no discernable value to the national GHG inventory. Similarly, for a single facility that reports 100,000 tons of CO2e emissions, an error that resulted in an additional ton, or even 10 tons, of CO2e emissions would not be consistent with the plain definition of a "substantive" error. An error that resulted in less than 0.01% change in emissions is not considerable in amount or number.
Requested Amplification of Agency Interpretation - Consequently, NEDA/CAP is joining other industry groups by requesting that EPA clarify that a "substantive error" does not include errors that result in an insignificant increase, or decrease, in reportable emissions as a result of a correction. To this end, we are seeking EPA's concurrence that:
      (1) Not all errors that impact the quantity of GHG emissions reported are substantive errors;
      (2) The determination of which errors are substantive requires the owner or operator to use reasonable judgment; and
      (3) For a reporting facility, errors that collectively on a calendar year basis increase emissions by 1% or less of the previously reported emissions, per GHG emitted are not substantive. And, regarding decreases, errors that collectively on a calendar year basis decrease emissions by 10% or less of the previously reported emissions, per GHG emitted, are not substantive.
EPA's further amplification on the meaning of "substantive error" would serve several useful purposes. It would clarify for the regulated community when an error is substantive, and would ease administrative burdens on both reporters and EPA. The purpose of the substantive error provision is to ensure that significant corrections are made to the national GHG inventory. No one is well served if resources need to be used to make very minor changes in previously submitted reports when those revisions do not materially change the amounts of reported emissions.
Response: Regarding the suggested changes to 40 CFR 98.3(h) to clarify the meaning of "substantive error," these clarifications are unrelated to the time period for which resubmittal is required or allowed and, therefore, are outside the scope of this rulemaking.  EPA may consider clarifying the meaning of this term in a future rulemaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: AFPM is recommending that EPA clarify when reporters must resubmit reports for substantive errors. The regulation (40 CFR 98.3(h)) requires the owner or operator of a facility subject to the Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule to submit a revised annual report within 45 days of discovering one or more "substantive errors." The regulation describes a substantive error as "an error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise prevents the reported data from being validated or verified." AFPM believes that EPA should clarify that a substantive error does not include truly de minimis calculation adjustments. However, the definition of substantive error that EPA adopted in 98.3(h)(3) is ambiguous when it is applied to truly de minimis calculated changes in GHG emissions. The definition states that a substantive error includes "an error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise prevents the reported data from being verified." This language suggests that any change in reported quantity, even a single pound of GHGs, might be considered a substantive error. Given that the thresholds for GHG reporting are 25,000 metric tons of CO2e, there must be a level at which very small adjustments to calculations which result in relatively small changes to the reported quantities would be considered non-substantive. We believe that substantive errors triggering resubmission of an annual report should be defined as changes in previously reported GHG emissions of more than 250 metric tons CO2e or 1% of reported emissions, whichever is less. Consequently, we are requesting that EPA clarify that a substantive error does not include errors that result in an insignificant increase, or decrease, in emissions as a result of a correction. We are seeking EPA's concurrence that:
      (1) Not all errors that impact the quantity of GHG emissions reported are substantive;
      (2) The determination of which errors are substantive requires the owner or operator to use reasonable judgment; and
      (3) As a guide, for a facility, errors that collectively on a calendar year basis change emissions by 1% or less of the reported emissions are not substantive.
EPA's elaboration on the definition of "substantive error" would serve several useful purposes. It would clarify for the regulated community when a calculation error is substantive, and would ease administrative burdens on both reporters and EPA. The purpose of the substantive error provision is to ensure that substantive corrections are made to the national GHG inventory. No one is well served if resources need to be used to make very minor changes in previously submitted reports when those revisions do not materially change the amounts of reported emissions.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0060, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter Name:  Dow Chemical Company
Commenter Affiliation:  Dow Chemical Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: The rule should also address how to handle situations where part of an existing facility is sold to another entity (e.g., sale of some process units to Olin Corporation in our case). Our understanding is that the entity that owns the emission source(s) as of December 31st is responsible for reporting the emissions for that previous year. However, this is based on information obtained from the help desk and is not in the regulation. 
Response: Regarding revising the rule to address instances when part of an existing facility is sold to another entity, in general, 40 CFR 98.4(h) puts responsibility on the new owner in the case of a change in ownership. In this rulemaking, EPA initially proposed and sought comment on a change to the notification requirements in the case of a specific kind of change in ownership. EPA did not solicit comment on the matter of which owner is subject to the reporting requirements. Therefore, this comment is outside of the scope for this rulemaking.    
The facility for reporting purposes is defined at 40 CFR 98.6. As noted by the commenter, EPA has previously issued guidance to reporters to clarify that whatever physical property, plant, building, structure, source, or stationary equipment the facility consists of on December 31 of a given year constitute the facility for that entire year and must be covered in that facility's submission for that entire reporting year. This guidance addresses the partial sale scenario raised by this comment. There are no changes to the final rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Ted Michaels 
Commenter Affiliation:  Energy Recovery Council(ERC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: The methane GWP (25) of the Proposal is from the 9-year old IPCC 4th Assessment Report and is now out of date. Updating the GWPs will properly align reporting with the latest climate science. This is especially important for emissions of methane. Methane is the second largest contributor to global climate change and the latest data on methane's contribution to radiative forcing, a measure of the uptake of energy, and hence global warming of the earth's climate system, is over 75% higher than previously reported. According to the 5th Assessment Report, the 100 year methane GWP is 34 when climate-carbon feedbacks are included and 84 times more potent over 20 years.[1] The report concludes that "it is likely that including the climate-carbon feedback for non-CO2 gases as well as for CO2 provides a better estimate of the metric value than including it only for CO2."
Footnotes:
 See Table 8‐7 of Myhre, G. et al. (2013) Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.‐K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 
Response: EPA did not solicit comments on updates to the GWP values for methane, or any other chemicals in Table A-1, in the proposed rule. Therefore, the commenter's recommendation is outside of scope for this rulemaking. EPA previously discussed the GWPs of compounds in Table A-1 in the rulemaking "2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Final Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements; Final Rule" (78 FR 71904, November 29, 2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Gilman 
Commenter Affiliation:  Covanta
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0034
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: The methane GWP (25) of the Proposal is from the 9-year old IPCC 4th Assessment Report and is now out of date. Updating the GWPs will properly align reporting with the latest climate science. This is especially important for emissions of methane. Methane is the second largest contributor to global climate change and the latest data on methane's contribution to radiative forcing, a measure of the uptake of energy, and hence global warming of the earth's climate system, is over 75% higher than previously reported. According to the 5th Assessment Report, the 100 year methane GWP is 34 when climate-carbon feedbacks are included and 84 times more potent over 20 years.[1] The report concludes that "it is likely that including the climate-carbon feedback for non-CO2 gases as well as for CO2 provides a better estimate of the metric value than including it only for CO2."
Footnotes:
(1) See Table 8‐7 of Myhre, G. et al. (2013) Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.‐K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033, Excerpt 2. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart C
Improve Quality: Reporting Moisture Content Used to Correct HHV 
(Table C-1)
Commenter Name:  Brad Upton
Commenter Affiliation:  National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0038
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA proposes amending 40 CFR 98.36(e)(2)(i)(B) to require reporting of the moisture content used to calculate wood and wood residuals wet basis HHV from the dry basis default HHV in Table C-1 for use in Equations C-1 and C-8, as applicable. These changes are appropriate, as they will assist in correctly submitting and interpreting emissions reports.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: AF&PA and AWC are pleased to see that EPA has taken note of comments we submitted in 2013 seeking to address moisture content in wood and wood residuals. We are in full agreement with the changes because we believe that this will increase the accuracy of our reporting.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Kim A. Wolfe 
Commenter Affiliation:  Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0028
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: The EPA is proposing to require reporting of moisture content used to correct the default high heating value for wood and wood residuals in Table C-1 (3rd column, 81 FR 2550). The frequency of this determination could not be located in the preamble or regulations. It is recommended EPA clarify the required frequency of determining moisture content. Since source testing requires the determination of moisture content it is recommended EPA accept the moisture content determination frequency to be the same as the source testing frequency. A more frequent moisture content determination would result in additional costs to the facility.
Response: Please note that the Table C - 1 default HHV for wood and wood residuals assumes that the wood and wood residuals are dry (i.e., zero percent moisture content). However, wood and wood residuals are often wet when burned. Applying the wet weight of the wood to the dry basis HHV overestimates emissions, since a portion of the weight of the combusted wood is water. In order to correct this (at the behest of industry), subpart C now allows facilities the option to calculate a wet basis HHV using the following equation:
                        HHVw = ((100 − M)/100) * HHVd
Where:  
      HHVw = wet basis HHV
      M = moisture content (percent)
      HHVd = dry basis HHV from Table C-1
The wet basis HHV conversion should only be used when a configuration is reporting according to the Tier 1 calculation methodology and when the wood and wood residuals combusted contain moisture greater than zero percent.
Correcting to a wet basis HHV is not required by Subpart C, but is optional. The alternative to correcting the HHV to a wet basis is for facilities to report the total quantity of wood and wood residuals combusted on a dry basis. Currently, Subpart C does not specify a method for determining the dry weight of wood, it only specifies a method for correcting the HHV to a wet basis.
Because the Tier 1 calculation method may be used for solid, gaseous, or liquid biomass fuels in a unit of any size if the fuel is listed in Table C-1 of this subpart, it is likely that many facilities will use this option.
Under the final revisions to 40 CFR 98.36(e)(2)(i)(A) and 98.37(b)(37), if facilities opt to correct HHV to a wet basis, they will be required to report and retain a record of the moisture content used to do so. EPA intends that facilities using the moisture content correction should keep a complete record of the methods used, the measurements made, and the calculations performed to quantify moisture content. The frequency of determination should also be noted and based on the availability of existing company data. EPA does not intend to specify a method or frequency for moisture content determination because facilities already have systems in place to determine moisture content and the use of the wet basis HHV correction is optional, not required. There are no changes to the final rule as a result of this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Brad Upton
Commenter Affiliation:  National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0038
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: EPA proposes allowing reporters to elect under 40 CFR 98.3(d)(3)(v) and 40 CFR 98.36(a) to either enter the moisture content into the inputs verification tool (IVT) or report the data in e-GGRT. These changes are appropriate.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: We are in full agreement with EPA's approach for our industry that produces wood and wood residuals as a production process byproduct as it relates to potential competitiveness issues associated with moisture content. We agree that the option of either reporting under the IVT (if the reporter is concerned about CBI) or just entering the data into the e-GGRT directly (if the reporter is not concerned about CBI) is an appropriate set of options to allow individuals to make their own determination.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Reporting cumulative maximum rated heat capacity for GP and CP configurations
Commenter Name:  Christine G. Wyman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Gas Association (AGA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0069
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: Subpart C: 40 C.F.R. § 98.36 EPA has proposed a revision to Subpart C that would require natural gas combustion sources that use "aggregation" or "common pipe" provisions to report a new data element: cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity. 81 Fed. Reg. 2551. Aggregation and/or common pipe reporting is used for compressor stations and storage facilities because these Subpart C provisions apply to combustion sources  -  typically compressor drivers  -  at those facilities. Section 98.36(c)(1) addresses "aggregation" reporting and §98.36(c)(3) addresses "common pipe" reporting. EPA is proposing to make similar revisions to each section to add the new data element. The provisions are similar, and the proposed §98.3.6(c)(1)(iii) is provided here:
      Cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity of the group (mmBtu/hr). The cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity shall be determined as the sum of the maximum rated heat input capacities for all units in the group, excluding units less than 10 (mmBtu/hr).
      81 Fed. Reg. 2603 (proposed § 98.36(c)(1)(iii)); see also id. (proposed § 98.36(c)(3)(ii)).
AGA recommends that EPA not include this data element because it can be determined from already reported information and the addition of the data element may cause unnecessary confusion. The actual annual heat input of the grouped sources at compressor stations and storage facilities can be determined from available information. These facilities combust natural gas and aggregate combustion sources for reporting, as allowed by Subpart C. Based on the reported combustion emissions (e.g., metric tons of CO2) and the mandatory, default CO2 emission factor from natural gas combustion in Table C-1,[1] the actual heat rate (annual mmBtu) can be determined. That value can also provide an average mmBtu/hr for the year based on actual operations. The facilities that use "aggregation" and/or "common pipe" reporting often include compressor drivers with a rated heat input capacity less than 10 mmBtu/hr (which is equivalent to about 1,200 horsepower). Those units would be excluded from the proposed cumulative total reported. There could be confusion when comparing implied capacity from actual emissions, which would include units with less than 10 (mmBtu/hr), to the reported cumulative capacity, which would exclude units with less than 10 (mmBtu/hr).
It is not clear what EPA expects to learn from the new data element. The reported cumulative capacity may be much lower than the actual capacity calculated from reported CO2 emissions, because excluding units rated at less than 10 mmBtu/hr may omit many sources from typical facilities. At some facilities, all or nearly all of the capacity would be excluded. For example, compressor stations and storage facilities often include units of different sizes to support demand requirements that vary over the year. Stations usually include multiple compressors, and the number of units at a facility that exceed 10 mmBtu/hr can vary from zero to several units, depending on the site. Facilities often will include several units that are below the reporting threshold that would be excluded from the cumulative site capacity reported. Some facilities may be comprised solely of units less than 10 mmBtu/hr. Those units would be excluded from the total reported, so a cumulative maximum heat input capacity of zero would be reported for some facilities. However, reported Subpart C emissions would not be zero, and the facility report could appear to be erroneous. Because these scenarios will not be uncommon, the new reporting requirement would not provide insight into the site nor operations, and may cause confusion when results are reviewed.
AGA recommends that EPA not incorporate this proposed data element into any final GHGRP rule because it will not add insight and could cause confusion. If EPA retains this new requirement, a lower exclusion threshold should be considered to avoid the scenarios described above for typical compressor stations. For example, a threshold of 2.5 mmBtu/hr would address nearly all transmission and storage compressors, but would exclude smaller emergency/auxiliary generators as well as facility ancillary equipment such as water heaters. A marginally lower threshold may minimize the potential for confusion.
Footnotes:
(1) Table C-1 to Subpart C of Part 98 -- Default CO2 Emission Factors and High Heat Values for Various Types of Fuel.
Response: The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement to report the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all units within the GP or CP configuration that have a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  13
Comment: AFPM disagrees with the assertion that providing the "cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity" for units reporting under aggregation and/or common pipe methodologies will provide meaningful verification data to EPA. Stating that "...reporting of the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for GP and CP reporting configurations would greatly improve the ability to verify emissions for these configurations" is a mischaracterization of the significance of this data. The "cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity" will provide nothing more than a determination of actual emissions relative to potential on a group level. Such a high-level assessment does very little to "greatly improve the ability to verify emissions," as variations within the aggregation are not identified. This is particularly true when there is a difference between maximum design values and permitted values, as is often the case. EPA fails to recognize that the "cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity" is not necessarily a federally enforceable limit and thus not an indication of non-compliance. Other factors, such as unit modification or hours of operation, will make these values meaningless to compare.
We disagree with EPA's assertion that the burden to provide this information is minimal. The information EPA is requesting is duplicative with various reports provided to both state and federal agencies. These would include but would not be limited to: NSR permit applications, issued (final) NSR construction permits, title V permits and NSPS and MACT Stack/Performance tests. It is wasteful and resource-intensive to provide the same information to the same government agencies in multiple instances. Further, this cumulative heat capacity value must be reassessed and updated annually to ensure accuracy, otherwise a value that is irrelevant to an emission inventory that is based on actual operating data becomes a potential source of violation and penalty. EPA states that "approximately 3,540 units will be affected by this additional requirement  -  this is a significant number of sources throughout the United States that would now collect and maintain information not previously required. No other inventory provided at the state level requires the information EPA seeks in order to "validate" the reported data.
To the extent that EPA requires collecting this information, EPA correctly states that "these data elements provide information that is generally already available to the public through other sources (e.g., operating permits)." (FR Vol.81. No. 10, pg. 2576) Thus, the information EPA seeks is already reported in a number of sources in a much more granular format- namely NSR and Operating permits. These are sources available to the agency and should be relied upon as more up-to-date and detailed sources of information. Rather than burdening industry with duplicative reporting, EPA should seek this information from other readily available government documents.
Response: The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement to report the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all units within the GP or CP configuration that have a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). As discussed in Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA intends to use these data to verify that emissions are not being significantly over-reported. EPA intends to directly compare "actual emissions relative to potential on a group level' in order to identify over reporting. EPA currently has no other means to verify that emissions reported under the GP and CP configurations are not overstated. Because there are approximately 7,000 of these configurations in use and the non-biogenic emissions from these configurations represent 50% of the total emissions in Subpart C, EPA feels that this will improve our ability to verify emissions for this sub group of units. 
EPA has not proposed any regulatory language that would make cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity a federally enforceable limit. The intent of this new data element in Subpart C is for emissions verification. As explained in Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA will use the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity to help determine when emissions have been overstated or when the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity has been understated.
With regard to the comment on burden, we acknowledge that the burden estimate provided in the preamble to the proposal was understated for subpart C. We have revised the burden estimate in consideration of these comments. See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule and the memorandum "Assessment of Burden Impacts of Final 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule" available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Angus E. Crane
Commenter Affiliation:  North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0053
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: EPA proposes to require reporting of the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all units that have a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr.
In December 2010, the requirements for the cumulative heat input capacity for all units using aggregation of units (GP) and common pipe (CP) configurations were removed.[1] The 2010 Final Rule noted that for verification purposes, "the only critical data element is the maximum rated heat input capacity of the largest unit in the group."[2] EPA now contends that this does not provide enough information to assess the quality of emissions reported under these configurations. Therefore, EPA seeks additional information on these reporting configurations.
The burden of collecting this additional data will be significant from a time, resources, and cost perspective. NAIMA believes that meaningful data verification can be achieved without requiring this additional information. Indeed, EPA concedes that meaningful data verification could be achieved without this data for smaller combustion sources. NAIMA urges EPA to recognize that meaningful data verification is available for larger emission units, too. Given the burden imposed upon manufacturers to collect and report this additional data, NAIMA does not believe the data need justifies the burden.
This is an instance where EPA could forego a data request with limited and questionable merit for the cause of trying to ease the burden from a manufacturing sector already beleaguered with what seems like an onslaught of ever-increasing new and minor requirements that are costly and time consuming.
Footnotes:
(1) 75 Fed. Reg. at 79,092 (December 17, 2010).
(2) 75 Fed. Reg. at 79,117.
Response: The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement to report the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all units within the GP or CP configuration that have a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  13
Comment: For emissions reported under Subpart C using the aggregation of units (GP) and common pipe (CP) configurations, EPA proposes to require reporting of the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all units in the configuration that have a maximum heat input capacity greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr (81 FR 2551). As EPA discusses in the Preamble, the Agency initially required the cumulative heat input capacity for all units in GP and CP configurations, then removed the requirement in subsequent amendments dated December 2010, noting that the only critical data element is the maximum rated heat input capacity of the largest unit in the group. Now, six years later the Agency wants to return to a reporting requirement that will confuse reporters and complicate data collection. Moreover, the information will have no effect on the reported fuel usage or calculated emissions. We do not support the proposed change to add burden to reporters simply for Agency verification purposes. EPA has twice assessed the need for this information and should maintain its previous decision not to require reporting of the cumulative capacity. 
Response: The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement to report the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all units within the GP or CP configuration that have a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). EPA notes that when the original rule was proposed, there was no indication of the extent to which the aggregated reporting options for combustion sources would be used by reporters. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking (81 FR 2551), EPA has assessed the data reported over the past five years of the reporting program and notes that the numerous reporters that choose to use this reporting configuration represent approximately half of the emissions from combustion sources. EPA also notes that over reporting of certain configurations does occur and is difficult to detect without additional data. As a result, EPA determined that we need to collect additional information to verify reported emissions for these sources. See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for a discussion of the intended use of and need for this new data element, and the burden associated with this new requirement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: EPA states that information about the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all aggregated units would be "important for verifying" emissions from these units and to "further assess data quality for these reported emissions." See 81 Fed. Reg. at 2551. While owners and operators of aggregate data have ready access to the maximum rated heat input capacity for all units, EPA has not explained how this data will help verify or assess the quality of reported emissions data, particularly in the case of EGUs, which report emissions based on continuous emissions monitors, which have calibration requirements. EPA should better explain the value of collecting aggregate heat input capacity data in light of the use of CEMS to measure GHG emissions from EGUs.
Response: The proposed rule change does not impose additional requirements for CEMS reporters. This proposed rule change requests only the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for the aggregation of units (40 CFR 98.36(c)(1)) and common pipe configurations (40 CFR 98.36(c)(3)), neither of which apply to units subject to Tier 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: If EPA can explain the use of this data and chooses to move forward with requiring that it be reported, EPA should exclude reporting for units that have a maximum rated heat input capacity of 10 mmBtu/hr or less. As EPA notes, it would be burdensome to require reporters to account for small domestic combustion sources co-located at large industrial facilities. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 2551. Moreover, this data will not improve the quality of data reported from sources subject to subpart C as they are unrelated to the actual combustion of fuel by these stationary sources.
Response: The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement to report the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all units within the GP or CP configuration that have a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr), and is excluding units with a maximum heat input capacity less than 10 mmBtu/hr. See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for a discussion of the intended use of and need for this new data element. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: We are concerned with EPA's proposal to require reporting of the individual units' maximum rated heat input capacity for each unit when emissions are reported via the aggregation of units or common pipe configurations. Currently, we report based on the heat value of the largest unit. We continue to be concerned  -  as, EPA notes, were previous commenters -- that this could be quite burdensome to reporters. We suggest that EPA should require, instead of reporting every unit, that the range of heat input capacities be provided so that the Agency understands the least and maximum capacities. This will significantly reduce the reporting burden and provide EPA with information to quality check the information provided.
Response: EPA disagrees that the range of heat input capacities (lowest and maximum) would provide any meaningful way to verify emissions. Under the commenter's proposal, burden would be increased less, but the data would not provide any meaningful information as to the total capacity --  hence, the potential to emit --  for GP and CP configurations.
See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for a discussion of the intended use of and need for this new data element, and the burden associated with this new requirement. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Other Amendments: Revising Equation C-2b for HHV sampling received less frequently than monthly
Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman, Hunton & Williams LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0046
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: Among the proposed changes to Subpart C is a clarification to the Tier 2 reporting provisions in § 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(A) regarding how to calculate weighted annual high heat values (HHV) when fuel samples are received less frequently than monthly. Id. at 2552. UARG agrees that this is a helpful clarification and supports it.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  12
Comment: The EPA is proposing to amend §98.33(a)(2)(ii)(A) to clarify the definition of terms for Equation C - 2b in cases where the results of HHV sampling are received less frequently than monthly. Reporters subject to 40 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(B) may use Equation C - 2b, however the equation currently defines the frequency of HHV sampling as monthly. This proposed revision will replace the term "month" in the equation inputs for the terms "(HHV)I," "(Fuel)I," and "n" with the term "samples".
AFPM supports these revisions.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: EPA has proposed to amend §98.33(a)(2)(ii)(A) to clarify the definition of terms for Equation C - 2b in cases where the results of HHV sampling are received less frequently than monthly. API recommends expanding allowable sampling periods to additionally include those more frequent than monthly, e.g. daily and weekly. Using C2-b at the daily or weekly level is more representative of actual stream conditions than forcing an arithmetic average to the monthly level. API recommends revising text to "(e.g. daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or by lot)."
Response: EPA did not solicit comment on any changes related to the use of C-2b when the frequency of sampling occurs more than monthly and therefore the commenter's recommendation is outside of scope for this rulemaking. EPA may consider this comment in future revisions to subpart C. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: EPA has proposed to amend §98.33(a)(2)(ii)(A) to clarify the definition of terms for Equation C - 2b in cases where the results of HHV sampling are received less frequently than monthly. Reporters subject to 40 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(B) may use Equation C - 2b, however the equation currently defines the frequency of HHV sampling as monthly. This proposed revision will replace the term "month" in the equation inputs for the terms "(HHV)I," "(Fuel)I," and "n" with the term "samples".
Paragraph §98.33(a)(2)(ii)(A) is in conflict with the proposed revisions. API proposes the following revision to maintain consistency: "(A) If the results of fuel sampling are received monthly or more frequently, then fFor each unit with a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr (or for a group of units that includes at least one unit of that size), the annual average HHV shall be calculated using Equation C-2b of this section. If multiple HHV determinations are made in any month sampling period, average the values within the period for the month arithmetically."
Paragraph §98.33(a)(2)(ii)(B) is also in conflict with the proposed revisions. API proposes the following revision to maintain consistency: "(C) The high heat values used in the CO2 emissions calculations for each type of fuel combusted during the reporting year, in mmBtu per short ton for solid fuels, mmBtu per gallon for liquid fuels, and mmBtu per scf for gaseous fuels. Report an HHV value for each calendar month sampling period in which HHV determination is required. If multiple values are obtained in a given calander month sampling period, report the arithmetic average value for the month period."
Paragraph §98.33(a)(2)(iv)(C) is also in conflict with the proposed revisions, since this section also allows for the use of eq C2-b. API proposes the following revision to maintain consistency: "(C) The carbon content and, if applicable, gas molecular weight values used in the emission calculations (including both valid and substitute data values). For each calendar month sampling period of the reporting year in which carbon content and, if applicable, molecular weight determination is required, report a value of each parameter. If multiple values of a parameter are obtained in a given month sampling period, report the arithmetic average value for the month period. Express carbon content as a decimal fraction for solid fuels, kg C per gallon for liquid fuels, and kg C per kg of fuel for gaseous fuels. Express the gas molecular weights in units of kg per kg-mole."
The proposed clarification does not preclude one from sampling data at a given frequency but assuming a less frequent sampling period for use in eq C2-b. (For example, someone records monthly HHV data but assumes quarterly sampling periods when using eq C2-b.) To avoid multiple potential annual average HHVs for a given set of measurements, API proposes adding the following line to the end of paragraph §98.33(a)(2)(ii)(A): "The number of sampling periods must be in accordance with the "frequency of HHV determinations" reported in part §98.36(e)(2)(ii)(B)."
Response: EPA believes that the current requirement to average multiple values for the month arithmetically is appropriate. See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044, Excerpt 3.
As such, the rule text under 40 CFR 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(A), 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(B), or 98.36(a)(2)(iv)(C) is not in conflict with the final revision to replace the term "month" in equation C-2b terms "(HHV)I," "(Fuel)I," and "n" with the term "samples." There are no changes to the final rule as a result of this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Other Amendments: Revisions to Fuel Categories in Table C-1
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  14
Comment: The EPA is proposing the following revisions to Table C-1:
Revising the Fuel Type for "Petroleum products" to "Petroleum products  -  liquids".
Moving the high heat value and CO2 emission factor for Petroleum Coke from the previous categories "Petroleum products" and "Other fuels  -  solid" to a new category "Petroleum products  -  solid." The high heat value is changed from a liquid basis under the previous "Petroleum products" category. The values are the same as were listed under the "Other fuels  - solid" category (30 mmBtu/short ton and 102.41 kg CO2/mmBtu).
Adding a new Fuel Type for "Petroleum products  -  gaseous." Under this category the high heat value (2.516x10-3 mmBtu/scf) and CO2 emission factor (64.46 kg CO2/mmBtu) for Propane Gas is provided. Propane gas was previously listed under "Other fuels  -  gaseous" with the same factors.
AFPM supports these revisions, particularly in removing the petroleum coke factors that were on a volume basis.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Brad Upton
Commenter Affiliation:  National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0038
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: The agency's proposal to removal petroleum coke from both the "Petroleum products" and "Other fuels  -  solid" categories of Table C-1 and include it under a new category titled "Petroleum products  -  solid" is also appropriate, as it will remove a source of potential confusion with the classification of petroleum coke.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: Regarding Table C-1, AF&PA and AWC agree fully with the proposal to remove "petroleum coke" under the "Petroleum products" heading and to include it under a new category titled "Petroleum products  -  solid." We believe this will provide needed clarity to fuels categories.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Other Amendments: Revisions to Fuel Categories in Table C-2
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  15
Comment: The EPA is proposing the following revisions to Table C-2:
Revising the Fuel Type for "Petroleum (All fuel types in Table C-1)" to "Petroleum Products (All fuel types in Table C-1)."
Revising the Fuel Type for "Municipal Solid Waste" to "Other Fuels  -  Solid."
Removing the Fuel type and emission factors for "Tires." The factors previously listed for Tires are the same as the factors for "Other Fuels  -  Solid."
AFPM supports these revisions.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Brad Upton
Commenter Affiliation:  National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0038
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: EPA proposes to combine the MSW, tires, and plastics line items in Table C-2 such that all three fuels will have the CH4 and N2O emission factors currently assigned to MSW and tires. Plastics are not currently included in Table C-2. Therefore, the proposed change will assign the CH4 and N2O emission factors for MSW and tires to plastics, which currently are not associated with any CH4 or N2O emission factors. It would be helpful for the agency to provide justification for its proposal to assign these emission factor values to plastics.
Response: "Plastics" was added as a fuel type to Table C-1 due to comments received in prior years. Based on the comment response summary in the preamble of the 2010 final rule (75 FR 79092, December 17, 2010), two commenters argued against the inclusion of plastics in Table C-1, stating that "plastics are a small component of municipal solid waste (MSW) and there is no reason why plastics should be listed as a separate fuel in Table C - 1." However, as further indicated in that comment response summary, two other commenters stated that "plastics are, in fact, sometimes separated out from MSW as a separate stream." To strike a balance in the December 17, 2010 rulemaking, EPA added plastics to Table C-1 and "modified the definition of MSW to clearly state that insofar as plastics (along with certain other materials) are separated out from MSW, processed and disposed of, they are not considered to be `municipal solid waste'." (75 FR 79117, December 17, 2010)) In that December 17, 2010 rulemaking, EPA overlooked assigning emissions factors for CH4 and N2O from plastics.
EPA reviewed the Climate Leadership GHG Emissions Factors Hub, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Stationary Combustion), and the 2014 Default Emission Factors - The Climate Registry. We found reference to plastics only in the Climate Leadership Hub. It appears that this document simply assumes the same emission factor for plastics as is used for MSW and tires. The current review did not identify further literature regarding CH4 and N2O emission factors for plastics. 
Review of RY2015 data indicated that three facilities burned plastics in four units, for a combined total of 3,087 metric tons CO2  -  an extremely minor contribution to the overall Subpart C emissions profile. It is believed that most plastics are combusted under the MSW fuel type, as supported by comments received from the waste industry. 
Based on the cited literature, the history of the inclusion of plastics in Table C-1, industry (i.e., waste management) comments regarding plastics in MSW, and the overall impact of plastics on emissions, EPA considers it appropriate to assign the CH4 and N2O emission factors under MSW to plastics. There are no changes to the final rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: Regarding Table C-2, EPA has proposed to include "plastics" in the "other fuels  -  solids" category. Previously, EPA has not included CH4 or N2O emissions for plastics. However, EPA has not explained why the proposed factors for the other fuels are appropriate for plastics. We believe that before EPA finalizes including plastics in the "other fuels  -  solids" category, it must provide justification for doing so.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0038, Excerpt 3. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Other Amendments: Updating test methods (ASTM D6866-12)
Commenter Name:  Darden Hood 
Commenter Affiliation:  Beta Analytic Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0032
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: [Note: The excerpt below provides reasoning for the commenter's request for a 45-day extension.]
The reasoning behind this is due to a variable within the testing standard which will change annually, resulting in falsely low values if not updated. Presently the rule is being updated to use the -12 version which will apply a correction factor of 0.95. We know very well now from empirical evidence that factor is 0.98 as of 2015. As an example of the magnitude of the correction, a value calculated at 63% biogenic CO2 using the -12 version will now give a value of 65% biogenic carbon.
The reason we make this request is that the process of updating standards within ASTM is a lengthy one, requiring many months. A revision to the -12 version to update now and automatically in the future has been under discussion since last October. The earliest it may pass is the week of April 8.
Automatic correction is built into the revision going through 2020, at which time another revision of the standard will be put forth. For reference if the -12 version is cited, by 2019 a value of 63% biobased carbon we [sic] be returned for a gas sample that is really 66% biobased, very similar to the situation that exists now.
Citing "ASTM-D6866-latest version" is by far the best solution. However, if it is outside of EPA policy, we request an extension of the comment period of 45 days with the hopes that passing of a new version will be in hand by April 14.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment regarding the request to incorporate by reference ASTM D6866-16, or as an alternative, "ASTM-D6866-latest version." EPA agrees with the commenters that incorporating the most recent version of the test method is appropriate to ensure that accurate biogenic CO2 fractions are reported. 
EPA incorporates by reference only standards. As such, citing "ASTM-D6866-latest version" is not a viable option for this rulemaking. Furthermore, EPA cannot predict that future revisions of ASTM-D6866 (or any other standard) will necessarily be consistent with the current intentions of the GHGRP.
However, an updated version of ASTM D6866 was published on June 1, 2016 (ASTM D6866-16), and EPA is updating the final rule to revise references to these methods to refer to the revised June 2016 standards. See Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Darden Hood
Commenter Affiliation:  Beta Analytic Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0055
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: [Note: The excerpt below provides reasoning for the commenter's request for an additional 30-day extension.]
The reasoning behind this is due to a variable within the testing standard which will change annually, resulting in falsely low values if not updated. Presently the rule is being updated to use the -12 version which will apply a correction factor of 0.95. We know very well now from empirical evidence that factor is 0.98 as of 2015. As an example of the magnitude of the correction, a value calculated at 63% biogenic CO2 using the -12 version will now give a value of 65% biogenic carbon.
The reason we make this request is that the process of updating standards within ASTM is a lengthy one, requiring many months. A revision to the -12 version to update now and automatically in the future has been under discussion since last October. We expect that the new version will be passed the week of April 10-15, 2016.
Automatic correction is built into the revision going through 2020, at which time another revision of the standard will be put forth. For reference if the -12 version is cited, by 2019 a value of 63% biobased carbon we [sic] be returned for a gas sample that is really 66% biobased, very similar to the situation that exists now.
Citing "ASTM-D6866-latest version" is by far the best solution. However, if it is outside of EPA policy, we request an extension of the comment period of 30 days with the hopes that passing of a new version will be in hand by April 15, 2016.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0032, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Ted Michaels 
Commenter Affiliation:  Energy Recovery Council (ERC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: We are pleased that the EPA has proposed to include the Standard Test Method for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples using Radiocarbon Analysis, D6866-12. However, this standard will be out of date this year. A revision of the standard, D6866-16, was published for voting on January 20, 2016 and closes today, February 29th. The standard is subject to periodic revision to update the correction factor which accounts for excess radioisotope C14 remaining in the atmosphere as a result of thermonuclear weapons testing. In the 2008 version of ASTM D6866, this correction factor was 0.93. In 2010, (ASTM D6866-10) this correction factor was revised to 0.95 to account for diminishing concentrations of atmospheric C14 associated with historic thermonuclear testing and it remained constant through the D6866-12 version. However, ASTM D6866-16, if finalized as currently drafted, will include a higher factor.
To ensure accurate biogenic CO2 fractions are reported in future GHG reporting years, 40 CFR 98.34 (d) should be revised to incorporate the latest version of the standard available at the beginning of the GHG reporting year. This would allow the incorporation of the updated atmospheric C14 correction factors, which reflect the measured change in atmospheric C14 over time, to be automatically incorporated without a rule revision. At a minimum, the rule should be updated to reference D6866-16 if it is finalized prior to finalization of the Rule.
Response: See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Gilman 
Commenter Affiliation:  Covanta
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0034
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: We are pleased that the EPA has proposed to include the Standard Test Method for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples using Radiocarbon Analysis, D6866-12. However, this standard will be out of date this year. A revision of the standard, D6866-16, was published for voting on January 20, 2016 and closes today, February 29th. The standard is subject to periodic revision to update the correction factor which accounts for excess radioisotope C14 remaining in the atmosphere as a result of thermonuclear weapons testing. In the 2008 version of ASTM D6866, this correction factor was 0.93. In 2010, (ASTM D6866-10) this correction factor was revised to 0.95 to account for diminishing concentrations of atmospheric C14 associated with historic thermonuclear testing and it remained constant through the D6866-12 version. However, ASTM D6866-16, if finalized as currently drafted, will include a higher factor.
To ensure accurate biogenic CO2 fractions are reported in future GHG reporting years, 40 CFR 98.34 (d) should be revised to incorporate the latest version of the standard available at the beginning of the GHG reporting year. This would allow the incorporation of the updated atmospheric C14 correction factors, which reflect the measured change in atmospheric C14 over time, to be automatically incorporated without a rule revision. At a minimum, the rule should be updated to reference D6866-16 if it is finalized prior to finalization of the Rule.
Response: See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments on Subpart C Issues not proposed
Commenter Name:  Jesse E. Levine
Commenter Affiliation:  Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0065
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: RMA recommends that all tire derived fuel (TDF) users be able to calculate biogenic CO2 emissions based on the natural rubber average, fuel mass, heat value, and emission factor. TDF contains consistent biogenic content. RMA surveyed members for natural rubber percentages in passenger/light truck and truck/bus tires and then weighted those percentages by sales data for each company for the past ten years to calculate a consistent 24% natural rubber average for the total scrap tire stream. Unlike tires, municipal solid waste has compositional variability based on geography, time of year, and other site-specific factors. EPA technical support document for the 2010 reporting rule at 15. Even though EPA categorizes MSW and TDF together, unlike MSW, the biogenic fraction in TDF is constant and as a result TDF should be treated differently. While ASTM test methods to identify biogenic material may make sense for municipal solid waste (MSW), they do not for TDF.
RMA recommends that ASTM test methods D6866 and 7459 should not be used to determine the biogenic CO2 emissions from TDF. In the current reporting rule, if MSW or TDF make up more than 10% of a unit's generated energy, then ASTM air emission tests seem to be the primary method to determine biogenic CO2 emissions. But if MSW or TDF make up less than 10% of a unit's generated energy, then the user can calculate biogenic CO2 emissions by multiplying the natural rubber average by the fuel mass, heat value, and emission factor according to the section 98.33(e)(3)(iv) formula. Given that TDF has a consistent biogenic fraction, the section 98.33(e)(3)(iv) formula for calculating biogenic CO2 emissions should not be limited to units in which TDF makes up less than 10% of a unit's generated energy. All TDF users should be able to calculate biogenic CO2 emissions based on the 98.33(e)(3)(iv) formula because regardless of the percentage of TDF used in a unit, the net result should be a 24% reduction in GHGs since TDF has a consistent biogenic fraction. 
Response: Regarding the suggestion to remove use of ASTM test methods D6866 and 7459 for determining the biogenic CO2 emissions from TDF and allow these emissions to be calculated using the industry's natural rubber average and the calculation method in 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv), EPA did not solicit comment on this topic in the proposed rule, and therefore, this suggestion is out of scope for this rulemaking. EPA may consider this comment in future revisions to subpart C. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  10
Comment: Under Section 98.34(e), EPA proposes that ASTM D6866-12 and ASTM D7459-08 be used to calculate the biogenic portion of tire-derived fuels (TDF). Instead, we believe that EPA should allow all TDF users to calculate biogenic CO2 emissions based on the tire industry's natural rubber average (24%) and the section 98.33(e)(3)(iv) formula. Given that tires have had a consistent fraction of natural rubber, we do not believe that the ASTM standards are necessary for the Reporting Rule.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0065, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Jesse E. Levine
Commenter Affiliation:  Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0065
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: RMA recommends that EPA update the technical support document for the 2010 reporting rule and the default factor that references the natural rubber content in tires. The technical support document for the 2010 reporting rule noted that the default factor for the average biogenic fraction of passenger and truck tires is 20%. EPA technical support document for the 2010 reporting rule at 26. This default factor number is also cited in section 98.33(e)(3)(iv). This number was based on data from RMA's website. RMA has since surveyed its members for recent data and determined that the natural rubber average in the scrap tire stream is 24%. Therefore, RMA recommends that EPA issue an updated technical support document for the reporting rule and revise the default factor to 24. Given TDF's consistent 24% natural rubber average, ASTM testing is not needed to determine biogenic CO2 emissions. 
Response: Regarding the suggestion that EPA issue an updated technical support document for the reporting rule and revise the default factor for the natural rubber content in tires to 0.24, EPA did not solicit comment on revising this default factor in the proposed rule, and therefore, this suggestion is out of scope for this rulemaking. EPA may consider this comment, the results of the RMA member survey when they are shared with EPA, and whether to issue an updated technical support document in future revisions to subpart C. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart G
Improve Quality: Reporting of annual ammonia production where a CEMS is used to measure CO2
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: In the 2015 GHGRP Revisions, EPA proposes several other changes to Subpart G. These changes would require reporting of annual ammonia production for facilities with CEMS and require reporting of annual consumption and annual average carbon content of feedstock. TFI does not oppose any of these proposed changes.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Other Amendments to Subpart G
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: TFI opposes requiring reporting of methanol that is vented or destroyed. The GHGRP requires that ammonia manufacturers report "annual methanol production (metric tons) for each process unit."[10] The Agency proposes to clarify this requirement by adding that annual methanol production must be reported "regardless of whether the methanol is subsequently destroyed, vented, or sold as product."[11] The Agency states that this clarification is necessary to clarify the original intent of the GHGRP. As discussed below, TFI opposes requiring reporting of methanol that is vented or destroyed.
Reporting annual methanol production does not improve EPA's ability to verify reported GHG emissions. GHG emissions calculated under Subpart G, for Ammonia Manufacturing, are based on fuel and feedstock. For units that have to report GHG emissions under Subpart G, reporting of methanol production does not affect the calculation methodology.
If EPA is trying to capture the amount of methanol produced for sale that does not get covered under Subpart X (Petroleum Production), then only the amount of methanol sold as product should be reported under this section. Subpart X already covers methanol produced from synthesis gas if the annual mass of methanol produced exceeds the individual annual mass production levels of both hydrogen (covered under Subpart P) and ammonia (covered under Subpart G). Reporting of methanol that is destroyed or vented should not be covered under 40 C.F.R. § 98.
The purpose of reporting to 40 C.F.R. § 98 is not to capture the generation of by-products in the ammonia production process. Methanol is generated in the low temperature shift reaction portion of the ammonia manufacturing unit. It is, in much smaller quantities, generated in the high temperature shift reaction portion of the ammonia manufacturing unit. Methanol can leave the process in either a gaseous stream (i.e. part of the CO2 vent gas) or as a process condensate. Some facilities use a low methanol catalyst in the low temperature shift reactor to control the amount of methanol produced. The process condensate normally gets routed back into the condensate stripper where the methanol is stripped and routed to the ammonia reformer for combustion. This portion should not be accounted for in the amount of methanol destroyed.
Because the amount of methanol produced does not contribute to the GHG emission calculations, and because of the complexity of determining the amount of methanol vented or destroyed, the Agency should not require reporting of methanol that is vented or destroyed.
TFI urges EPA to only require reporting the amount of methanol produced as product, not the amount that is vented or destroyed.
Footnotes:
(10) 40 C.F.R. §98.76(b)(15)
(11) 81 Fed. Reg. 2,255
Response: EPA is not requiring reporting of the quantity of methanol that is vented or destroyed under Subpart G. See Section III.E.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: If EPA does not remove the requirement that methanol that is vented or destroyed be reported, then a clarification should be made that methanol that is vented (i.e. as part of the CO2 vent) or that is routed to an upgrade plant (i.e., urea plant) should only be counted in the total amount. This is in addition to the amount of methanol sold as product, as some facilities produce methanol for sale after the synthesis portion of the ammonia manufacturing process. EPA should consider removing the phrase, "regardless of whether the methanol is subsequently destroyed" as it is ambiguous and has no relevance to the GHG emission calculation. In addition, if EPA is interested in the amount of methanol sold, then there should be an entry to make that distinction in the reporting form of the GHG report. Annual methanol reported should only be the methanol that "leaves the plant battery limits" or "exits the process unit" via venting to the atmosphere, sending it to storage, another process unit, consumer, or customer."
Response: EPA is not requiring reporting of the quantity of methanol that is vented or destroyed under Subpart G. See Section III.E.2 of the preamble to the final rule. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments on Subpart G Issues not proposed
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: TFI continues to be concerned with the requirement to report CO2 bound in urea produced by ammonia manufacturing units under Subpart G of the GHGRP as a GHG "emission." The CO2 bound in urea is not an "emission" by any common-sense understanding of that word. Further, the requirement to report CO2 bound in urea under Subpart G is (1) inconsistent with EPA's statements in the preamble of the GHGRP, (2) internally inconsistent with the regulatory language itself, (3) contrary to EPA's approach for other source categories in the GHGRP, and (4) contrary to EPA's methodology in the Inventory.
EPA states in the preamble to the final GHGRP, and reiterates in Subpart G, that ammonia manufacturing facilities must report only: (1) process emissions; (2) emissions from stationary combustion units; and (3) CO2 collected and transferred off-site or sequestered, under Subpart PP of the GHGRP.[3] CO2 bound in urea does not fit into any of these three categories. Additionally, the general policy of the GHGRP, as expressed in 40 C.F.R. § 98.1, is to gather GHG data from "certain facilities that directly emit GHGs as well as for certain fossil fuel suppliers and industrial GHG suppliers."[4] The policy, therefore, is to gather data on "direct emissions," which from a common sense perspective, means releases to the atmosphere. The requirement to report CO2 bound in urea, and not "emitted," is thus inconsistent with EPA's statements in the preamble and with other provisions of Subpart G.
Importantly, other source categories regulated under the GHGRP are able to account for carbon bound in products (and thus not "emitted"), and report only net emissions, or report carbon bound in products as data distinct from emissions reporting. For example, Subpart X, setting forth reporting requirements for the petrochemical production source category, allows for accounting of "net annual carbon input or output," which includes offsets and excludes carbon not emitted from the facility.[5]
Additionally, Subpart P, which sets forth reporting requirements for the hydrogen production source category, is structured in a manner similar to Subpart G, in that hydrogen production facilities are required to report only the same three categories as ammonia production facilities, as noted above. EPA states in the preamble to the GHGRP that several commenters on Subpart P pointed out the need for a calculation methodology to account for feedstock carbon that does not exit the hydrogen production facility as CO2, but rather in the form of other products or co-products containing carbon.[6] EPA responded to these comments by stating that it "generally concurs with the need to account for carbon other than CO2 that exits the facility. EPA considered several options for reporting such carbon and chose to have facilities report CO2 and `carbon other than CO2' as separate data reporting elements."[7]
Given the similarities in the types of emissions reported under Subparts G and P, and the analogous nature of the CO2 bound in urea shipped from ammonia manufacturing facilities and "carbon other than CO2" shipped from hydrogen production facilities, TFI is confused why it is required to report CO2 bound in urea as an emission under Subpart G. Further, TFI questions why sources in Subpart X are able to reduce their carbon reporting for carbon in products, while sources in Subpart G are not able to reduce their CO2 reporting for CO2 in urea. Based on our review of the GHGRP preamble and Response to Comments document, TFI is unable to ascertain the rationale for this disparate treatment of source categories.
EPA's requirement in the GHGRP to report CO2 bound in urea is also inconsistent with EPA's approach in the Inventory. In the Inventory, EPA does not attribute CO2 bound to urea to the ammonia manufacturing sector because the CO2 is not emitted by this sector; it is used to produce a product. As noted by EPA in its most recent draft Inventory:
Only the CO2 emitted directly to the atmosphere from the synthetic ammonia production process are accounted for in determining emissions from ammonia production. The CO2 that is captured during the ammonia production process and used to produce urea does not contribute to the CO2 emission estimates for ammonia production presented in this section. Instead, CO2 emissions resulting from the consumption of urea are attributed to the urea consumption or urea application source category (under the assumption that the carbon stored in the urea during its manufacture is released into the environment during its consumption or application). Emissions of CO2 resulting from agricultural applications of urea are accounted for in the Cropland Remaining Cropland section of the Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry chapter. Emissions of CO2 resulting from non-agricultural applications of urea (e.g., use as a feedstock in chemical production processes) are accounted for in the Urea Consumption for Non-Agricultural Purposes section of this chapter.[8]
EPA should apply this same common sense approach in its GHGRP for the ammonia manufacturing source category.
EPA's settlement agreement with TFI involving our challenge to the GHGRP requires EPA, which it does, to include the following language in both Subpart G and EPA's publicly available GHGRP data: "CO2 process emission reported under this subpart may include CO2 that is later consumed on-site for urea production, and therefore is not released to the ambient air from the ammonia manufacturing process unit." While this is helpful to contextualize the data, releasing data collected under the GHGRP and the Inventory will confuse the public due to the differing methodologies employed and the GHGRP data will lead the public to incorrectly conclude that the ammonia manufacturing sector has much larger CO2 emissions to the atmosphere than is the case. In addition, we are concerned that any Climate Change legislation may mandate use of the GHGRP data and not allow EPA to properly reduce the CO2 emissions reported by ammonia manufacturers to reflect only actual emissions to the atmosphere.
As such, to achieve its stated desire for GHGRP and Inventory consistency, EPA should revise Subpart G and only require the reporting of CO2 emitted directly to the atmosphere from the synthetic ammonia production process, excluding CO2 used to produce urea.
Footnotes:
(3) 74 Fed. Reg. 56,260, 56298 (Oct. 30, 2009); 40 C.F.R. § 98.72.
(4) (emphasis added).
(5) See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 98.423(c)(5)(iii); 74 Fed. Reg. at 56,448.
(6) 74 Fed. Reg. at 56,308.
(7) Id.
(8) EPA, Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014, 4-21 (Feb. 22, 2016) (emphasis added).
Response: EPA may consider in a future rulemaking the commenter's suggested revisions to the language in subpart G to require reporting only CO2 that is emitted directly to the atmosphere from ammonia manufacturing, rather than reporting CO2 that is bound in the urea that is produced from ammonia at some facilities. However, the comment falls outside of the scope of this rulemaking because EPA did not solicit comment on changes to reporting of CO2 bound in the urea that is produced from ammonia. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart I
Improve Quality: Revisions to Equation I-24
Commenter Name:  David Isaacs
Commenter Affiliation:  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0043
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: EPA proposes various changes to Equation I-24, including revision of Equation I-24 and the addition of Equation I-24B for stack testing at semiconductor fabs. This new equation requires that calculations using the default emission factor method to make adjustments for variations in the usage and performance of abatement. In its current form, the stack test method is difficult to use, especially for facilities with abatement installed; thus, to date no fabs have used the stack test method to report annual emissions. The proposed changes make stack testing even more involved and effectively requires users of the stack method to employ both the stack testing procedures as well as the emission factor method. Stack testing should serve as an independent alternative. If this change is implemented, any changes to the default emissions factors will now change the emissions of a facility that performs stack testing. This may impose only a limited amount of additional work, but this ignores that the use of the stack method involves considerably more effort overall and investment than the emission factor method. In proposing this revision, EPA diminishes even further any incentive for fabs to conduct direct measurements of GHG emissions. Additionally, EPA provides no data that demonstrates the added complexity and cost will result in a more accurate emissions estimate. SIA strongly supports the inclusion of stack testing as an optional means of reporting emissions from fabs, but we urge EPA to work to make this option simpler to implement instead of proposing changes that make this method even more complex and less desirable as a reporting option.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to Equation I-24, with some modifications. See Section III.F.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Revisions to 40 CFR 98.96(y) - Triennial Technology Report
Commenter Name:  David Isaacs
Commenter Affiliation:  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0043
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: Consideration of proposed changes to the triennial report should be deferred until after the filing of the 2017 report. EPA and SIA engaged in extensive and detailed negotiations to resolve the petitions for review and reconsideration filed by SIA in response to the promulgation of the original Subpart I, and the revised Subpart I final rule substantially reflected the principles agreed to during those discussions. As part of this agreement, SIA agreed to the filing of a triennial report, even though it appears that no other industry sector is required to file a similar report. SIA companies have been collecting data since 2014 and are beginning preparations for the filing of the first report in early 2017 based on the 2013 final rule.
It appears that some of the proposed changes in the requirements for the triennial report go beyond the original goals of the report. In the original rule, "Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Final Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Electronics Manufacturing," 78 Fed. Reg. 68162 (Nov. 13, 2013), EPA stated that the goal of the report is to determine whether technology changes in the industry result in changes to GHG emissions in a way that warrant changes to the emissions factors. The goal is not to expand the scope of the data submitted by the industry in the hope that it might improve or refine the existing emissions factors. The preamble states: "The report must address how technology and processes have changed in the industry over the previous 3 years and the extent to which any of the identified changes are likely to have affected the GHG emissions characteristics (i.e., the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristics related to GHG emissions) of semiconductor manufacturing processes in such a way that the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and/or default DRE factors in subpart I may need to be updated or augmented" 78 Fed. Reg. at 68174. SIA supports the original goal articulated by EPA in requiring the triennial report, but we believe that the proposal increases the scope of reporting beyond this original goal. EPA states that the new data is being sought in order to "enable the EPA to better understand the data being submitted and to better apply it in the development of new or revised emission factors," 81 Fed. Reg. at 2555, even if new or revised emission factors are unrelated to technology changes to the industry. Whatever the merits of collecting data to improve the existing emission factors, these new data requirements should not be imposed as part of the triennial report, which is intended solely to determine if technology changes in the industry warrant revisions to the manner of calculating emissions.
During settlement negotiations, SIA submitted a substantial body of process emissions characterization and abatement DRE data sets; this data allowed EPA to establish the default emission and abatement DRE factors contained in the rule. Certain data provided had little impact on emission factors; EPA now proposes going beyond the data voluntarily provided by the industry to require data that does not impact emissions, is not typically collected during testing, and which may disclose IP.
EPA has now proposed that additional data be included in the triennial report, including reporting of film type being manufactured, substrate type, and linewidth or technology node for any process emissions and abatement DRE data, even before reporters have filed their first report. It makes little sense to add these data reporting requirements now before reporters have completed even the first reporting cycle. At minimum, they should await the filing of the first triennial reports before making any changes.
EPA asserts that the proposed changes "are needed to improve the clarity of the calculation requirements and quality of the data collected under subpart I and to improve the EPA's understanding of GHG emissions from the electronics manufacturing sector." 81 Fed. Reg. at 2555. However, EPA provides no discussion relating to how the current calculation requirements are not clear, how the quality of the data is lacking, nor why it better needs to understand GHG emissions from the electronics industry. The reporting rule is just that  -  a rule requiring reporting of GHG emissions, which is the only data that EPA should be interested in, as discussed in great detail during the settlement negotiations. Even before the first triennial reports are filed, EPA concludes without offering any data that changes are needed to the reports to be filed. SIA provided EPA with extensive data leading up to the development of rule on the data elements needed to assure accurate emissions reporting from the semiconductor industry (see Section 2 below), and in promulgating the final rule in 2013 EPA agreed that these data elements were appropriate. Before concluding that additional or different information is needed, EPA should review the triennial reports to be filed in 2017 and consult with the industry on whether any additional information is needed in future reports.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed clarifications to the Triennial Report requirement at 40 CFR 98.96(y), with some modifications. See Section III.F.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Isaacs
Commenter Affiliation:  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0043
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: EPA is seeking to add information irrelevant in determining accurate emission factors. EPA proposes a common set of data be reported in the triennial report for any utilization, by-product formation rate, and/or DRE data submitted. EPA states that it needs information on the input gases used, methods used for measurement, and measured utilization rates and byproduct formation rates "for the development of accurate and useful emission factors." 81 Fed. Reg. at 2556. SIA agrees and provided this information with data sets submitted during settlement negotiations leading up to the existing rule; however, EPA now proposes expanding data requirements beyond what was previously provided and deemed to be adequate to develop default factors. During the development of the revised Subpart I, SIA submitted substantial information on the data elements needed to develop accurate emission factors. The data showed that wafer size and input gas are the factors which best characterize etch process emissions considering precision, accuracy, and technical feasibility, and that several other data elements were not statistically relevant to calculating emissions factors.
In SIA's "Report to EPA on Etch Factor Proposal for Fab GHG Emissions Reporting" (February 28, 2012), Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0052, SIA conducted detailed analysis of the statistical relationships of 13 attributes of the etch process to etch emissions and the determination of which attributes best modeled etch process emissions. The relevant portion of this report states as follows:
3.2.3 Data issues presented by the three factor model. Two models were carried forward in the analysis. However, there are difficulties with emission factor calculations when the data is broken into the smaller and smaller distinct groups that come with additional model parameters. The number of distinct groups and summary of these model approaches is give below:
2-Factor model (Gas, Wafer Size) has 19 categories with associated gas use and gives a 57% R2.
3-Factor model (Gas, Wafer Size, Film) has 43 categories with associated gas use and gives 60% R2; this is much more complex and impacts only the etch portion of industry's F-Gas emissions estimate. The 3-factor model has more than twice as many populated factor combinations or categories as the 2- Factor model. Any potential benefit of a small model improvement (3%) in the 3-factor model would come at the expense of having to apportion gas use to the larger number of categories (with associated error being introduced) and the need to use data at a level of detail that is considered confidential business information.
[Note: The commenter provided Table 3-3: "Summary of Models Considered  -  Etch Data Set." The table includes two columns: Column 1 is entitled Model Parameters and lists 8 parameters (e.g., Input Gas), and column 2 is entitled Model R2 and lists a percentage for each parameter (e.g., 55%).]
This information shows that the two factor data elements  -  wafer size and gas used, coupled with process type  -  are relevant to ensuring the accuracy of emissions factors, and that process specific data such as film type was not needed.
During settlement negotiations, the SIA submitted a response to questions posed by EPA in a document entitled: "Issues to be Addressed and Information to be Obtained To Establish an Acceptable Stack Monitoring Method for Estimating GHG Emissions From Semiconductor Manufacture" (June 17, 2011). In that document, it was statistically proven that usage data directly correlated with stack emissions data; moreover, the data analysis demonstrated that emissions factors were insensitive to product mix including the transition over a succession of technology nodes (eg., 130 nm to 32 nm) (p.5-6). These findings further demonstrate reporting of technology data such as linewidth and technology node is not required and should not be added as a data element.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed clarifications to the Triennial Report requirement at 40 CFR 98.96(y) with some modifications. See Section III.F.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Isaacs
Commenter Affiliation:  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0043
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: EPA is seeking information irrelevant in determining accurate DRE factors. The process and device technology information required to be submitted with DRE data (film type being manufactured, substrate type, linewidth or technology node, process type or subtype, utilization rates measured) is not relevant to characterize abatement performance and is not typically collected when performing abatement DRE testing nor is it required to be collected under the EPA DRE Protocol. Process data is not required under EPA's DRE Protocol Methods 1 and 2.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed clarifications to the Triennial Report requirement at 40 CFR 98.96(y) with some modifications. See Section III.F.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Isaacs
Commenter Affiliation:  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0043
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: The new information being sought raises a number of cost and burden issues. Certain of the proposed data requirements  -  such as film type being manufactured, technology node and linewidth  -  move in the direction of recipe specific emission factors that were the problem with the original Subpart I and resulted in SIA's petition for reconsideration and EPA's grant of our petition. SIA objected to recipe specific testing several years ago [for several reasons including] technical infeasibility and high cost of compliance. The EPA proposal gives rise to these same concerns.
Response: EPA is finalizing certain proposed clarifications to the Triennial Report requirement at 40 CFR 98.96(y), but is not finalizing the proposed requirements for facilities to provide the film type, the substrate type, and the linewidth or technology node. See Section III.F.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart N
Other Amendments: Clarification of use of default for fraction of calcination and carbonate mass fraction
Commenter Name:  Angus E. Crane
Commenter Affiliation:  North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0053
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA has proposed amendments that clarify the Rule requirements in subpart N of Part 98. Specifically, EPA has proposed that a default value of 1.0 can be used for the fraction of calcination and the carbonate mass fraction for each carbonate type contained in the raw materials charged to the furnace. Equally important, EPA has proposed to clarify that no further chemical analysis is required if the default value of 1.0 is selected. EPA notes that the current Rule is unclear as to whether a reporter must perform a chemical analysis if they select to use a default value of 1.0.
NAIMA strongly supports EPA's proposed revision as it brings clarity to the Rule and removes ambiguity as to whether chemical analysis should be conducted. NAIMA also supports EPA's change because resolving this ambiguity prevents the burden of conducting chemical analysis if the default value of 1.0 is selected.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Other comments on proposed Subpart N Revisions (Table of Revisions)
Commenter Name:  Angus E. Crane
Commenter Affiliation:  North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0053
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: NAIMA also supports EPA's minor corrections to subpart N as summarized in the Table of Revisions.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart O
Streamlining: Removing reporting requirements related to revised destruction efficiency - 40 CFR 98.156(d)(2), (3), and (4)
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: ACC supports other changes made to Subpart O. We agree with EPA's proposal to remove three reporting requirements found at 98.156(d)(2), (3), and (4). Two of these data elements are no longer required because the calculation they were supporting was removed in the Final Inputs Rule (79 FR 63750), and the third data element, previously used to verify HFC-23 emissions, is now conducted by the Inputs Verification Tool (IVT). (81 FR 2556) The removal of these reporting requirements will simplify the regulations and prevent confusion.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Reporting of the method used to calculate revised destruction efficiency
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: ACC believes that EPA's proposal to reinstate reporting of data element 98.156(d) is unfounded. EPA is proposing to add data element 98.156(d), which reports the method used to calculate destruction efficiency, back into Subpart O. According to EPA, this data element was "inadvertently removed from the Final Inputs Rule" in October 2014. (81 FR 2556) Now, EPA is proposing to reinstate this data element "because it is useful for understanding data quality, specifically the rigor of the method used to revise the destruction efficiency." (81 FR 2556)
ACC does not believe this rationale merits a reversal in the treatment of this data element, especially given that the previous change was made just 18 months ago. With the sixth year of GHG reporting completed, it is our view that the number of regulatory changes in the GHGRP should be decreasing, not increasing. Moreover, we note that EPA is proposing to reinstate previously removed data elements in more than one subpart. (See, for example, Subpart CC.) We urge EPA to avoid removing and reinstating data elements this way, as such changes place an undue burden on reporters and undermine confidence in the GHGRP.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed reporting of the method used to calculate the revised destruction efficiency in 40 CFR 98.156(d). See Section III.H.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart P (Table of Revisions)
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  17
Comment: The EPA is amending the reporting requirements under §98.166(b)(4), §98.166(d), and §98.166(e) to add clarification. The proposed text revisions are:
§98.166(b)(4) Annual quantity of ammonia intentionally produced as a desired product, if applicable (metric tons).
§98.166(d) Annual quantity of carbon other than CO2 collected and transferred off site in either gas, liquid, or solid forms (kg carbon), excluding methanol.
§98.166(e) Annual quantity of methanol intentionally productioned as a desired product, if applicable, (metric tons) for each process unit.
 AFPM supports this clarification. Reporting for unintended byproducts would be difficult to track and would be a large burden on the reporter.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment, and is finalizing the proposed revisions. See Section III.AA of the preamble to the final rule for a response regarding the effective date of this change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: API appreciates the clarification provided by EPA in 98.166 that reporting should be limited to intentional production of ammonia and methanol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063, Excerpt 17.   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  16
Comment: The EPA is amending §98.164(b)(1) to include calibration requirements for fuel meters. The proposed text is:
(1) Calibrate all oil and gas flow meters that are used to measure liquid and gaseous fuel and feedstock volumes (except for gas billing meters) according to the monitoring and QA/QC requirements for the Tier 3 methodology in §98.34(b)(1). Perform oil tank drop measurements (if used to quantify liquid fuel or feedstock consumption) according to §98.34(b)(2). Calibrate all solids weighing equipment according to the procedures in §98.3(i).
Subpart C already specifies calibration requirements for fuel meters. AFPM requests clarification that this addition does not imply additional metering is required for fuel streams above what is already required in Subpart C.
Response: The commenter's interpretation of the proposed change is correct. EPA expected that facilities would calibrate fuel flow meters by complying with the monitoring and QA/QC requirements for the Tier 3 method in subpart C, but some reporters interpreted the lack of "fuel and" prior to "feedstock volumes" to suggest that their fuel flow meters did not have any direct monitoring or QA/QC requirements. Therefore, we are specifically clarifying in this amendment that the fuel flow meter (as well as the feedstock flow meter) must meet the monitoring and QA/QC requirements for the Tier 3 method in subpart C. We are finalizing this proposed amendment. See Section III.AA of the preamble to the final rule for a response regarding the effective date of this change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: API is concerned with the additional burden of adding a calibration requirement on fuel flow meters in 98.164 to be effective beginning RY2017.
Response: EPA is revising the implementation schedule of the final rule to implement revisions related to calibration of fuel flow meters in subpart P to apply to RY2018. This schedule will allow these changes to the calibration requirements to be coordinated with facilities' planned downtime schedules and thereby reduce burden. See Section III.AA of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart S
Improve Quality: Reporting annual emission factors for each lime product type produced, annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste sold, and annual average results of the chemical composition analysis for each type of lime product and calcined byproduct/waste sold
Commenter Name:  William C. Herz
Commenter Affiliation:  National Lime Association (NLA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0031
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: NLA believes that EPA should refrain from collecting and retaining highly confidential business information unless there is a compelling reason to do so. In this case, an assessment or evaluation of emission factors over long periods of time will not be a reliable indicator of why overall GHG emissions may have increased or decreased. Calcination-related emissions make up approximately 54 percent of total CO2 emissions in the lime industry, with minimal variability in emission factors month to month or year to year for the various product or calcined byproduct/waste type produced. Changes and variability in emissions are far more likely to be influenced by changes in production which are driven by market conditions, and to a lesser extent from variability in fuel combustion emissions (reported under Subpart C) which are already reported under the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule. Therefore the new data points will be of negligible value and at the same time will increase the potential for sensitive information to be made public inadvertently.
Response: EPA is requiring the proposed reporting of annual emission factors for each lime product type produced, annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold, and annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced and calcined byproduct/waste sold. See Section III.J.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Kimberly S. L. Bauman
Commenter Affiliation:  Mississippi Lime Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0041
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: An assessment or evaluation of emission factors over long periods of time will not be a reliable indicator of why overall GHG emissions from lime manufacturing facilities may have increased or decreased. As noted by NLA, calcination-related emissions make up approximately 54-percent of total C02 emissions in the lime industry, with minimal variability in emission factors month-to-month or year-to-year for the various lime products and calcined byproduct/waste type produced and sold. This is especially true for Mississippi Lime due to the consistent limestone quality from which our lime and related lime products are produced. Changes and variability in emissions are primarily influenced by changes in production, which are directly driven by market conditions and the state of the U.S. economy. To a much lesser extent, GHG emissions can fluctuate due to variability in fuel composition. However, variability in Mississippi Lime's fuel composition is such a minor factor in overall emissions due to strict fuel quality specifications contained in contracts with our fuel suppliers. Fuel-related GHG emissions are already reported under Subpart C of the GHGRR, which allows USEPA to evaluate changes in emissions from fuel usage. Therefore, the proposed data elements will be of negligible value, while at the same time will increase the potential for CBI to be made readily available to the public and our competitors.
Response: EPA is requiring the proposed reporting of annual emission factors for each lime product type produced, annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold, and annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced and calcined byproduct/waste sold. See Section III.J.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  William C. Herz
Commenter Affiliation:  National Lime Association (NLA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0031
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: EPA must add clear and unambiguous language that defines "Annual emission factor." The proposed rule does not adequately explain how these elements are to be calculated. Clearly, the most sensible and least burdensome method is a straight 12-month average of the monthly emission factors. However, this is not stated in the proposal. This calculation method should be explicitly prescribed in the final rule if the data points are required.
Response: EPA has added additional language to the final rule to specify calculation of the 12-month average based on monthly emission factors. See Section III.J.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart V
Streamlining: Removing the annual approval request for an alternative method to calculate N2O
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  10
Comment: The Agency also proposes to remove the requirement that reporters seek Administrator approval for alternative method of determining N2O emissions if the method was previously approved.
TFI does not oppose any of these proposed revisions. We support allowing the continued use of an alternative method for determining N2O emissions without seeking Administrator approval each year.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Revising the source category to include all nitric acid producers
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: In the 2015 GHGRP Revisions, EPA proposes to amend 40 C.F.R. §98.220 to change the definition of the source category, so that all nitric acid production units are included, regardless of nitric acid strength.
TFI does not oppose any of these proposed revisions.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment and is finalizing minor conforming changes to 40 CFR 98.220 to clarify the dates on which the revisions apply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Report date of installation of abatement technology
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: EPA proposes to require the date of installation for any N2O abatement technology. TFI does not oppose any of these proposed revisions.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart X
Streamlining: Excluding pilot gas from flare gas GHG emissions (specific to subpart X)
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: ACC supports the proposed exclusion of pilot gas from the flare gas emission calculation. ACC strongly supports EPA's proposal that facilities reporting under Subpart X can follow the proposed revisions under Subpart Y clarifying that facilities have the option to exclude pilot gas from the flare gas GHG emissions. As explained in RTI, 2015[3], GHG emissions from flare pilots are expected to be small in most cases. In fact, RTI estimates that include flare pilot gas in the emissions calculation would increase total flare emissions reported under Subpart Y by 1 to 2 percent.[4] Given the minor impact of including pilot gas in the flaring emissions, and the burden associated with quantifying the amount of pilot gas used in flares, we agree with EPA that this requirement should be eliminated.
As EPA has noted, similar types of flares are deployed at petrochemical facilities reporting under Subpart X, and, since the beginning of the GHGRP, Subpart X reporters have calculated flaring emissions using the Subpart Y methodology. Thus, it is appropriate to apply this proposed revision to Subpart X reporters, and allow these reporters the option to cease reporting pilot gas in flaring emissions.
Footnote:
(3) RTI, Memorandum: Proposed Changes to Flare Pilot Gas Reporting Requirements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, July 10, 2015, p. 4.
(4) Ibid.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Streamlining: Revision to use the mass balance method for an integrated EDC/VCM process 
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: ACC supports the proposed revision to allow calculation of emissions over the entire integrated EDC/VCM process. ACC supports proposed revisions related to the calculation of emissions from integrated ethylene dichloride (EDC)/vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) processes under Subpart X. Specifically, EPA is proposing to modify data element 98.240(a) to indicate that a reporter "may elect to consider the entire integrated process (rather than just the EDC operations) to be the petrochemical process for the purposes of complying with the mass balance method." (81 FR 2558) This approach is a change from current practice, which "requires EDC manufacturers to perform the mass balance around operations involved in the production of the EDC, including situations where EDC is produced as an intermediate in the production of VCM." (81 FR 2558)
On July 10, 2015, an ACC member, Occidental Chemical Company, alerted EPA to the challenges associated with the current approach. Occidental Chemical Company explained:
It is important to again recall that the three VCM facilities are not stand-alone EDC manufacturing plants. EDC is continuously produced as an intermediate which is circulated through multiple recycle and return streams beginning with ethylene as feedstock to feed what is essentially balanced and integrated EDC/VCM processes. In addition to the intermediate EDC produced, our plants may purchase EDC to supplement feedstock for VCM production. Since VCM is the final product, the company uses calibrated instrumentation to ensure that VCM production is accurately measured for cost and sales accounting purposes. ...
Simply stated, the issue of totalizing an EDC value is complex, since varying amounts of unreacted EDC present on any "pass" will, by process design, be recycled back to a purification system before it is reintroduced again to the VCM production section of the process. ... Our technical staff believe that a significant portion of the process configuration would have to be changed to attempt to measure EDC, which would likely have little to no overall benefit (in generating an accurate "pounds CO2 per pound of product" factor) over the proposed methodology of using VCM production values, especially since IPCC incorporates published factors for both EDC and VCM in their reports.[5]
(Emphasis in the original)
We are pleased that EPA has proposed to add the integrated approach into Subpart X, and we welcome EPA's acknowledgement that "conducting the mass balance over the entire integrated process is acceptable ... because the CO2 process emissions (from oxidation of ethylene in the oxychlorination process to produce EDC) and emissions from combustion vent gases from the EDC operations are calculated under both methods." (81 FR 2558) We also agree with EPA that "for most facilities, using the optional method likely means either a more complete reporting of total facility emissions or a shift from reporting under subpart C (if the subpart C criteria are met) to reporting under subpart X." (81 FR 2558)
Footnotes:
(5) Occidental Chemical Company, Letter to Mr. Brian Cook, Subject: Request to Consider IPCC Balanced EDC/VCM Process Studies and Data for the Elimination of e-GGRT Validation Messages at VCM Production Facilities Reporting Under Subpart X, July 10, 2015, pp. 2-3.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Richard Krock
Commenter Affiliation:  Vinyl Institute (VI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0052
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: The Agency proposes to streamline greenhouse gas information reporting by EDC/VCM producers with integrated operations as follows:
"The EPA is also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.246(a)(5) to allow operators of an integrated ethylene dichloride (EDC) and vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) process to report either the measured quantity of EDC produced or both the measured quantity of VCM and an estimate of the amount produced as an intermediate in the process. We are also proposing to modify 40 CFR 98.240(a) to indicate that a reporter may elect to consider the entire integrated process (rather than just the EDC operations) to be the petrochemical process for the purposes of complying with the mass balance method." [2]
The VI supports the proposed revisions, as they appear to address problems with EPA's greenhouse gas electronic reporting tool (e-GGRT) raised by VI member Occidental Chemical Corporation in its July 10, 2015 letter.[3]
Footnotes:
(2) Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 10, January 15, 2016, see pages 2558-9.
(3) "Request to Consider IPCC Balanced EDC/VCM Process Studies and Data for the Elimination of e-GGRT Validation Messages at VCM Production Facilities Reporting Under Subpart X", Occidental Chemicals Letter to Brian Cook, EPA, July 10, 2015.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  11
Comment: We are somewhat confused by the revision of 98.246(a)(5) (data reporting requirements). In the preamble, EPA seems to require facilities using the optional method to report both the measured amount of VCM produced and an estimate of EDC produced as an intermediate. (81 FR 2588) The regulatory text, however, does not appear to require this approach, stating:
Annual quantity of each type of petrochemical produced from each process unit (metric tons). If your petrochemical process is an integrated ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer process, report either the measured ethylene dichloride production (metric tons) or both the measured quantity of vinyl chloride monomer production (metric tons) and an estimate of the ethylene dichloride production (metric tons). (81 FR 2610, emphasis added)
ACC suggests that EPA clarify the reporting requirements to read as follows:
Annual quantity of each type of petrochemical produced from each type of petrochemical process unit (metric tons). If you are electing to consider the petrochemical process unit to be the entire integrated ethylene dichloride/vinyl chloride monomer process, report the measured quantity of vinyl chloride monomer production (metric tons) and an estimate of the ethylene dichloride production (metric tons).
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 98.246(a)(5) with minor clarifications. See Section III.L.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Reporting annual average carbon content and annual average molecular weight of each feedstock and product when using the mass balance method
Commenter Name:  Stephen R. Gossett
Commenter Affiliation:  Eastman Chemical Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0054
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA has proposed revisions to 40 CFR 98 Subpart X  -  Petrochemical Production that include changes to the annual reporting requirements to include annual average carbon content and molecular weight for feedstocks and products. Included are changes to the wording of 40 CFR 98.243(c)(3) as follows:
(3) Collect a sample of each feedstock and product at least once per month and determine the molecular weight (for gaseous materials when the quantity is measured in scf) and carbon content of each sample according to the procedures of §98.244(b)(4). If multiple valid molecular weight or carbon content measurements are made during the monthly measurement period, average them arithmetically.
EPA then follows this up with new proposed requirements in 40 CFR 98.246(a)(14) and (15) to require reporting of the annual average of the measurements of carbon content and molecular weight.
On page 2559 of the preamble, EPA states:
      "Much of these data are currently required to be determined and retained per the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 98.247, so adding the reporting requirement to report annual averages adds very little burden to reporters."
EPA's use of the term "measured" instead of "determined" introduces a lack of clarity in the rule language. We do not believe EPA intends that carbon content and molecular weight must be directly measured. In fact, molecular weight cannot be directly measured, but must be determined based on the molecular composition of the stream. Also, carbon content may be calculated based on measurements of the components of a gas stream.
Therefore, for clarity, Eastman suggests the following changes to the proposed regulatory text:
40 CFR 98.243(a)(14): Annual average of the measurements determinations of the carbon content of each feedstock and product.
40 CFR 98.243(a)(15): For each gaseous feedstock and product, the annual average of the measurements determinations of the molecular weight in units of kg per kg mole.
Response: The commenter is correct that the molecular weight, and in many cases the carbon content, are determined from measurements of other parameters rather than directly measured. Thus, EPA concludes that the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.246(a)(14) and (15) will be clearer if the subject paragraphs refer to determinations as well as measurements. Using the term "determinations" in these paragraphs is also consistent with the language in the first sentence of 40 CFR 98.243(c)(3), which requires reporters to "determine the molecular weight and carbon content" of feedstock and product samples. Including a reference to 40 CFR 98.243(c)(3) and (c)(4) will provide additional clarity regarding which measured and determined values are to be included in developing the reported annual averages. Thus, the reporting requirements in the final rule have been revised to read as follows:
      40 CFR 98.246(a)(14): Annual average of the measurements or determinations of the carbon content of each feedstock and product conducted according to 40 CFR 98.243(c)(3) or (c)(4).
      40 CFR 98.246(a)(15): For each gaseous feedstock and product, the annual average of the measurements or determinations of the molecular weight in units of kg per kg mole conducted according to 40 CFR 98.243(c)(3) or (c)(4). 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart Y
Streamlining: Excluding pilot gas from flare gas GHG emissions (General comments and/or comments specific to Subpart Y)
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  18
Comment: The EPA is proposing to clarify that pilot gas, which is considered the gas used to maintain a pilot flame at the flare tip, may be excluded from the quantity of flare gas used to perform GHG emissions calculations. The GHG emissions from pilot gas are expected to be low, especially in the context of the broader flare emissions. Further, it is difficult for facilities to estimate the quantities of pilot gas without the use of a meter. The EPA does not intend for facilities to install a separate meter to measure the pilot gas for the purposes of reporting under this rulemaking, either to include or exclude this quantity of pilot gas. Installation of an additional meter for this purpose would be burdensome to reporters, especially when considering the increase in reported GHG emissions would be very low. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to amend the rule to allow, but not require, facilities to exclude pilot gas from the flare gas GHG emissions calculations in Subparts Q, X, and Y.
Purge/sweep gas would still be included in the flare GHG emissions calculations. The EPA considers purge/sweep gas to be the gas added to a flare header system or to the base of the flare in order to prevent oxygen ingress during periods of low waste gas flow.
The proposed revisions are:
§98.253(b) For flares, calculate GHG emissions according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section. All gas discharged through the flare stack must be considered for the flare GHG emissions calculations with the exception of gas used for the flare pilots, which may be excluded.
AFPM interprets that the phrase "which may be excluded" indicates that reporters are not required to exclude flare pilot streams in the absence of data on the flow rate of the pilot gas. Depending on the location of flare gas meters, reporters need the option to include or exclude the pilot stream without requiring additional metering specific to the pilot gas. There are instances where the pilot gas is included in the measured rate of another fuel gas stream. AFPM supports this revision as written because it does not require additional instrumentation in order to back-out the pilot gas stream.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. The commenter correctly interprets our intent. The phrase "which may be excluded" was intentionally used to allow reporters the option to either include or exclude pilot gas flow from the flare GHG emissions calculations for reasons such as those described by the commenter. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Streamlining: Identifying whether a flare has a flare gas recovery system (General comments and/or comments specific to Subpart Y)
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  21
Comment: The EPA is proposing to add additional reporting requirements for flares. The proposed text is:
§98.256(e)(3) A description of the flare service (general facility flare, unit flare, emergency only or back-up flare) and an indication of whether or not the flare is serviced by a flare gas recovery system.
(6) If you use Equation Y-1a of §98.253, an indication of whether daily or weekly measurement periods are used, annual average carbon content of the flare gas (in kg carbon per kg flare gas), and, either the annual volume of flare gas combusted (in scf/year) and the annual average molecular weight (in kg/kg-mole), or, the annual mass of flare gas combusted (in kg/yr) and the annual average molecular weight (in kg/kg-mole), and annual average carbon content of the flare gas (in kg carbon per kg flare gas).
The proposed additional flare reporting requirements are redundant and duplicative. EPA already has this information under NSPS Ja. AFPM does not support reporting this information under the GHGRP. The special provisions of 40 CFR §60.14(f) as set forth in 40 CFR §60.100a(c) require that a modification to a refinery flare and thus NSPS Subpart Ja applicability occurs when any new piping from a refinery process unit gets tied into the flare (with limited exceptions listed in §60.100a(c)((i) through (vii)) or when a flare is physically altered to increase the flow capacity of the flare. Thus, nearly all refinery flares with few exceptions fall under NSPS Subpart Ja. The requirements of 40 CFR §60.103a(a) require this information to be documented in the flare management plan and submitted to EPA. EPA does not need to have the same information submitted to it under two separate rules. Such duplicative reporting is wasteful and unnecessary.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments related to reporting the presence of a flare gas recovery system, the carbon content of flare gas, and either the volume and molecular weight of that gas or the mass of that gas. See Section III.M.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improve Quality: Revising the calculation method for CH4 from delayed coking units (heat balance method)
Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: EPA has proposed to revise the emissions calculation methodology in 98.253(i) for Delayed Coking Units to align it with the approach contained in the April 2015 version of the Emissions Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries1 (Refinery Protocol). The current Delayed Coker calculation methodology is based on a gas expansion model which EPA has now determined inaccurately reflects Coker emissions. EPA is proposing to replace the gas expansion model with a steam generation model intended to account for emissions from the entire decoking operation, including steam venting, draining, and coke cutting. The proposed steam mass calculation method will significantly overstate the amount of steam that is generated upon opening the coke drum to the atmosphere and thus overstate the methane emissions because of the following incorrect assumptions: 1) There is a uniform temperature throughout the entire coke bed and the quench water at the time the vent is started; 2) that the amount of heat evolved is derived from cooling the entire mass of coke and quench water from that initial uniform temperature to 212°F, 3) 10% of the heat removed from the coke bed and quench water is dissipated through the coke drum and overhead metal and the balance of the heat removed from the coke bed (90%) goes into steam generation, and 4) 100% of the water in the coke drum at the time of venting is at its bubble point (i.e., all the heat evolved goes toward affecting evaporation and none of it is used in heating the water to the boiling point).
These assumptions are not supported by the experience of API members or the available data. Coker process experts report significant temperature gradients through the coke mass and the quench water throughout the drum. At the time a coke drum is opened to the atmosphere the water and coke in the bottom of the drum is at approximately the temperature of the incoming quench water (much less than 212°F). Therefore, the required assumption that the entire mass of coke and quench water is at 212°F, regardless of the actual temperature readings, overstates the heat in the drum and thus the heat generated significantly. This is exemplified by the data in Table 1 below, which shows that, for the 5 DCUs presented, the bottom of the drums, as reflected in the initial drain water temperature, was at temperatures below 150°F. Furthermore, the vast majority of quench water drained from these units was below 212°F, demonstrating that most of the quench water in the drums when they were opened to the atmosphere was not at its bubble (boiling) point. This is typical for DCUs in general.
On average, the majority of the water in a coke drum is well below the bubble point temperature. Thus, cooling the portion of the bed that is above 212°F results in much less steam being evolved than is calculated by the model. This is because the quench water (100 to 130°F) continuously enters from the bottom of the coke drum. At first, this water is heated by the ~800°F coke, but as the water continues to flow into the coke drum, the heat is removed from the coke and the coke temperature approaches the water temperature. During this initial cooling the drum vent is not open to the atmosphere and no steam or methane is emitted. The quench water accumulates in the lower coke bed, being of higher density than the water above, some of which is at its bubble point. The amount of sub-cooled water in the coke drum and its temperature prior to atmospheric venting will depend on the extent of coke bed cooling, which depends on coke bed porosity, water-to-coke mass ratio during quench and the total quench time allowed. Some cokers completely cool their bed, such that 99% of the water is sub-cooled. The typical range is from 50% to 99% subcooling. Thus, at best (the 50% case) the proposed equations will overstate steam and methane generation by 100% and in most cases will overstate it by even more.
One company's summer operations data (worst case) are provided below in Table 1. The data are based on a review of multiple coking cycles for each site and represent typical values. For 4 of the 5 cokers, the drain water never reached the bubble point of 212°F at 0 - 12 psig during an average drain time of 66 minutes. These data show that the amount of steam generated during draining is very low, and Equation Y-18e /Y-18f would overestimate this portion of emissions. [Letter includes a Table 1, Untitled, described above, which includes the following data for five sites: start temperature, end temperature, drain water temperature shift, pressure shift during drain, drain duration, top water during drain, and comments.]
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed heat balance steam generation model method for calculating methane emissions from DCUs. See Section III.M.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  19
Comment: EPA is proposing to revise Subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) to change the emission calculation methodology for Delayed Coking Units (DCU) to incorporate methods from the "Emission Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries, Version 3, (the "Protocol"). On page 2560 of the Federal Register notice, EPA states, "We are now proposing to amend the DCU GHG emission calculation methodology to align the GHGRP's methodology with the methodology recently incorporated into the emission factors update and to provide a more accurate means of estimating methane emissions from the DCU". AFPM opposes this revision for the following reasons:
      1. Poor accuracy. EPA ranks calculation methods in the order of accuracy "Method 1" through "Method 5", with Method 1 being the most preferred/accurate. The methodology EPA is proposing to require is ranked as "Method 3/4," indicating a poor level of accuracy. Consequently the proposal does not appear to improve or further the accuracy of the inventory. EPA has failed to adequately explain the relative accuracy between the existing and proposed method in quantitative terms, leading to the conclusion that one poor method is being replaced for another. Given that most methane emissions are controlled from DCUs in combustion devices meeting 98% Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE), this change in methodology will not result in a meaningful improvement in the overall accuracy of the inventory.
      2. EPA cannot "align" the Federal inventory with Protocol unless the change in methodology is voluntary. During the development of Version 3 of the Protocol it was made clear that the use of the factors and methods therein were voluntary, not mandatory. The EPA Technology Transfer Network webpage clearly states, "We are not requiring the use of the Refinery Protocol, just as we do not require the use of AP-42. It is simply another tool for use in estimating emissions when site-specific test data do not exist or are not available." This was understood between both OAQPS and the refining sector. Therefore we consider the proposed revisions to the Federal GHG inventory rule, that would require the use of these calculation methodologies, as a circumvention of the function and purpose of the Protocol. It is inappropriate to develop calculation methods with the understanding that their use is optional, only to then make their use mandatory in rulemaking under the guises of "alignment" between the two. Should EPA make the use of the protocol methodology in the federal GHG inventory an option, this would be considered true alignment between inventory and protocol and an acceptable solution to AFPM.
To the extent that EPA proceeds with the proposed revisions, AFPM incorporates by reference the comments provided by the American Petroleum Institute (API) regarding the proper calculation method.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed heat balance steam generation model method for calculating methane emissions from DCUs. See Section III.M.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: As discussed and in API's previous comments on proposed revisions to the Refinery Protocol[2], Delayed Coking Unit emissions are highly dependent on Coker operating parameters, and EPA should allow the use of site-specific coking unit emissions models and estimation methods. Some Delayed Coking Units have new designs and operational procedures that are intended to lower emissions, and the generic calculation methodology may substantially overestimate emissions. Furthermore, in some jurisdictions, emission measurements on Delayed Coker vents are required on a three year basis. Facilities that have such measurements should have the option of using them for calculating methane emissions as part of Subpart Y reporting. If a facility is using site-specific calculations and measurement data for reporting of Coker vent emissions, it may need to estimate emissions from draining if the drain water temperature is above 212°F for some portion of the draining period. We offer a proposed methodology below. Emissions from draining when drain water temperatures are below 212°F are negligible, as are emissions from coke cutting.
Emissions from Draining when Using Site-Specific Vent Data: Methane has a very low solubility in water, and methane emissions from water that has flashed and cooled below 212°F are negligible. Modeling of a Delayed Coking Unit (DCU) operation by an API member company indicated that approximately 0.2% of methane would be expected to partition into the aqueous phase. As a result, the potential methane emissions in DCU drain water would be expected to be low compared to those from the venting part of the unit operational cycle.
Proposed Method to Account for Steam Generation during Draining. If during draining water temperatures increase above 212⁰F, emissions from steam flashing will need to be estimated. In the Table 1 data, the Coker at Site 5 vented at around 12 psig, cooled its coke bed quickly and had about 50% of the coke bed water below its bubble point. In this case, a significant portion of the water does flash to steam during draining. Drain emissions can be estimated based on evaluation of coke drum drain temperature during the entire drain period. If drain water temperatures are never above 212°F, there would be no attendant methane emissions added to those from the vent, since there should be negligible methane dissolved in water that has already flashed and cooled.
If drain temperatures rise above 212°F, the mass of steam would be calculated based on the following modified version of equation Y-18e:
Msteam = fHotDrain x [(Mwater x Cp,water + Mcoke x Cp,coke) X (THotDrain - 212)] / ΔHvap

Where:
    fHotDrain = fraction of time during drain that drain water is > 212°F (for example, if drain time was 60 minutes and temperature was above 212°F during the last 15 minutes of draining, then fHotDrain = 15/60= 0.25).
THotDrain = the minute-averaged temperature of the water when it is > 212°F (for example, if drain temperatures were above 212°F during the last 15 minutes of draining, then THotDrain = (213 +216 + 220 + 222 + 224 + 230 + 232+ 234 + 236 + 238 + 240 + 240 + 240+ 240 + 240)/15 = 229°F).
Methane emissions from draining would then be determined by using the conservative assumption that the methane concentration in the drain steam is the same as the vent steam.
Emissions from Coke Cutting are Negligible. The drilling process should have negligible emissions unless there is ongoing chemical reaction, formation of coke, or tail gas and liquid hydrocarbons due to uncompleted reaction when feeding the coke drum. Drilling emissions cannot be directly measured but can be correlated to hot spots, coke drum blowbacks, coke dust incidents and odors. Because these conditions are so undesirable from a safety and community perspective, these occurrences have been minimized and thus it is reasonable to assume the coke cutting contribution to overall Coker emissions is quite small. Isolated hot spots in the coke bed, as indicated by steam generation during coke cutting, if they occur at all, are less than 0.1% of the coke bed volume. The amount of methane released is well within the accuracy of the proposed calculations and the associated large assumptions.
Footnotes:
(2) http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/consentdecree/Comments_as_of_Dec_22_2014.pdf, pp. 441-545
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed heat balance steam generation model method for calculating methane emissions from DCUs. See Section III.M.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  20
Comment: The EPA is proposing to add monitoring requirements for delayed coking units based on the proposed calculation approach. The proposed requirements are:
§98.254(j) Determine the quantity of petroleum process streams using company records. These quantities include the quantity of coke produced per cycle, asphalt blown, quantity of crude oil plus the quantity of intermediate products received from off site, and the quantity of unstabilized crude oil received at the facility.
(k) Determine temperature or pressure of delayed coking unit vessel using process instrumentation operated, maintained, and calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions.
The proposed change to 98.254(j) links to the proposed revisions for delayed coking units under 98.253(i). AFPM supports these revisions only to the extent that such additional monitoring and QA/QC requirements that are specific to the use of the Protocol methodology are voluntary and only apply when specifically employing the Protocol methodology to determine DCU emissions.
Regarding the proposed change to 98.254(j), AFPM suggests deleting the phrase "according to the manufacturer's instructions," as indicated below. AFPM members find that often manufacturer instructions are just the starting point for operating, maintaining, and calibrating equipment. Based on the specific use for a piece of equipment additional or different operational, maintenance or calibration requirements are more appropriate. Therefore, AFPM suggests the following revisions to the proposed text:
(k) Determine temperature or pressure of delayed coking unit vessel using process instrumentation properly operated, maintained, and calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed use of the heat balance steam generation model (see Section III.M.2 of the preamble to the final rule.) While the commenter's support of the monitoring requirements associated with the new method was "conditional" upon the use of the heat balance steam generation model being made optional, given EPA's decision to require use of the heat balance steam generation model for all facilities, we correspondingly determined that the monitoring requirements associated with the heat balance generation model will apply to all facilities.
While we agree that the manufacturer's instructions may contain a minimal level of operating, maintenance, and calibration requirements, we do not consider the inclusion of the phrase "according to the manufacturer's instructions" to prohibit reporters from doing more frequent maintenance or calibrations. We also note that without this phrase, the word "properly" would have no real meaning or benchmark. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  22
Comment: EPA is proposing revisions to the data reporting (§98.256(k)) requirements regarding DCU emission calculations consistent with the data needs of the new calculation methodology proposal. AFPM supports these revisions only to the extent that such additional data elements that are specific to use of the Protocol methodology are voluntary and only apply when specifically employing the Protocol methodology to determine DCU emissions.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed use of the heat balance steam generation model (see Section III.M.2 of the preamble to the final rule). While the commenter's support of the data reporting requirements associated with the new method was "conditional" upon the use of the heat balance steam generation model being made optional, given EPA's decision to require use of the heat balance steam generation model for all facilities, we correspondingly determined that the reporting requirements associated with the heat balance generation model will apply to all facilities. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  23
Comment: Revisions to records that must be retained. EPA is proposing revisions to the record retention (§98.257) requirements regarding DCU emission calculations consistent with the data needs of the new calculation methodology proposal. AFPM supports these revisions only to the extent that such additional data elements that are specific to use of the Protocol methodology are voluntary and only apply when specifically employing the Protocol methodology to determine DCU emissions.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed use of the heat balance steam generation model (see Section III.M.2 of the preamble to the final rule). While the commenter's support of the recordkeeping requirements associated with the new method was "conditional" upon the use of the heat balance steam generation model being made optional, given EPA's decision to require use of the heat balance steam generation model for all facilities, we correspondingly determined that the recordkeeping requirements associated with the heat balance generation model will apply to all facilities. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart Z
Improve Quality: Reporting annual phosphoric acid production capacity for each wet-process acid line
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  12
Comment: For Subpart Z, EPA proposes to revise 40 C.F.R. § 98.266(f)(3) by removing the terms "permitted" and "(metric tons)" so that the section reads "Annual phosphoric acid production capacity (tons) for each wet process phosphoric acid process line." TFI does not oppose this proposed revision.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart AA
Streamlining: Clarification of subpart C methodologies for fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions (removal of Tier 4 CEMS)
Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  11
Comment: AF&PA is concerned with EPA's proposal to eliminate the ability of Subpart AA reporters to use Tier 4 (CEMS-based) methodology for calculating CO2 emissions for fossil fuel combustion at kraft lime kilns and recovery furnaces. Although we acknowledge that no reporters have used Tier 4 to date, we do not want to eliminate this option in the future. As we have stated before, given the changes that the industry is going through, it would be premature to assume that pulp and paper mills might not have fossil-fuel-only kraft lime kilns and recovery furnaces that could use CEMS data to support their reporting. Therefore, we believe that EPA should not eliminate the Tier 4 reporting options for those Subpart AA sources.
Response: Subpart AA requires that fossil-fuel based CO2 emissions be calculated using subpart C methodologies, and states that the Tier 1 methodology, or a higher tier method, may be used. We proposed amendments to remove Tier 4 from 40 CFR 98.273(a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1), which refer to the subpart C calculation methodologies for CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil-fuel. Subpart AA reporters have not used the Tier 4 CEMS methodology during any previous reporting year. Removal of the Tier 4 CEMS option allows EPA to remove the associated CEMS web forms from e-GGRT to simplify reporting under subpart AA for reporting year 2015. This also reduces the burden (and expense) for EPA to maintain instructions and verification checks associated with the CEMS web forms for subpart AA.
Subpart AA reporters have little or no incentive to use CEMS to report their fossil-fuel emissions for subpart AA emission units because of the mixture of biogenic and fossil-fuel CO2 emissions in the exhaust streams from subpart AA emission units. Chemical recovery furnaces and chemical recovery combustion units are designed to burn spent pulping liquor (a biogenic fuel) as the majority of heat input into the unit to recover pulping chemicals and generate process steam and electricity. Subpart AA currently directs reporters to use CO2 emission factors for chemical recovery furnaces (or spent liquor carbon content for chemical recovery combustion units) to calculate biogenic CO2 emissions from spent liquor combustion. Because spent pulping liquor comprises the majority of the heat input, a method would need to be specified in subpart AA to parse emissions measured with CEMS into fossil and biogenic CO2 fractions. Similarly, data from CO2 CEMS on pulp mill lime kilns would also need to be parsed into biogenic and fossil CO2 fractions because the process (non-fuel related) portion of the CO2 emitted from lime kilns originates from carbon in wood and is considered to be biogenic CO2.
While EPA is interested in refining the GHG reporting methodologies to incorporate more measured data (e.g., as a refinement to the current emission factors), it would be premature at this point to use CO2 CEMS for subpart AA without also revising the rule to address partitioning of biogenic and non-biogenic CO2. We are therefore finalizing the proposed removal of the Tier 4 option from 40 CFR 98.273(a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1), and discontinuation of the subpart AA CEMS web forms from e-GGRT There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Other Amendments: Revisions to missing data requirements for spent liquor solids (allowing alternative use of the daily mass of spent liquor solids reported under subpart MM)
Commenter Name:  Brad Upton
Commenter Affiliation:  National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0038
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: The agency proposes to amend 40 CFR 98.275(b) to allow use of the daily mass of spent liquor solids fired reported under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) as an alternative to reporting the maximum spent liquor mass or fuel flow rate for the combustion unit, or the maximum mass or flow rate that the fuel meter can measure in the case of missing measurement data. This is an appropriate and helpful change that will enhance the accuracy of the reported data due to use of more representative proxies for the missing data elements.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  13
Comment: AF&PA is very pleased with most of the changes that EPA has proposed in this subpart. In particular, we appreciate that EPA has agreed with our comments which provided the approach to use records already developed for compliance with Section 63.866(c)(1) (for Boiler MACT) as a means for addressing spent liquor solids or spent pulping liquor flow rates. We believe this is the right approach and provides further consistency between two parts of the Clean Air Act regulations.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment.
For clarity, we note that §63.866(c)(1) is not part of the Boiler MACT (as indicated by the commenter), but is part of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MM, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Minor Revisions to Table AA-2
Commenter Name:  Brad Upton
Commenter Affiliation:  National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0038
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: EPA proposes to change Table AA-2 by replacing "kraft lime kiln" with "kraft rotary lime kiln" in the column headings and adding a footnote clarifying that "kraft calciners" include fluidized bed calciners at kraft mills. Both changes will make the headings more precise and assist reporting companies in submitting accurate reports.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  12
Comment: We appreciate the change in column headings in Table AA-2 where "kraft lime kiln" is replace with "kraft rotary lime kiln" and adding the footnote clarifying that "kraft calciners" include fluidized bed calciners at kraft mills. This provides needed clarity for pulp mill reporters.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart CC
Improve Quality: Reporting of facility level annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  15
Comment: ACC does not believe that EPA's rationale for revising Subpart CC provides sufficient justification for the changes proposed. ACC does not support EPA's proposed changes related to facility-level feedstock reporting under Subpart CC, which will require additional data to be reported regarding inputs to each manufacturing line and facility level inputs. The rule already requires reporting of outputs of both soda ash produced and GHG emitted, wholly fulfilling the statutory requirements for the program.
Specifically, we do not believe that these changes have been properly justified, and we do not understand why EPA needs to require facility-level reporting for both manufacturers that have CEMS and those that do not have CEMS.
EPA states in Subpart CC preamble that the "addition of this data element [would] help improve the quality of the US GHG Inventory by using aggregated facility level data. These data are already required to be reported on the manufacturing line basis for subpart CC reporters that report using CEMS." (81 FR 2563) ACC notes that there are a very limited number of soda ash manufacturers, and it is our understanding that none of these manufacturers are reporting using CEMS. Thus, it appears that promulgation of the proposed approach would require significant additional recordkeeping and reporting efforts by all reporters, as they are all understood to be "non-CEMS reporters."
With respect to EPA's assertion that requiring the reporting of trona inputs, as well as outputs, would "improve the quality of the US GHG Inventory," a review of the narrative in the "Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014" does not support this statement.[6] From Section 4.11 "Soda Ash Production and Consumption:"
Emission estimates from soda ash production have relatively low associated uncertainty levels in that reliable and accurate data sources are available [emphasis added] for the emission factor and activity data. ...
One source of uncertainty is the purity of the trona ore used for manufacturing soda ash. The emission factor used for the estimate assumes the ore is 100 percent pure, and likely overestimates [emphasis added] the emissions from soda ash manufacture ...
The primary source of uncertainty, however, results from the fact that emission from soda ash consumption [emphasis added] are dependent upon the type of processing employed by each end use.
To paraphrase, EPA has stated in the draft 2016 GHG Inventory that the quality of the data associated with soda ash manufacture is good (i.e., has low uncertainty) and that the methodology used to estimate emissions likely overestimates. Further, EPA's draft GHG Inventory notes that the primary sources of uncertainty in the sector occur downstream from the manufacturing sites that would be affected by this rulemaking. From this information, ACC concludes that the proposed changes would not improve the emissions calculations in the GHG Inventory in any material way. Thus, it is our view that the proposed rule would not achieve its stated purposed (improving the GHG Inventory) and does not warrant the imposition of additional regulatory burdens on the soda ash industry.
EPA goes on to state "this action would propose to streamline the reporting of facility-level consumption data from both CEMS and non-CEMS reporters on a more aggregate level." (81 FR 2563) We find this statement inaccurate with respect to non-CEMS reporters, which must calculate emissions using a more complex methodology that relies on many data elements.
In the Final Inputs Rule (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014), EPA removed four data elements from Subpart CC, one of which was "the monthly consumption of trona or liquid alkaline for each manufacturing line (non-CEMS)." EPA clearly intended to remove data element 98.296(b)(5), as it was one of four data elements listed in "Table 3: Subparts for Which Reporting Elements are Removed." (79 FR 63765) We do not know why this data element was removed, however, because EPA did not provide explanations for removing data elements.
In the proposed rule, EPA advocates reinstating reporting of the "annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock at the facility level" for non-CEMs reporters (81 FR 2614). ACC does not find EPA's justification for revising Subpart CC significant enough to merit a reversal in the treatment of this data element, especially given that the previous change was made just 18 months ago. As stated earlier, with the sixth year of GHG reporting completed, it is our view that the number of regulatory changes should be decreasing, not increasing. We further urge EPA to avoid these types of unnecessary reversals in the future.
Footnotes:
(6) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990  -  2014, EPA 430-R-16-002, February 22, 2016, p. 4-40.
Response: EPA is not finalizing the amendments that would have required reporting of the facility-level annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock. See Section III.P.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Chris Greissing
Commenter Affiliation:  Industrial Minerals Association-North America (IMA-NA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0068
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: EPA states in preamble Section II.P that the "addition of this data element [would] help improve the quality of the US GHG Inventory by using aggregated facility level data. These data are already required to be reported on the manufacturing line basis for subpart CC reporters that report using CEMS."
A. Because the majority of soda ash producers are not reporting using CEMS for the large majority of their production lines, the statement appears to be gratuitous with respect to dimensioning the efforts required to comply should the proposal be adopted without change, i.e., it would require additional recordkeeping and reporting efforts by all reporters, as they are all understood to be "non-CEMS reporters."
B. With respect to EPA's assertion that requiring the reporting of trona inputs, as well as outputs, would "improve the quality of the US GHG Inventory," a review of the narrative in the "Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014" would not support this statement. From Section 4.11 "Soda Ash Production and Consumption:"
Emission estimates from soda ash production have relatively low associated uncertainty levels in that reliable and accurate data sources are available [emphasis added] for the emission factor and activity data. ...
One source of uncertainty is the purity of the trona ore used for manufacturing soda ash. The emission factor used for the estimate assumes the ore is 100 percent pure, and likely overestimates [emphasis added] the emissions from soda ash manufacture....
The primary source of uncertainty, however, results from the fact that emission[s] from soda ash consumption [emphasis added] are dependent upon the type of processing employed by each end use.
To paraphrase, EPA believes the quality of data associated with soda ash manufacture is (1) good, i.e., low uncertainty, (2) likely overestimates emissions, and (3) primary uncertainty occurs downstream from the manufacturing sites that would be affected by this rulemaking. The GHGRP rule, as proposed, would do nothing to address ore quality and the potential for overestimated emissions in the US Greenhouse Gas Inventory, nor would Ms. Carole Cook Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526 March 30, 2016  -  Page 3 this rule address downstream consumption of soda ash. As such, the proposed rule would not achieve its stated purposed and does not warrant the imposition of additional regulatory burdens on the soda ash industry.
C. Section II.P goes on to state that "this action would propose to streamline the reporting of facility-level consumption data from both CEMS and non-CEMS reporters on a more aggregate level." This statement is inaccurate and misleading. Nothing is streamlined for a non-CEMS reporter  -  quite the opposite. Non-CEMS reports have additional regulatory reporting burdens, which are not necessary to fulfill programmatic requirements.
Response: EPA is not finalizing the amendments that would have required reporting of the facility-level annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock. See Section III.P.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Chris Greissing
Commenter Affiliation:  Industrial Minerals Association-North America (IMA-NA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0068
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: The discussion of Subpart CC in the preamble seems to suggest that the rulemaking would enable EPA to "transparently determine national emissions based on trona consumption," however, this statement appears to assume that collecting trona mass inputs from non-CEMS reporters who are not using Equation CC-1 at §98.293 (b)(2) would somehow address the one source of uncertainty noted in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks as relevant to producers  -  the purity of the ore, not its mass. Collecting facility-level feedstock mass is a solution in search of a problem. If EPA wished to refine the estimate of trona purity, the USGS is an excellent source of information. The largest uncertainties reside in downstream soda ash use, and are not relevant to producers.
Response: EPA is not finalizing the amendments that would have required reporting of the facility-level annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock. See Section III.P.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Chris Greissing
Commenter Affiliation:  Industrial Minerals Association-North America (IMA-NA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0068
Comment Excerpt Number:  5 
Comment: In the Final Inputs Rule (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014), EPA removed four data elements from Subpart CC, one of which was "the monthly consumption of trona or liquid alkaline for each manufacturing line (non-CEMS)." Now, in the present rule, EPA is proposing to reinstate reporting of the "annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock at the facility level" for non-CEMs reporters (81 FR 2614). EPA's justification does not support a reversal of the previous regulatory determination in the Final Inputs Rule, and soda ash manufacturers should not be subjected to increased regulatory reporting burdens that are of limited value.
Response: EPA is not finalizing the amendments that would have required reporting of the facility-level annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock. See Section III.P.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Chris Greissing
Commenter Affiliation:  Industrial Minerals Association-North America (IMA-NA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0068
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA states in GHGRP preamble section II.P, EPA is "proposing two revisions that are intended to improve the quality of data collection under subpart CC....[F]or the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble." Please note that soda ash manufacturing is not discussed in section II.B of the preamble. 
Response: Section II.B of the preamble to the proposed rule provided a general discussion of amendments proposed to improve the quality of data collected under Part 98 and improve the U.S. GHG Inventory, and was not intended to be exhaustive. 
Regarding the comment on revisions to improve the quality of data collection in subpart CC, see Section III.P.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Chris Greissing
Commenter Affiliation:  Industrial Minerals Association-North America (IMA-NA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0068
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: The two changes would require additional records be reported regarding inputs to each manufacturing line and facility level inputs. The rule already requires reporting of outputs of both soda ash produced and GHG emitted, wholly fulfilling the statutory requirements for the program. 
Response: EPA is not finalizing the amendments that would have required reporting of the facility-level annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock. See Section III.P.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart DD
Improve Quality: Reporting U.S. state, states, or territory in which the electric power system lies
Commenter Name:  Patrick J. Renshaw
Commenter Affiliation:  PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0056
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: Nor should EPA require us to determine SF6 emissions on a state-specific basis. Rather, the current mass balance equations should continue to be used to calculate total emissions from all of PPL EU's facilities combined. This is particularly appropriate for SF6 which is a pollutant that has global impact rather than local or regional impact.
EPA is proposing to revise 40 C.F.R. § 98.306(m) to require the electric power system reporter to provide the name of the U.S. state, states or territory in which the electric power system lies and the total miles of transmission and distribution lines that lie in each state or territory. EPA is requesting comment on two possible alternatives to report: one would be to report the total transmission and distribution lines that lie in each state or territory within the facility boundary; the other would be to report the emissions from equipment within the facility boundary for each state or territory.
While electric utilities have robust tools in place to track all SF6 equipment on-system and all SF6 gas used/recycled on-system, we do not generally track the exact location of every lb of SF6 gas that is lost on-system. This is why the current systems are setup as a "mass balance" to track all SF6 coming into and out of the system. The delta is "lost gas" across the entire system.
While PPL EU believes that the additional burden of collecting the data proposed by EPA under either option will not provide meaningful information beyond the current mass balance approach, option one would certainly be far less burdensome than trying to quantify SF6 gas loss by state. However, if option one is selected, it will be important to bear in mind that the data collection will not provide a clear way to compare usage or loss by state (if that is the intent) given the tremendous variation in the equipment used on-system (e.g. Gas Insulating Substation "GIS" substation vs. Open Air substation), as well as variations in overall system designs. For example, the size and number of potential SF6 containing equipment needed to support a high demand/high density area like NY City could far exceed the potential SF6 containing equipment needed to support a rural town that would require a far greater number of miles of Transmission and Distribution lines to serve a less dense/lower load population area.
Response: EPA is finalizing the addition of a data element to require the reporter to provide the name of the U.S. state, states, or territory in which the electric power system lies, but is not finalizing the proposed requirement to report the total miles of transmission and distribution lines that lie in each state or to report the total emissions in each state or territory. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Reporting total miles of transmission & distribution lines in each state or territory
Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: EPA has not provided data to support its claim that SF6 emissions are correlated with transmission line length. EPA proposes to add new reporting provisions for facilities[15] under 40 C.F.R. § 98.306(m) to require reporters to identify the name of the U.S. state, states, or territory in which the electric power system lies and the total miles of T&D lines that are in each state or territory.[16] EPA claims that these data elements would allow the public to more easily identify the state, states, or territory within which the electric system lies, as well as to compare the miles of T&D lines in each state or territory to the total miles of T&D lines and then approximate the percentage of emissions that occur within each state or territory.[17] EPA further claims that "[a]s discussed in the U.S. GHG Inventory, SF6 emissions from electric power systems are correlated with the length of their transmission lines."[18]
The Group objects to EPA's failure to provide data to support the Proposed Rule's claim that there is a correlation between SF6 emissions and transmission line length. The Group disagrees with this claim because transmission lines do not themselves contain SF6. Instead, this gas is utilized primarily for insulating purposes in substations and switchyards. The Group requests that EPA provide further justification in the final rule to support its claim that there is a correlation between SF6 emissions and transmission line length. If EPA cannot justify this claim, EPA should not require reporting of total miles of T&D lines in each state or territory. This requirement could be burdensome for companies with T&D systems spanning more than one state because these companies may not record this information on a state-by-state or territory-by territory basis. EPA has not adequately justified imposing this potential additional burden on reporters.
Footnotes:
(15) Subpart DD defines a facility as "an electric power system, comprised of all electric [T&D] equipment insulated with or containing [sulfur hexaflouride ("SF6")] or [perfluorocarbon ("PFC")] that is linked through electric power transmission or distribution lines and functions as an integrated unit that is owned, serviced, or maintained by a single electric power transmission or distribution entity (or multiple entities with a common owner), and that is located between: (1) The point(s) at which electric energy is obtained from an electricity generating unit or a different electric power transmission or distribution entity that does not have a common owner; and (2) the point(s) at which any customer or another electric power transmission or distribution entity that does not have a common owner receives the electric energy. The facility also includes servicing inventory for such equipment that contains SF6 or PFC." 81 Fed. Reg. at 2,563.
(16) Id. at 2,563.
(17) Id.
(18) Id.
Response: EPA is not finalizing a requirement to report total miles of transmission and distribution lines in each state or territory. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Patrick J. Renshaw
Commenter Affiliation:  PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0056
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: The agency also should not rely on miles of transmission equipment as a proxy for emissions since this does not provide accurate emissions data nor does it allow for an accurate means to "benchmark" one utility against another for SF6 usage.
PPL EU does not believe it would be appropriate to use transmission line miles as a proxy for SF6 use and emissions for the reason stated previously. Therefore, transmission & distribution miles would not be an accurate proxy for SF6 use and emissions across the industry. There is also the question of equipment location as much of the SF6 used on-system is located within substations or switchyards. For examples, a utility in a rural area may choose to build an open air substation where the only SF6 gas used would be in the circuit breakers. This can be done as land is not usually a restricting factor. A similar electrical need being addressed in a congested area might utilize a more expensive, but smaller footprint design, known as a GIS substation. The SF6 usage for this design is far greater than an open air design, but the underlying electrical need and function is the same. Looking simply at line miles does not take these variations into account.
The mass balance process currently available in the EPA's Greenhouse gas reporting program, accounts for all gas on-system and we would recommend no changes to that process.
Response: EPA is not finalizing a requirement to report total miles of transmission and distribution lines in each state or territory. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  10
Comment: EPA requests comment on whether miles of transmission lines alone are likely to be a better predictor of SF6 use and emissions than combined miles of transmission and distribution lines. If so, EPA could simply require reporting of the miles of transmission lines in each state or territory. See id. It would not be appropriate to use transmission lines as a proxy for SF6 use and emissions. While miles of transmission could be a reasonable metric for estimating use and emissions in rural areas, larger cities have far more miles associated with distribution than they do transmission. Accordingly, transmission miles would not be an accurate proxy for SF6 use and emissions across the industry.
Response: EPA is not finalizing a requirement to report total miles of transmission and distribution lines in each state or territory. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman, Hunton & Williams LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0046
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: EPA proposes to add new requirements to Subpart DD § 98.306 to require reporting of the total miles of transmission and distribution lines located in each state or territory in which the facility lies. EPA solicits comment on several alternatives. Id. at 2563-64. UARG has a number of concerns with these proposed requirements, which would be overly burdensome and in some cases not useful. Those concerns are consistent with the comments on Subpart DD submitted by the Edison Electric Institute, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035, and UARG supports them.
Response: EPA is not finalizing a requirement to report total miles of transmission and distribution lines in each state or territory. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Mary Josie Blanchard
Commenter Affiliation:  Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0042
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Subpart DD is proposing to require the inclusion of the total miles of transmission and distribution lines that lie in each state; this comparison would not be appropriate for electric generating facilities that do not own or operate transmission or distribution lines. As an example, Reclamation owns and operates hydroelectric generating facilities that do not fall under the reporting requirements of Subpart D, Electricity Generation, but does provide generation interconnections for supplying electricity to transmission and distribution systems. Reclamation requests that the reporting be limited to identifying the state within which the Electric Generation Facility exists. The comparison of miles of transmission and distribution to SF 6 emissions would indicate higher SF6 emissions for Reclamation and other generation providers that only have transmission or distribution lines for generation interconnections, in comparison to transmission or distribution providers with hundreds of miles of lines. Reclamation suggests that the miles of transmission or distribution lines would not be a good indicator of SF6 use.
Response: EPA is not finalizing a requirement to report total miles of transmission and distribution lines in each state or territory. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: Reporting Total T&D Lines versus Emissions versus Transmission Lines Alone. EPA requests comment on (1) whether it would be less burdensome for facilities to report the total T&D lines that lie in each state or territory within the facility boundary or to report the emissions for each state or territory within the facility boundary; and (2) whether miles of transmission lines alone are likely to be a better predictor of SF6 use and emissions than combined miles of T&D lines.[31] While the Group believes that EPA has failed to provide data to support the claim that there is a correlation between SF6 emissions and transmission line length, the Group does not have a strong preference on any of these alternatives and simply requests that EPA clarify in the final rule how this information should be reported. 
Footnotes:
(31) 81 Fed. Reg. at 2,563.
Response: EPA is not finalizing a requirement to report total miles of transmission and distribution lines in each state or territory. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: EPA requests comment on whether it would be less burdensome for T&D systems to report the total transmission and distribution lines that lie in each state or territory within the facility boundary or to report the emissions for each state or territory within the
facility boundary. See 40 C.F.R. § 98.306(m). Given that T&D systems likely track emissions and transmission/distribution line miles on a state/territory basis, the two options would be equally burdensome.
Response: EPA is not finalizing a requirement to report total miles of transmission and distribution lines in each state or territory, nor is EPA finalizing the requirement to report the emissions for each state or territory within the facility boundary. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Separate reporting for nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other SF6- and PFC-insulated equipment installed and retired during the year 
Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  11
Comment: Currently, electric transmission and distribution facilities are required to include the nameplate capacities of new and retiring hermetically sealed-pressure equipment, along with the corresponding quantities for other electrical equipment, in their emission calculations. See id.; see also 40 C.F.R. § 98.303. They are also required to report the total nameplate capacity of new equipment, including hermetically sealed-pressure equipment, and the total nameplate capacity of retiring equipment, including hermetically sealed-pressure equipment. See id. However, they are not required to distinguish between hermetically sealed-pressure and other equipment in these reports. See id.
In lieu of reporting the total nameplate capacity for all hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment, EPA proposes to require facilities to separately report the nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that they install and retire during the year. See id. The proposed amendments would add reporting of the nameplate capacities of new hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40 CFR 98.306(a)(2)), new SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40 CFR 98.306(a)(3)), retired hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40 CFR 98.306(a)(4)), and retired SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40 CFR 98.306(a)(5)).
The Reporting Rule currently does not require reporting of the quantity of SF6 inside each piece of equipment or the number of pieces of SF6-insulated equipment. See id. Instead, the total nameplate capacities of all equipment are aggregated in the mass balance equation used to calculate emissions. See 40 C.F.R. § 98.303. EPA states that disaggregating and reporting this additional data would enable the Agency to better understand the quantities of SF6 contained in hermetically sealed-pressure equipment, but does not state any other purpose for collecting this data. EPA also asserts that these data elements represent information that reporters are expected to have readily available and would therefore generally result in only a slight increase in reporting burden. See id.
As a preliminary matter, contrary to EPA's assertions, not all T&D system owners and operators typically record whether a particular piece of equipment is hermetically sealed, either when it is purchased or when it is retired. Collecting this data would require reporters to reconfigure supply chain tracking so that EPA could gather information on a relatively small amount of equipment. This would represent more than a slight increase in the reporting burden. EPA has not demonstrated that this increased burden on reporters is necessary in light of the limited value of the information it would provide EPA.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed separate reporting of the number of and the nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that is installed and retired during the year. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Patrick J. Renshaw
Commenter Affiliation:  PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0056
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: PPL EU believes the EPA should not require owners and operators of electrical transmission and distribution systems to separately catalogue and report the name plate capacities of smaller hermetically sealed equipment that is part of a larger piece of equipment.
EPA proposes to add reporting elements to subpart DD related to the nameplate capacities and numbers of pieces of new and retiring equipment. Under EPA's proposed amendment, the nameplate capacities of all newly installed and retired equipment, including hermetically sealed equipment contained within larger pieces of equipment, would need to be reported individually. EPA states the purpose of this information is to provide them with a better understanding of the quantity of SF6 gas contained in hermetically sealed-pressure equipment. However, EPA does not explain why it is important to understand the quantity of SF6 gas in hermetically-sealed equipment, particularly where the hermetically- sealed equipment is a component of a larger piece of equipment as to which the total SF6 gas is included under the current mass balance approach. In addition, even if there is value in understanding the quantity of SF6 gas in individual hermetically-sealed equipment, this does not justify EPA's proposal to require nameplate capacity information on every new and retired piece of equipment.
EPA apparently assumes that detailed records as proposed by EPA are readily available; however in general owners and operators of electric transmission and distribution systems are not provided with the individual nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed equipment that are components of larger equipment. Rather, the manufacturer or supplier will provide only the total nameplate capacity (including all components) of the larger equipment. Collecting data on individual components of larger equipment would require manufacturers and suppliers to provide a breakdown of the SF6 quantities in each component of the equipment and would require PPL to develop a new database tracking system and new processes for capturing the information and reporting it to EPA.
The burden imposed on industry to individually track nameplate capacity with respect to each hermetically-sealed component of a larger piece of equipment is not outweighed by any discernable benefit, as the hermetically-sealed components are not individually maintained. If such a component fails, the entire piece of equipment would be scrapped and any difference in weight of the equipment would be included in the SF6 emissions reported under the current mass balance approach.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed separate reporting of the number of and the nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that is installed and retired during the year. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: EPA would require facilities to (1) separately report the nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that they install and retire during the year;20 and (2) report the numbers of pieces of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that they install and retire during the year.[21] EPA believes these additional requirements "represent information that reporters are expected to have readily available and would therefore generally result in only a slight increase in reporting burden."[22]
The Class of '85 objects to EPA's failure to provide a basis for requiring segregated reporting of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment. As EPA has acknowledged, hermetically sealed-pressure equipment is a de minimis source of SF6 emissions due to the equipment's small physical size and low maintenance requirements.[23] EPA further states that "historically, hermetically sealed-pressure equipment has been considered to be a relatively small source of SF6 emissions in the U.S., but its importance is known to be growing internationally and may also be growing domestically."[24] EPA has not provided clear evidence in the Proposed Rule for how hermetically sealed-pressure equipment has increased in significance as a source of SF6 emissions in recent years. EPA should not create potentially burdensome requirements for facilities based on what "may" be occurring in the nation.
Footnotes:
(20) The proposed amendments would require reporting of nameplate capacities of (i) new hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year; (ii) new SF6 or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear; (iii) retired hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear; and (iv) retired SF6 or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear. 81 Fed. Reg. at 2,564.
(21) Id.
(22) Id.
(23) Indeed, EPA previously excluded hermetically sealed-pressure equipment from the requirement to annually inventory the total nameplate capacity of a facility's electrical equipment because "hermetically sealed-pressure equipment tends to have small individual charge sizes, to be serviced only rarely or not at all, and to be spread in large numbers throughout [T&D] networks, making it relatively difficult to track after it is installed." Id. at n. 19.
(24) Id. at 2,564.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed separate reporting of the number of and the nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that is installed and retired during the year. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman, Hunton & Williams LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0046
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: EPA proposes to add new requirements to Subpart DD § 98.306 to require reporting of the nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed and other equipment separately. EPA solicits comment on several alternatives. Id. at 2563-64. UARG has a number of concerns with these proposed requirements, which would be overly burdensome and in some cases not useful. Those concerns are consistent with the comments on Subpart DD submitted by the Edison Electric Institute, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035, and UARG supports them.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed separate reporting of the nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that is installed and retired during the year. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Separate reporting for number of pieces of hermetically sealed-pressured equipment and other SF6- and PFC-insulated equipment installed and retired during the year
Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  13
Comment: The Reporting Rule currently does not require reporting of the quantity of SF6 inside each piece of equipment or the number of pieces of SF6-insulated equipment. See id. Instead, the total nameplate capacities of all equipment are aggregated in the mass balance equation used to calculate emissions. See 40 C.F.R. § 98.303. EPA states that disaggregating and reporting this additional data would enable the Agency to better understand the quantities of SF6 contained in hermetically sealed-pressure equipment, but does not state any other purpose for collecting this data. EPA also asserts that these data elements represent information that reporters are expected to have readily available and would therefore generally result in only a slight increase in reporting burden. See id.
Contrary to EPA's assertions, not all T&D system owners and operators typically record whether a particular piece of equipment is hermetically sealed, either when it is purchased or when it is retired. Collecting this data would require reporters to reconfigure supply chain tracking so that EPA could gather information on a relatively small amount of equipment. This would represent more than a slight increase in the reporting burden. EPA has not demonstrated that this increased burden on reporters is necessary in light of the limited value of the information it would provide EPA.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed separate reporting of the number of and the nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that is installed and retired during the year. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman, Hunton & Williams LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0046
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: EPA proposes to add new requirements to Subpart DD § 98.306 to require reporting of the numbers of each piece of new and each piece of retired equipment containing sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons (PFC). EPA solicits comment on several alternatives. Id. at 2563-64. UARG has a number of concerns with these proposed requirements, which would be overly burdensome and in some cases not useful. Those concerns are consistent with the comments on Subpart DD submitted by the Edison Electric Institute, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035, and UARG supports them.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed separate reporting of the number of pieces of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that is installed and retired during the year. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improve Quality: Alternative approach to report number of pieces of each type of equipment installed or retired by nameplate capacity range
Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: EPA has not provided an adequate rationale for the alternative approach of requiring reporting of numbers of pieces of equipment falling under nameplate capacity ranges. As an alternative to requiring the reporting of the total numbers of pieces of (newly installed or retired) hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other types of equipment, EPA is requesting comment on an alternative approach that would require facilities to report the numbers of pieces of each type of equipment falling into particular nameplate capacity ranges.[26] This alternative approach would be more burdensome because reporting equipment counts based on nameplate capacity ranges requires reporting of more data points than reporting total equipment counts. Reporters would not only need to know the nameplate capacity for each piece of equipment but would then have to sort the data into several different "bins."[27] EPA recognizes that "this approach would require more effort [for reporters] than providing the total numbers of pieces of equipment newly installed and retired for hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and for all other equipment."[28] In light of this increased burden, the Group sees little benefit to this approach nor does EPA provide one. As long as reporters provide the required equipment counts, EPA should be able to assemble the data into whatever "bin ranges" EPA feels are necessary after receiving the reports. If EPA does finalize the proposal to require segregated reporting of numbers of pieces of different types of equipment, EPA should only require reporting of total equipment counts and not equipment counts falling into particular nameplate capacity ranges. Alternatively, EPA should allow facilities to choose between the two approaches that EPA has proposed⎯reporting total equipment counts or equipment counts sorted into nameplate capacity ranges.
Footnotes:
(26) 81 Fed. Reg. at 2,564.
(27) EPA offers one possible set of nameplate capacity ranges, consisting of seven different range "bins." See id., Table 6. If EPA were to finalize this hypothetical set of nameplate capacity ranges, it appears that reporters would have to submit 28 different equipment count figures to EPA (i.e., 14 figures indicating the numbers of both new and retired pieces of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment falling into each of the seven nameplate capacity range "bins" and 14 figures indicating the numbers of both new and retired pieces of other types of equipment falling into each of the seven nameplate capacity range "bins").
(28) Id. at 2,564.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed separate reporting of the number of and the nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that is installed and retired during the year. We are not requiring facilities to further segregate equipment counts and nameplate capacities into nameplate capacity ranges. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  15
Comment: EPA requests comment on an alternative approach in which facilities would report the numbers of pieces of each type of equipment that are newly installed or retired and that fall into particular nameplate capacity ranges. See id. EPA should not require separate reporting of nameplate capacities for individual pieces of equipment or reporting based on the range of charge sizes. Distribution systems across the industry track a significant amount of equipment that contains anywhere from 0.6 lb of SF6 to 25 lb of SF6, with a very large percentage in the lower end of that range. Because tracking and reporting is internally managed across the industry, modifying databases to report total pieces of each type of equipment in specified capacity ranges would prove very burdensome. As EPA has not specified a purpose for the collection of this data, there is no justification for increasing the reporting burden on T&D system owners and operators.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed separate reporting of the number of and the nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that is installed and retired during the year. We are not requiring facilities to further segregate equipment counts and nameplate capacities into nameplate capacity ranges. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Patrick J. Renshaw
Commenter Affiliation:  PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0056
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: PPL EU believes that EPA should not require separate reporting of nameplate capacities for individual pieces of equipment or reporting based on the range of charge sizes. Transmission and Distribution systems across the industry track a significant amount of equipment that contains anywhere from 0.6 lb of SF6 to over 1,000 lbs. of SF6, with a very large percentage in the lower end of that range. Absent a clearly articulated reason for imposing the increased reporting burden on transmission and distribution system owners and operators as proposed by EPA, PPL recommends the continued use of the mass balance system now in place.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed separate reporting of the number of and the nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that is installed and retired during the year. We are not requiring facilities to further segregate equipment counts and nameplate capacities into nameplate capacity ranges. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments on Subpart DD Issues not proposed
Commenter Name:  Mary Josie Blanchard
Commenter Affiliation:  Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0042
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: We request that the definition of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment be better defined under the definitions in Subpart DD (Proposed 40 CFR 98.306 (a)). Hermetically sealed-pressure equipment is defined as air tight by many sources. All SF 6 containing equipment is essentially airtight, but has the means to add or remove gas. Reclamation recognizes that hermetically sealed-pressure is to indicate equipment that does not have the ability to be maintained, or allows the addition or removal of SF6 as explained in footnote 19 on page 2564 of Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 10. Since the footnote indicates that hermetically sealed equipment might be serviceable, it is unclear exactly what equipment would fall under this definition. Reclamation requests if hermetically sealed-pressure strictly pertains to equipment where the SF6 charge cannot be evacuated from the equipment prior to disposal, then the definition needs to reflect that accordingly.
Response: EPA does not agree that "hermetically sealed" must be defined for the purposes of these additional reporting requirements. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  11
Comment: Defining "Hermetically Sealed-Pressure Switchgear" Equipment. EPA does not provide a definition of "hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear" equipment under Subpart DD in the Proposed Rule. The Group requests that EPA clearly define "hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear" equipment in the final rule. The Group believes that "hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear" equipment should be defined in terms of equipment that is "non-maintainable" (i.e., that has no valves or ports to add or maintain the SF6 within the equipment).
Response: EPA does not agree that "hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear" must be defined for the purposes of the final rule. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  14
Comment: EPA has not provided a definition of "hermetically sealed." Such definition has not been necessary in the past, but would be needed if EPA determines that it is appropriate to require T&D owners and operators to differentiate between hermetically sealed and other equipment in subpart DD reports.
Response: EPA does not agree that "hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear" must be defined for the purposes of the final rule. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Patrick J. Renshaw
Commenter Affiliation:  PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0056
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: EPA currently has not defined hermetically sealed. If the proposed rule changes are adopted, it will be critical for transmission and distribution operators to fully understand and identify what is hermetically sealed equipment.
Response: EPA does not agree that "hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear" must be defined for the purposes of the final rule. See Section III.Q.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
Revisions to Subpart FF
Streamlining: Revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to clarify when abandoned underground mines may cease reporting
Commenter Name:  Bruce Watzman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0051
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: Exclusion for abandoned mines. We appreciate and support the agency's proposal to exclude reporting for mines that have been abandoned and sealed. Unfortunately, the reliance on MSHA determinations is problematic as MSHA determinations are often not accurate nor timely. EPA is correct that, "MSHA regulations require operators to seal any mine that has been permanently closed or abandoned for more than 90 days."[5] This regulation notwithstanding, MSHA inspection protocols and updating of the Mine Data Retrieval System often result in an extended period of time before public knowledge of an abandonment is recorded. EPA needs to be cognizant of this to avoid underground coal mine operators being held responsible for reporting emissions where none occur or being found non-compliant with the reporting requirements.
Footnotes:
(5) 80 Fed. Reg. 2565 (Jan. 15, 2016)
Response: EPA is finalizing revisions to enable underground coal mines that have ceased operations and have been abandoned and sealed to cease reporting to the GHGRP per the provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3), but has removed the proposed requirement that relied on the MSHA determination of the mine's operational status as "abandoned." See Section III.R.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Bill Bissett
Commenter Affiliation:  Kentucky Coal Association
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0072
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: KCA generally supports EPA's decision to exclude abandoned and sealed mines from reporting requirements. However, KCA disagrees with reliance on the MSHA Mine Data Retrieval System to determine whether a mine has been abandoned. MSHA inspection protocols and administrative delays in updating the Mine Data Retrieval System could result in a situation where a mine is not listed on the electronic system as abandoned when it has in fact been abandoned and sealed. This could result in uncertainty as to whether reports are required under the GHG Reporting Rule during this lag time. KCA suggests that operators be permitted to simply report the status of the mine in their GHG emission reports required by the existing Reporting Rule. EPA routinely relies on self-reporting in the enforcement of the programs it administers, and there is no reason why it would not be sufficient for GHG Reporting Rule purposes. 
Response: EPA is finalizing revisions to enable underground coal mines that have ceased operations and have been abandoned and sealed to cease reporting to the GHGRP per the provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3), but has removed the proposed requirement that relied on the MSHA determination of the mine's operational status as "abandoned." See Section III.R.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Removal of option to use MSHA quarterly inspection reports for CH4 liberated from ventilation systems (40 CFR 98.324(b)(2))
Commenter Name:  Laura M. Goldfarb, Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson
Commenter Affiliation:  Arcelor Mittal Princeton
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0061
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: MSHA inspection data should still be allowed for operators who can demonstrate that they meet minimum data quality objectives.
EPA's proposed methodological changes to 40 CFR 98 include provisions to "to amend 40 CFR 98.324(b) to no longer allow MSHA quarterly inspection reports to be used as a source of data for monitoring methane liberated from ventilation systems" and, instead, require the use of either CEMS or independently collected grab samples. In addition, EPA is proposing to add annual coal production to the list of data reporting requirements outlined in 40 CFR 98.326. Finally, EPA seeks comment on "increasing the frequency with which grab samples must be taken, from quarterly to monthly."
EPA notes (page 2566) that it has "determined, through several reporting cycles and a review of MSHA quarterly inspection reports for 30 of the highest emitting mines, that the quarterly flow rate data gathered by MSHA cannot reliably be used for GHG reporting purposes," the technical support being that "MSHA regulations and inspections are intended to ensure mine worker health and safety rather than to quantify specific mine operating parameters." Nonetheless, EPA admits that "MSHA inspections provide important data for assessing mine safety, and If complete, MSHA data may provide a reasonable estimate of methane emissions from underground coal mines." (Emphasis supplied). Despite that acknowledgment, rather than allowing reporters to demonstrate the validity of the MSHA data for their mines, EPA is proposing to prohibit use of that data, regardless of whether it can be validated.
EPA, by its own admission, has focused its data analysis on only 30 of the highest emitting mines. Operators of substantially lower emitting mines are negatively prejudiced by the EPA analysis. The fact is that methane is evolved from the coal seam and the amount liberated may have little relationship to coal production. ArcelorMittal believes that there is no technical evidence to support EPA's conclusions about the lack of a relationship between MSHA data and mines such as the ones not included in the EPA analysis.
The wholesale prohibition of use of MSHA data is arbitrary and fails to provide reporters the flexibility of validating their MSHA data and subsequent continued use of that data. EPA has developed a wealth of information on MSHA data quality. MSHA data is available at no or minimal cost to reporters. Requiring reporters to collect additional data will increase cost substantially without providing a significant environmental benefit. ArcelorMittal urges EPA to allow reporters to propose, for EPA approval, mechanisms by which their site specific data can be demonstrated to meet a baseline quality criterion for 40 CFR Part 98
reporting purposes. Such a process would result in significant efficiencies in data collection and use, and eliminate the possible burdensome redundant collection of data by operators.
Response: EPA is retaining MSHA quarterly data as an acceptable ventilation monitoring method under 40 CFR 98.324(b), with an additional requirement that the mine submit with its annual GHGRP report the MSHA quarterly reports it used to prepare its annual subpart FF report. See Section III.R.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Bruce Watzman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0051
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: 40 C.F.R. 98.324(b)(1) thru (3)  -  Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements: The premise for these revisions is the agency's view that there are too many gaps in the data and therefore the information reported represents "considerable uncertainty to the calculation of the facility." It is true that measuring gas emissions in an underground coal mine is variable and this variability can impact the results. However, eliminating certain sensible procedures and processes as methods for complying with the reporting obligation does not necessarily solve the problem. In fact, changing the rules of compliance in this case will not ensure more accurate information. New procedures that are not implemented correctly will also result in an outcome that the agency seeks to avoid.
Rather than removing reasonable and tested practices, like the current practice of allowing mine operators to use Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) samples, the agency should consider developing a standard monitoring guideline to address consistency and data quality concerns. Specifically, a guidance document would afford the agency the opportunity to articulate the specific concerns the agency has with "locations and using MSHA samples," while also maintaining an important and cost-effective compliance tool for companies that rely on MSHA's samples.
All in all, we believe EPA and GHG reporters would benefit more from a guidance document on monitoring, rather than changing the rule because a "few" were doing it incorrectly, particularly since the proposed rule would have significant financial ramifications for reporters. We strongly urge EPA to pursue recommend a guidance document in lieu of a new rule to improve sampling quality and consistency of data.
Response: With respect to the comment regarding MSHA quarterly data, the EPA is retaining MSHA quarterly data as an acceptable ventilation monitoring method under 40 CFR 98.324(b) with the additional requirement that the mine submit with its annual GHGRP report the MSHA quarterly reports it used to prepare its annual subpart FF report (see Section III.R.2 of the preamble for additional information). The commenter has also recommended the development of guidance to assist reporters with correctly interpreting MSHA quarterly monitoring reports for subpart FF reporting. The EPA has previously developed a free, publicly available guidance document for this purpose. The document is entitled "Technical Guidance on Using Mine Ventilation Data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) to report Quarterly Methane Emissions from Mine Ventilation Systems." The guidance document is available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/tech_guidance_mine_vent_data.pdf. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Bill Bissett
Commenter Affiliation:  Kentucky Coal Association
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0072
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: EPA Should Retain the Existing Approach That Allows Use of MSHA Reported Data. 
Given the lack of benefit and considerable increased costs posed by the Proposed Rule, KCA strongly encourages EPA to retain the existing approach to GHG emission reporting. While KCA acknowledges that there is some variability inherent in the MSHA data, that variability does not have any significant effect in the overall assessment of GHG emissions for the nation as a whole. Coal operators are experienced with the methodology required by MSHA monitoring, and can continue to improve the accuracy of the reported data as more experience is obtained. If EPA is concerned that this data is too variable, EPA could take into account the variability that has been documented in calculating ranges of potential GHG emissions in formulating any policies related to underground coal mine GHG emissions. 
The fact that some MSHA inspectors or coal mine operators could improve sampling practices under the current regime is only a reason to improve that existing monitoring program. It is not a sound justification for throwing that program out and starting over with a new and more costly methodology. A better, more cost-efficient solution is to provide guidance and training to the industry in the use of existing sampling methodology, rather than "starting from scratch" and hoping for better results. 
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0051, Excerpt 3. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Alternative methods for measuring CH4 liberated from ventilation systems (e.g., surface level samples at the fan mouth)
Commenter Name:  Bruce Watzman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0051
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: Location of sampling is strongly driven by the following criteria: (1) where best to capture the most air reporting to an exhaust or bleeder fan; (2) where does the most consistency of air flow exist with a tolerable amount of turbulence; and (3) the safety of the individuals conducting the monitoring. Standing at the bottom of the shaft or "in the tube" is too dangerous from a safety perspective and could result in injury to the personnel due to falling objects (i.e. equipment, rock, ice, excessive turbulence and noise). Gathering the sample at the approach provides less turbulence and greater consistency of air flow with no additional risk to personnel. Therefore, NMA supports monitoring within the approach area for best representative results.
Alternatively, NMA encourages EPA to provide mine operator's the option to move the point of data collection (sampling) to the surface. Specifically, we would recommend sampling at the exhaust fan or ventilation point. Some underground operations have observed data that overstates GHG reporting by 23 -37 percent and in some cases as high as 50 percent when comparing MSHA data (collected UG) to surface data. EPA's 2010 Reporting Rule did not provide the option of collecting data at the surface. It is generally understood that variability (i.e., barometric pressure changes, changes in mine plans, etc.) in the ever changing or "dynamic" environment of an underground coal mine cannot be eliminated. However, the use of surface monitoring points should eliminate some potential sources of variability and thus enhance reporting consistency.
Response: EPA agrees that taking samples in the approaches is safer than attempting to take samples at the base of the upcast shaft. In the proposal, EPA sought comment on whether alternatives, such as surface level samples taken at the fan mouth, would achieve the same objective, i.e., improved data quality from mine ventilation systems. EPA encouraged commenters to submit studies, data, and background information that can support additional analysis. EPA appreciates that the commenter has responded to this request by recommending sampling at the exhaust fan or ventilation point at the surface. However, any decision to allow alternative methods such as surface sampling must be supported by data that attest to the accuracy of such a sampling method. Unfortunately, EPA is not in possession of such data for surface sampling, nor did the commenter submit data to support the recommendation. Therefore, EPA is not finalizing any alternative sampling locations in this final rule and is making no changes to the rule in this regard. In the future, EPA would welcome studies or other information that present thorough and unbiased analyses of alternative monitoring methods for possible consideration in future rulemakings. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Bill Bissett
Commenter Affiliation:  Kentucky Coal Association
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0072
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: Safety Concerns and Sampling Locations. KCA strongly rejects the suggestion that GHG emissions should be monitored at the bottom of shafts or inside the shafts. Such sampling locations create significant safety concerns and it does not appear that these have been adequately considered. The safety of our miners is of paramount concern, and it should not be jeopardized for any purpose. Monitoring at the approach area will allow for representative samples without creating safety concerns. Allowing the continued use of the data already collected to comply with MSHA requirements creates no safety concerns at all. And as set forth below and above, this MSHA data is more than sufficient for any reasonable monitoring of underground coal mine GHG emissions. A reporting requirement that could endanger the safety of coal miners should not be considered, particularly where an adequate program is already in existence. 
One potential approach that EPA did not propose, but that should be considered, is providing the option to sample GHG emissions at the surface. Sampling at a consistent location on the surface creates none of the safety issues posed by other potential sampling locations in the proposed rule. It should also remove variability in sampling results, which is the stated goal of the proposed Subpart FF revisions. Ultimately, it is impossible to eliminate all variability in the dynamic environment of an underground coal mine, emissions from which will always be heavily influenced by issues like changes in barometric pressure and mining plans. However, a consistent surface monitoring point would provide consistency in results. For some operators, it would also alleviate some of the considerable economic burden imposed by the rule. 
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0051, Excerpt 4. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Increasing sampling frequency from quarterly to monthly 
Commenter Name:  Bruce Watzman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0051
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: In general, the proposed revisions to subpart FF do not reflect the big picture which is the overall limited role underground coal mines play in relation to total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. According to the agency, GHG emissions for 2014 totaled 3.2 billion metric tons' carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) of which underground coal mines reported 43.2 million metric tons CO2e emissions representing 1.3 percent of the overall emissions. Simply put, the underground coal sector pales in comparison to the other significant GHG emitters yet the agency's proposal will impose approximately 94 percent of the first year costs and 97 percent of the subsequent year's costs on underground coal mines  -  this despite the fact that the proposed rule impacts 30 industry sectors.
For reporting year (RY) 2014, over 8,000 facilities and suppliers reported to the greenhouse gas reporting program.[1] Among these reporters:
8,080 facilities in nine industry sectors reported direct emissions;
direct emissions totaled 3.20 billion metric tons (CO2-e), or about half of total U.S.GHG emissions;
957 suppliers reported; and
92 facilities reported injecting CO2 underground.
 Underground Coal Mines -- Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reported to the GHGRP (all emission values presented in million metric tons CO2e)
                                        
                                     2011
                                     2012
                                     2013
                                     2014
Number of Facilities
                                      114
                                      115
                                      126
                                      128
Total emissions (CO2e)
                                     40.3
                                     38.0
                                     40.1
                                     43.2
Emissions by greenhouse gas (CO2e)
 Carbon dioxide (CO2)
 Methane (CH4)
 Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
                                      0.3
                                     40.0
                                      **
                                      0.2
                                     37.8
                                      **
                                      0.2
                                     39.9
                                      **
                                      0.5
                                     42.7
                                      **
**Total reported emissions are less than 0.05 million metric tons CO2e.
Data Source: http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgrp-2014-underground-coal-mines
Underground coal mining falls within the "Other Sectors" category, and when you combine all the industries that are small contributors into this category, it represents 142.4 million metric tons CO2e or 4.4 percent of the overall CO2e emissions of 3.2 billion metric tons of CO2e. This is an insignificant proportion of overall emissions. It makes little sense to burden an industry with an increase cost of the over 300 percent to accommodate "improved consistency" when there are other more reasonable approaches.
For example, one approach would be to utilize the knowledge of variances based on the VAM studies at three underground mines.[2] This data permits the calculation of ranges for the underground coal industry and will, given the insignificant contribution in comparison to total releases, eliminate the financial burden that the proposed rule will impose on the industry. We encourage EPA, to adopt this common sense approach rather than impose on the industry another financial burden of limited value.
Should EPA decide to proceed with this rulemaking we encourage the agency to consider its own Data Quality Objectives Process (DQO) developed to "ensure quality assurance (QA) requirements for Agency environmental data collection activities."[3] The DQO process is a series of logical steps and a decision-making tool that guides agencies and the regulated community to understand how large a dataset is needed to answer a specific environmental management question or questions.
DQO provides a measuring tool to determine if data variability, a concern upon which the revisions to Subpart FF are premised, will improve the quality of the decision. Step 1 is to know what question you are trying to answer. Simply assuming "more data granularity would be better" is not a question that needs answering. A question such as "how many data points (samples) from a given data population do I need in order to understand, within a XX percent confidence interval, the total emissions of methane from any given underground mine, considering also such external factors in the population as regionality, production changes, pressure effects, etc." would be more appropriate. First understanding the question one is trying to answer, and why, and the degree of certainty needed around that answer, is the absolute first step. EPA has not demonstrated that this "need for increased granularity" is answering a specific question. We contend the draft rule is simply serving a "feel good" instinct for more data that has no basis in science or environmental statistics.
In the absence of a clear question and a statistical basis we see no justifiable purpose for requiring increased sampling frequency from what is currently required. As EPA's own guidance states, "Use of the DQO Process leads to efficient and effective expenditure of resources; consensus on the type, quality, and quantity of data needed to meet the project goal..."[4] EPA needs a stated "project goal" for this additional data collection requirement. We have serious doubts that the proposed revisions will provide substantially improved knowledge of the total emissions of methane from underground mines, especially when considering the immaterial contribution of GHGs from the UG coal mining sector relative to all other regulated sectors. The currently stated objective does not justify the increased requirements, and EPA has put forth no effort to statistically justify the need for additional data density in these terms. Bottom line...as EPA itself acknowledges, any additional data, of specific types and quality, must be justified based on the question needing answered. This proposed rule fails that fundamental premise.
Footnotes:
(1) http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgrp-2014-reported-data
(2) Ruby Canyon Engineering "Evaluation Possible VAM Emissions Estimation Errors Based On Different Sampling Intervals (Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly)": June 10, 2015
(3) Data Quality Objectives Process for Superfund, Publication 9355.9-01FS, EPA/540/F-93/043
(4) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/guidance_systematic_planning_dqo_process.pdf
Response: EPA has decided not to finalize the proposed rule change that would have eliminated MSHA quarterly reports as an accepted monitoring method under 40 CFR 98.324(b). See Section III.R.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information. The EPA is also not making any changes to the rule regarding the frequency of required monitoring from quarterly to monthly for those mines using grab samples. In the preamble to the proposed rule (81 FR 2566), we sought comment on increasing the sampling frequency for reporters using grab samples from quarterly to monthly in order to provide more accurate and reliable data. We specifically asked for commenters to submit studies, data, and background information demonstrating multi-year ventilation air methane monitoring that is more frequent than quarterly.  No commenters provided additional data or information to support changes to the monitoring frequency, therefore no such changes are being made to the rule at this time.
EPA also wishes to address the comments regarding the coal industry's contribution to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the coal industry is an insignificant contributor to the U.S. total. Coal mines are the fourth largest source of methane, a key contributing greenhouse gas with a Global Warming Potential 25 times greater than CO2. Moreover, as individual point sources, coal mines can be very large emitters. In 2014, 128 reporting mines emitted 43 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2), with average greenhouse gas emissions per facility of 336,000 MtCO2 per year. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Laura M. Goldfarb, Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson
Commenter Affiliation:  Arcelor Mittal Princeton
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0061
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: Increased sampling frequency from quarterly to monthly will be an unnecessary burden.
EPA is "seeking comment on increasing the sampling frequency for reporters using grab samples from quarterly to monthly In order to provide more accurate and reliable data." EPA notes that "[c]urrently, mines that monitor methane liberation from grab samples must take at least one grab sample per quarter for each ventilation monitoring point (40 CFR 98.324(b)(1)), and report methane liberation on a quarterly basis." Mine specific daily and weekly data sets show that significant day-to-day and week-to-week variation in methane emissions can occur depending on operating and geologic conditions at a mine.
The fluctuating measurements cited by EPA as a basis for its proposal can be overcome using far more efficient methods than the burdensome additional sampling requirements proposed by the Agency. ArcelorMittal suggests the return on investment in resources used for additional sampling is insufficient to justify EPA imposing this unnecessary burden on operators. For example, in order to collect its own grab samples instead of using the current MSHA ventilation data, the company would have to invest significant financial resources to:
 Develop sampling plan/written protocols per 98.324(b)(l) procedure for grab sampling (based on MSHA PH-08-V-1) to develop procedures)
 Train appropriate personnel (or possibly hire and train a new employee depending on the volume of work to be performed) (labor$ to train and manage)
 Perform monthly sampling at each ventilation point, the same points MSHA currently measures, and collect the following each time: 
 Date & location
 Flow
 Temperature
 Pressure
 Moisture
 Methane concentration (percent)
 Submit for lab analysis by GC (ASTM 01945-03 or other per 98.324(d)(l)). Note that Method 25A (portable flame ionization analyzer) can be used to measure samples in the field but triplicate samples are needed and more detailed procedures apply (plus possibly needing to purchase or rent an instrument).
 Review reports and compile data (this step is basically the same as for using the MSHA ventilation data)
Arcelor believes that requiring this process is unnecessary and overly burdensome on operators given available alternative data collection and verification methods. ArcelorMittal also asserts that these proposed costs will have significant impacts on the already strained financial condition facing it and many other coal mining companies.
As an alternative to the proposal, EPA should consider having reporters sample on a quarterly basis and at major ventilation plan changes, and urges EPA to include such an option in the final rule.
Response: EPA has decided not to finalize a proposed rule change that would have eliminated MSHA quarterly reports as an accepted monitoring method under 40 CFR 98.324(b). See Section III.R.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information. The EPA is also not making any changes to the rule regarding the frequency of required monitoring from quarterly to monthly for those mines using grab samples. In the preamble to the proposed rule (81 FR 2566), we sought comment on increasing the sampling frequency for reporters using grab samples from quarterly to monthly in order to provide more accurate and reliable data. We specifically asked for commenters to submit studies, data, and background information demonstrating multi-year ventilation air methane monitoring that is more frequent than quarterly.  No commenters provided additional data or information to support changes to the monitoring frequency, therefore no such changes are being made to the rule at this time.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Bruce Watzman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0051
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: We understand EPA's reasoning that increasing sampling frequency will facilitate less variability and more consistency in quality of data. However, there is a more practical approach to ensuring quality data and consistency. Specifically, EPA can improve accuracy utilizing VAM variance data to calculate the emission range instead of requiring additional sampling. The comparison evaluation of estimated emissions using the quarterly data along with the VAM variances is most simpler, less costly, and probably with a + or  -  5 percent accuracy of actual data collected. This approach would enable EPA to more accurately capture the potential emissions based on quarterly sample results. Also this approach eliminates additional and unnecessary sampling and the increased costs that would be imposed to calculate a reasonable number of CO2e emissions for the underground coal mine sector. Overall, the CO2e emissions that are being emitted underground combined with the variance ranges from the VAM evaluation will result in a more appropriate calculation of the potential based on EPA's research. This is a more practical and reasonable approach when you consider the minor impact that underground coal mining is having on the 1.3 percent of the overall CO2e emissions. It makes no sense to collect this additional information through increased sampling when the overall emissions added to the big picture in unnoticeable. NMA urges EPA to apply the quarterly estimated measurements using the VAM variances instead of the actual monthly measurements.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0061, Excerpt 5. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments on Subpart FF Issues not proposed
Commenter Name:  Laura M. Goldfarb, Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson
Commenter Affiliation:  Arcelor Mittal Princeton
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0061
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Although comments were not specifically requested on this Issue, ArcelorMittal believes that the reporting threshold for subpart FF of 36,500,000 cubic feet of CH4/year is not appropriate. Mining industry emissions reports appear to be dominated by a small group of large emitters. ArcelorMittal suggests that operators of lesser emitting mines are being unnecessarily drawn into the subpart FF reporting program because of the arbitrarily chosen reporting threshold. For example, ArcelorMittal contributes approximately .06% of total emissions (based on prior reporting), and yet it is treated the same as higher-emitting mines. ArcelorMittal therefore urges EPA to establish the reporting threshold at a level that will still require large emitters to report but will not burden smaller emitting mine operators with the same reporting requirements.
Response: Because EPA did not solicit comment on changes to the reporting threshold, EPA did not consider whether to change that threshold in the final rule. The decision to establish the threshold at 36.5 million cubic feet per year was explained in the final rule adopted in 2010 (75 FR 39736). 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart HH
Improve Quality: Request for comment on option for reporters to use either an area-weighted average or a volume-weighted average approach to determine collection efficiency
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: The Agency seeks comments on whether revisions should be made to Table HH-3 to allow landfill owner/operators to determine weighted average collection efficiency using the current area-based approach, a volume-based approach, the option of using either approach, or the requirement to use one of the two approaches based on unspecified landfill characteristics. EPA poses a question in the preamble whether reporters should be given the option to calculate collection efficiency. (81 FR 2568)
We first want to address this question by stating our unequivocal support for maintaining the ability for reporters to calculate a weighted-average collection efficiency value for each landfill using an area-based approach. Landfill reporters have used this methodology since the inception of the GHG Reporting Program (GHGRP). EPA adopted the methodology based upon a review of substantial, peer-reviewed scientific data supporting the approach. EPA did this to enhance the accuracy of GHG emissions estimates by incorporating actual site-specific data about the type of landfill cover employed. This allows the GHGRP to go beyond simple modeling using default values, and results in improved emission estimates through use of site-specific values for calculating collection efficiency. The Agency would undermine the quality of the GHGRP data and its usefulness in enhancing the U.S. GHG Inventory data if it were to disallow use of the area-weighted average collection efficiency.
WM has carefully considered the potential impacts of switching from an area-based to a volume-based approach for calculating collection efficiency. Our primary concern is that the volume-based approach has no basis in the peer-reviewed scientific literature as underpins EPA's development of the current collection efficiency calculation. Waste depth and refuse volume were not parameters considered in the peer-reviewed studies, so their effect on collection efficiency is undetermined. We thus see no rationale for using a volume-based approach in the absence of peer-reviewed studies that establish a causal relationship between collection efficiency and refuse volume. Absent such an essential technical basis for establishing a volume-based approach, we recommend that the Agency maintain the current area-based method for calculating collection efficiency. 
Reporters subject to the GHG MRR have been using the area-based approach since 2010, and have become familiar with collecting the required data and completing the necessary calculations. Moreover, EPA has not provided any analysis or data to show that any change to this approach will improve landfill emission estimates. In fact, by introducing additional variables into the emission calculations that have not undergone review by the scientific community, EPA may actually increase the uncertainty of the landfill emissions estimates rather than improve their accuracy.
We also are concerned the EPA will prescribe the use of one or the other method based on site characteristics that the Agency has yet to specify. Moreover, it is unclear whether EPA would require additional documentation to support use of the volume-based approach. Since the Agency has neither identified specific landfill characteristics for determining use of the "appropriate" collection efficiency method, nor the scientific basis for doing so, implementation of this new approach will very likely cause confusion for reporters while increasing uncertainty in the estimates.
Based on our analysis of utilizing the two approaches in calculating collection efficiency, we see no appreciable benefit to revising the current methodology, are concerned it will increase the uncertainty of the estimates, and see no technical or scientific basis for using a volume-based approach. WM, therefore, recommends continuing sole use of the area-based method for calculating collection efficiency. 
Response: EPA is not finalizing proposed revisions to the method to calculate the gas collection efficiency, thus reporters will continue to be required to use the current area-based approach as defined in Table HH-3. See Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: Area-based vs. volume-based weighting collection efficiency
EPA is seeking comment on whether revisions should be made to Table HH - 3 to allow landfill owners or operators to determine the weighted average collection efficiency for their landfill using an area-based weighting approach, a volume-based weighting approach, whether reporters should have the option of using either approach, or if one approach should be required if certain landfill characteristics are met.
EPA initially selected the area-based approach to improve GHG emissions estimates by incorporating site-specific cover data. The site-specific data improves emissions estimates over simply modeling emissions using default values. Our members support maintaining the ability to calculate a weighted average collection efficiency value using the area-based approach.
EPA notes that reporters have stated the area-based approach might not accurately reflect the overall efficiency of the gas collection system due to differences in waste depth or age of waste. We are concerned EPA has not identified site-specific characteristics for determining when a volume-based approach should be used, the information and process for determining a volume-based collection efficiency, or the scientific basis for using such an approach. Without first developing this essential information, we believe this new approach will simply cause confusion for reporters and may undermine the accuracy of emissions estimation.
Further, unlike the area-based approach, the volume-based approach is not based on any peer-reviewed scientific literature. Waste depth and refuse volume were not factors evaluated in the research underpinning the area-based approach, so their effect is unknown. Given that, we see no technical basis for changing the approach for calculating collection efficiency. Therefore, NWRA and SWANA recommend maintaining the area-based approach and eliminating any requirement for these reporters to include average waste depth, as this data element is not used in emissions calculations.
Response: EPA is not finalizing proposed revisions to the method to calculate the gas collection efficiency, thus reporters will continue to be required to use the current area-based approach as defined in Table HH-3. See Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Improve Quality: Revisions to include alternative final covers in area type A5 (Table HH-3) 
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: The Agency proposes to broaden the description of landfill areas in Table HH-3 to allow final covers that do not meet the exact language in the definition for area type A5 to use the 95% collection efficiency in their emissions calculations. WM supports this proposal, but recommends clarifying language to avoid ambiguity. The federal and state regulatory frameworks for landfills (Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), state solid waste rules) commonly use three terms to define landfill cover: daily cover, intermediate cover and final cover. States are required to approve final covers that that [sic]meet federal performance requirements, or requirements that are at least as stringent. RCRA authorizes States to approve final covers with designs or materials that differ from the federal performance requirements as long as the state determines that they are equally protective. As EPA noted in the preamble, these landfills may not meet the exact description of area type 5A, but they are approved by state regulatory agencies as meeting or exceeding federal performance requirements. It is therefore appropriate that these final covers also qualify to use the 95% collection efficiency.
These covers are typically called, simply, "final covers," and so to ensure that GHG MRR terminology closely tracks that of RCRA Subtitle D and implementing state regulations, we recommend EPA define "final cover" as opposed to "alternative final cover" as it proposes. This would have the advantage of clearly defining all the cover types that are used in GHG MRR emissions calculations. We therefore suggest the following definition of final cover to be used in lieu of the proposed "alternative final cover" definition. 
Final cover means materials used at a landfill that meets final closure regulations of the competent federal, state, or local authority.
We also suggest corresponding edits to Tables HH-3 and HH-4 to comport with the new definition and have included these suggested changes in Attachment A of our comments.
[Note: The commenter submitted a revised version of Tables HH-3 and Tables HH-4 in Appendix A. See DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049 for additional details.]
Response: EPA is finalizing a definition of final cover in 40 CFR 98.348 instead of the proposed definition of "alternative final cover" with minor edits to Tables HH-3 and HH-4. See Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: EPA proposes to broaden the description of landfill areas in Table HH-3 to allow final covers that do not meet the exact language in the definition for area type A5 to use the 95% collection efficiency in their emissions calculations. While NWRA and SWANA support this proposal, we recommend that EPA add a definition for final cover, which would include alternative covers that meet federal requirements and are approved by state regulatory authorities. We recommend the following language:
"Final cover means materials used at a landfill that meets final closure regulations of the competent federal, state, or local authority."
We have also made suggested clarifying edits to Tables HH-3 and HH-4, which are consistent with the new definition as well as the suggested usage of only area-based weighting. The suggested changes are included in Attachment A.
[Note: The commenter submitted a revised version of Tables HH-3 and Tables HH-4 in Appendix A. See DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057 for additional details.]
Response: EPA is finalizing a definition of final cover in 40 CFR 98.348 with minor edits to Tables HH-3 and HH-4. See Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Ted Michaels 
Commenter Affiliation:  Energy Recovery Council (ERC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: The EPA has proposed to expand the types of covers which can claim a 95 percent collection efficiency without providing any data to document the ability of these covers to attain or sustain this level of performance. This is especially problematic in that a 95% collection efficiency is not supported by the agency's own research and the consensus default arrived by a group of experts and stakeholders convened by the U.S. EPA at a Landfill Gas Experts Meeting held in October 2014.[2,3] The EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM) uses 90% collection efficiency for final covers.[4]
Even 90% is likely too high. The California Air Resources Board, having implemented far more stringent landfill gas control regulations than those in the current federal landfill emission guidelines, has determined that they can achieve an instantaneous gas collection efficiency of 83%, after final cap and cover.[5] Measured methane emissions from the Puente Hills landfill, a well-managed landfill with a 6 foot think clay cap located in a dry climate, fully in compliance with the CARB requirements, were indicative of a 73% collection efficiency.[6]  Use of an overly optimistic collection efficiency figure results in an under-reporting of landfill gas emissions which could lead to landfills not receiving the policy focus needed to ensure a low carbon future.
Footnotes:
(2) U.S. EPA (2012) Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r12003.html
(3) See p.5 of Levis, J. & Barlaz, M.A. (2014) Landfill Gas Monte Carol Model Documentation and Results. http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/pdfs/lanfl_gas_mont_carlo_modl.pdf.
(4) See Exhibit 7‐9 of U.S. EPA (2015) Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM).
(5) California Air Resources Board (CARB 2009), Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Regulation to Reduce Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Appendix D: Evaluation of Landfill Gas Collection Efficiency, May 2009. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/landfills09/isor.pdf
(6) Peischl et al. estimated emissions from the Puente Hills Landfill to be 34 Gg / yr, comparable to the 2008 CARB inventory value of 38.8 Gg / yr. When the measured emissions of the Puente Hills landfill are compared against published data on landfill gas collection at the site [Shan et al. (2012) Estimation of Landfill Gas Emissions and Collection System Efficiency Using Surface Flux Chamber Technology  -  A Case Study of Puente Hills Landfill, SWANA 35th Annual Landfill Gas Symposium Proceedings.], the overall abatement efficiency inclusive of the effects of soil oxidation is 74.7%. Assuming soil oxidation of 10%, the resultant collection efficiency is 73%.
Response: The proposed revision referenced by the commenter was to add the term "alternative final cover." However, as discussed in Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule, Subpart HH is amended in the final rule to include a definition of final cover, rather than alternative final cover, and final cover is defined as materials used at a landfill that meet the final closure regulations of the relevant federal, state, or local authority. The relevant federal, state, or local authority approves the composition and design of a final cover, after considering documentation provided by the regulated entity showing that the final cover demonstrates the required performance (as defined in the RCRA requirements for MSW landfills). If the relevant authority determines that a final cover will meet the applicable requirements, the same collection efficiency should apply. 
With regard to the general comment that the 95% collection efficiency is not supported currently in the rule, EPA did not solicit comment on this topic and it is therefore outside of scope for this rulemaking. Please see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0127 page 183, excerpt 6 for previous discussion of this topic.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Gilman 
Commenter Affiliation:  Covanta
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0034
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: The EPA has proposed to expand the types of covers which can claim a 95 percent collection efficiency without providing any data to document the ability of these covers to attain or sustain this level of performance. This is especially problematic in that a 95% collection efficiency is not supported by the agency's own research and the consensus default arrived by a group of experts and stakeholders convened by the U.S. EPA at a Landfill Gas Experts Meeting held in October 2014.[2,3] The EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM) uses 90% collection efficiency for final covers.[4]
Even 90% is likely too high. The California Air Resources Board, having implemented far more stringent landfill gas control regulations than those in the current federal landfill emission guidelines, has determined that they can achieve an instantaneous gas collection efficiency of 83%, after final cap and cover.[5]  Measured methane emissions from the Puente Hills landfill, a well-managed landfill with a 6 foot think [sic] clay cap located in a dry climate, fully in compliance with the CARB requirements, were indicative of a 73% collection efficiency.6 Use of an overly optimistic collection efficiency figure results in an under-reporting of landfill gas emissions which could lead to landfills not receiving the policy focus needed to ensure a low carbon future.
Footnotes:
(2) U.S. EPA (2012) Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r12003.html
(3) See p.5 of Levis, J. & Barlaz, M.A. (2014) Landfill Gas Monte Carol Model Documentation and Results. http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/pdfs/lanfl_gas_mont_carlo_modl.pdf.
(4) See Exhibit 7‐9 of U.S. EPA (2015) Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM).
(5) California Air Resources Board (CARB 2009), Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Regulation to Reduce Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Appendix D: Evaluation of Landfill Gas Collection Efficiency, May 2009. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/landfills09/isor.pdf
(6) Peischl et al. estimated emissions from the Puente Hills Landfill to be 34 Gg / yr, comparable to the 2008 CARB inventory value of 38.8 Gg / yr. When the measured emissions of the Puente Hills landfill are compared against published data on landfill gas collection at the site [Shan et al. (2012) Estimation of Landfill Gas Emissions and Collection System Efficiency Using Surface Flux Chamber Technology  -  A Case Study of Puente Hills Landfill, SWANA 35th Annual Landfill Gas Symposium Proceedings.], the overall abatement efficiency inclusive of the effects of soil oxidation is 74.7%. Assuming soil oxidation of 10%, the resultant collection efficiency is 73%.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033, Excerpt 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: Covanta and ERC commented that EPA should lower the collection efficiency value for area type A5 from 95% to 90%. They asserted that such a change would align the value with "current scientific consensus."  However, the value is already in line with scientific consensus as reported in the peer-reviewed literature and studies on LFG collection efficiency. Many of these articles and studies were included in the references supplied to EPA by SWICS (2008), which informed the range of values for collection efficiency reporters may employ under Subpart HH. Furthermore, the "scientific consensus" Covanta refers to is a stakeholder process EPA used to obtain advice about updating its Waste Reduction Model (WARM). EPA, however, advises against use of the WARM model for GHG inventory purposes, and provides an explicit disclaimer to using it for annual or any other type of inventory of emissions.[10] The conclusions made in the SWICS report remain valid, and are supported by more recent field studies of whole landfill emissions, which suggest that the range of LFG collection efficiencies for final covers range from 90-99%. 
When developing Subpart HH, EPA selected the mid-range value of 95% to represent the average collection efficiency for final covers across the U.S. and selected the mid-range value for other cover types. WM supports the continued use of the 95% value final covers as it is well supported by the literature and field measurements; we have seen no data to suggest that this value should be changed. We do note that by applying a single default value for final covers, this prevents a landfill from ever improving its collection efficiency by making improvements to its GCCS. As Barlaz et al. 2009 concluded, "If emissions were to be calculated based on gas collected and a set gas collection efficiency... [as in the GHG MRR] then the calculated emissions would increase with the volume of gas collected when in fact, emissions decrease as more gas is collected.[11] Therefore, use of a single default for each cover type in Subpart HH may result in an overestimate of GHG emissions for those landfills, particularly those with final covers and very comprehensive GCCS. However, WM understands the Agency's goals of both scientific validity and ease of administration, and continues to support the 95% value for final covers.
Footnotes:
(10) "This [WARM] life-cycle approach is not appropriate for use in inventories because of the diffuse nature of the emissions and emission reductions within a single emission factor."  U.S. EPA, Subsection Note to Waste Reduction Model, (WARM), https://www3.epa.gov/warm/index.html (last updated Feb. 23, 2016).
(11) Barlaz, M., Chanton, J., Green, R., 2009, Controls on Landfill Gas Collection Efficiency: Instantaneous and Lifetime Performance, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 59: 1399-1404
Response: EPA did not solicit comment on a revision to the 95% collection efficiency for landfills with final covers meeting the criteria for area type A5 in Table HH-3 and therefore this comment is outside of scope for this rulemaking. The revision that was proposed for A5, was to add the term "alternative final cover." However, as discussed in Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule, Subpart HH is amended in the final rule to include a definition of final cover, rather than alternative final cover, and final cover is defined as materials used at a landfill that meet the final closure regulations of the relevant federal, state, or local authority. See comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033, Excerpt 3 for the comment response this commenter mentioned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: Covanta, a major waste-to-energy service provider, and the Energy Recovery Council (ERC), the trade association representing the waste-to-energy industry, have provided comments on the proposed changes. In particular, they suggest the collection efficiency included in the rule is too high, by citing work done by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the example of Puente Hills Landfill. They state that CARB determined the instantaneous gas collection efficiency was only 83% after final cap and cover.
In fact, the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) developed a method to determine landfill gas collection efficiency utilizing actual landfill integrated surface gas monitoring data combined with air dispersion modeling. This method, which was termed the ISM/ISC methodology, was first reported in a study evaluating landfill gas collection efficiency at LACSD's Palos Verdes Landfill in 2006.[1] In 2007, LACSD repeated the landfill gas collection efficiency study after further enhancements were made to the Palos Verdes Landfill collection system.[2] However, this study was accompanied by a field study to directly measure fugitive emissions from the landfill through the use of flux chambers. This study verified the effectiveness of the landfill gas collection system enhancements by increasing the calculated landfill gas collection efficiency to over 99%, but more importantly, the ISM/ISC methodology was field verified using flux chambers. This study was conducted with the oversight of the State of California Department of Toxics Substance Control.
During the development of its regulation to reduce methane emissions from solid waste landfills, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) reached out to LACSD for help in calculating landfill gas collection efficiency for well-controlled landfills. LACSD's staff briefed CARB on the ISM/ISC methodology, which CARB adopted for use in its rule for determining the effectiveness of state-of-the-art landfill gas collection systems. However, CARB staff made a number of modifications to the LACSD approach that effectively lowered the expected landfill gas collection efficiency in its 2007 study to below 85%, which conflicted with the field-verified ISM/ISC methodology. LACSD outlined in a letter to Ms. Mary Nichols (Chair, California Air Resources Board)[3] in great detail why the CARB approach was inappropriate, however, CARB still proceeded with its very conservative approach.
Covanta's letter failed to recognize the conservative nature of the 83% calculation (actually, CARB used 85% in the CARB Staff Report cited by Covanta) compared to the original approach provided by LACSD. In addition, Covanta indicated in error that the collection efficiency was applied "after final cap and cover." In fact, Table IV-3, Estimated Methane Emission Reductions, of the CARB Staff Report cited by Covanta, applies an 85% collection efficiency to 106 landfills without consideration of whether sites had a final cap and cover.
Covanta further contends that EPA's use of collection efficiencies, in excess of 90%, is too high, citing Puente Hills Landfills as having a 73% collection efficiency. This value appears to have been somehow calculated from studies conducted by Peischl et al.4 However, the number was not included in the actual studies.
Studies by Peischl et. al., and similar studies by Wong et. al.[5], utilize airborne and sophisticated fixed laser type measurements to derive methane emission rates. These measurements provide a gross indication of methane emissions, but generally have poor spatial resolution. Puente Hills Landfill is located in an urban area near other potential leak sources including oil and gas fields. As such, it is difficult to assign any detected methane to a particular source. Typically, follow up to the lasers are conducted with ground level detection devices to pinpoint the methane sources. This ground-truthing was not conducted by the study authors. Covanta then used this questionable data and somehow derived the 73% landfill gas collection efficiency cited in their letter.
Extensive field measurements have been taken to determine methane emission rates and landfill gas collection efficiency at Puente Hills, as well as other LACSD-operated landfills. Initial field work was conducted at the Palos Verdes Landfill2 which indicated a 99% collection efficiency, but later field work was conducted and reported in 2013[6] for the LACSD-operated Puente Hills, Calabasas and Scholl Canyon Landfills. This study used flux chambers to measure surface emissions, coupled with a comprehensive method to identify random sample locations representative of the landfill sites. The results of the published study indicated collection efficiencies of 95.9%, 94.8% and 97.2% for the Puente Hills, Calabasas, and Scholl Canyon landfills, respectively. All three of these landfills were active sites at the time of the study. Therefore, we recommend that EPA utilize the proposed collection efficiencies.
Footnotes:
(1) Huitric, R. and D. Kong (2006) "Measuring landfill gas collection efficiency using surface methane concentrations", Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) 29th Landfill Gas Symposium, St. Petersburg, FL.
(2) Huitric, R., D. Kong, L. Scales, S. Maguin, and P. Sullivan (2007) "Field comparison of landfill gas collection efficiency measurements", Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) 30th Landfill Gas Symposium, Monterey, CA.
(3) Caponi, F. (May 22, 2009). Letter to Ms. Mary Nichols, Comments on the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Regulation To Reduce Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Appendix D  -  Evaluation of Landfill Gas Collection Efficiency. 
(4) Peischl et al. (2013) Quantifying sources of methane using light alkanes in the Los Angeles basin, California, J. Geophys Res., Vol 118, 1-17.)
(5) Wong et al. (2015) Mapping CH4:CO2 ratios in Los Angeles with CLARS-FTS from Mount Wilson, California, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 241-252. (6) Shan, et al. (2013) "Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Three Southern California Landfill Sites", Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) 36th Landfill Gas Symposium.

Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049, Excerpt 7. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Other Amendments: Revision of soil cover requirements and definition of intermediate or interim soil cover (Table HH-4) 
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: WM commends EPA for granting our Petition for Reconsideration by revising Table HH-4 in Subpart HH of the GHG MRR to remove the condition that "flux dependent soil oxidation fractions" may be used only by landfills with at least 24 inches of soil cover over a majority of the landfill area containing waste. (81 FR 2569) EPA proposes to replace the 24-inch soil cover requirement with a prerequisite that landfills using flux dependent soil oxidation fractions (also referred to as the "binned approach") must have "intermediate or interim soil cover" as defined by a given state[1] over 50% or more of the landfill area containing waste. WM believes this approach will allow landfills with actual methane oxidation fractions greater than 10% to report more accurately their GHG emission rates. Furthermore, the proposed change is consistent with numerous studies and field data that clearly demonstrate that depth of soil cover is not a significant variable influencing methane flux rates at MSW landfills.
EPA has acknowledged that the revision to Table HH-4 is in response to WM's Petition for Reconsideration and that the 2015 Revisions are meant to "complete [EPA's] response to" WM's petition. (81 FR 2569) We are pleased with the Agency's response to our petition.
Footnotes:
(1) In the event that a landfill is located in a state that has not defined "intermediate or interim soil" cover, EPA has proposed that a landfill must have a minimum of 12 inches of soil cover to use an oxidation fraction of 0.25 or 0.35. 81 Fed. Reg. at 2569-70. 
Response: EPA acknowledges this supportive comment and is finalizing the proposed revisions. As stated in section III.S.1.c of the preamble to the final rule, the EPA is completing its response to the Petition for Reconsideration through this final rulemaking. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: While there exists a strong technical foundation of peer-reviewed literature for the proposal to remove the 24-inch soil cover requirement, EPA has an opportunity to strengthen the scientific basis for its proposal in the Final Rule. WM believes that the technical arguments and rationale for the revision to Table HH-4 in both the preamble to the 2015 Revisions and EPA's technical support memorandum entitled "Review of Oxidation Studies and Associated Cover Depth in the Peer-Reviewed Literature" (RTI Memo) are buttressed by clear scientific support for removing the 24-inch soil cover requirement. Nonetheless, EPA should confirm in the preamble discussion to the final rule that depth of soil cover is not the sole, or master variable for determining methane flux.
In explaining the grant of WM's Petition for Reconsideration, EPA states in the preamble that EPA "re-evaluated the available peer-reviewed literature (27 studies) at the time of proposal regarding soil oxidation fractions." (81 FR 2569) EPA then states that based on this review it "found that 85 percent of the data points in the literature where both methane oxidized and cover depth were reported had a cover depth of 24 inches or more." (81 FR 2569) According to EPA, "this investigation confirmed that the vast majority of the soil oxidation studies were performed on landfills with cover depths of 24 inches or more, which was the basis for the 24 inch soil cover requirement in the 2013 Rule." (81 FR 2569) EPA further explains, however, that several of the studies that EPA re-evaluated "indicated that a majority of the soil oxidation occurs in the top 12 to 15 inches of the soil cover." (81 FR 2569) According to EPA, "some of the data support the idea that the bulk of the oxidation may occur in the top 12 to 15 inches of soil," but that "it is unclear whether these soils would have had similar oxidation rates if only 12 to 15 inches of soil cover were present." (81 FR 2569)
EPA's characterization of the soil oxidation studies still overstates the significance of depth of soil cover as a possible factor influencing methane oxidation, as the relevant peer-reviewed studies in the record do not suggest that there is any correlation between depth of soil cover and methane flux. Stakeholders could view the Agency's focus on the measurements where both cover depth and oxidation rates are reported (a minority of the relevant data), to mean that the oxidation studies identified depth of soil cover as a significant variable influencing methane oxidation, which they did not. Given that the best available science does not support a conclusion that depth of soil cover influences methane oxidation, EPA should consider bolstering its decision to replace the 24-inch soil cover requirement with intermediate or interim soil cover, by more comprehensively describing the underlying literature when it finalizes the 2015 Revisions. 
In proposing the binned approach, EPA relied on the methane oxidation studies set forth in the SWICS addendum entitled, "SWICS 2.2 Methane Oxidation Addendum 2012," included in the docket for the 2013 Rule at Docket I.D. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0088 (the "SWICS Addendum"). Table 2 in the SWICS Addendum lists 95 measurements. In its Petition for Reconsideration, WM emphasized that only 32 of those 95 measurements even reference depth of soil cover, and do so without opining on its relative influence on oxidation. Further, the authors of the majority of the SWICS Addendum studies did not consider cover depth to be a relevant factor influencing methane oxidation, as they failed to include such information. Although the remaining third of measurements referenced cover depth, the authors of those studies did not consider cover depth alone as a factor influencing methane oxidation, but rather listed a range of other factors that influence methane oxidation rates. 
Though two-thirds of the data points listed in the SWICS Addendum did not consider depth of soil cover a significant enough variable to warrant mention, the preamble to the 2015 Revisions focuses on only those data points, "where both methane oxidized and cover depth were reported."  The Agency does so without noting the fact that most authors of the methane oxidation studies do not consider cover depth to be a relevant factor influencing methane oxidation rates. (81 FR 2569) Furthermore, where study authors report soil cover depth, they include it as only one of a range of factors that may influence methane oxidation. 
Thus, the relevant scientific data makes clear that soil cover depth is an inappropriate prerequisite for use of the binned approach. Therefore, EPA should not overemphasize the importance of the small minority of measurements; especially considering that suggestions that cover depth and methane oxidation are related is inconsistent with the scientific record. In the preamble to the final rule, EPA should more clearly state that the scientific record does not support 24 inches of soil cover as a reasonable and scientifically-sound prerequisite for use of the binned approach. 
Response: While EPA has not adopted the commenter's specific suggestions, we have provided further explanation in section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule regarding the final revisions to the rule in response to the Petition for Reconsideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: In further explaining the basis for replacing the 24-inch soil cover requirement with intermediate or interim soil cover, EPA directs readers to review the RTI Memo in the rule docket, which provides additional detail on the review of the soil oxidation literature. (81 FR 2569, EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0008) The RTI Memo correctly notes that methane oxidation rates are influenced by a number of variables including: (1) "The flow velocity of landfill gas, or the methane flux, through the soil surface"; (2) "The porosity of the soil layer"; (3) "The number and types of microorganisms in the surface soil layer"; and (4) "The soil surface temperature and moisture, which may increase or inhibit microbial activity." (RTI Memo at 1). EPA rightly considered these factors when it proposed the original binned approach on April 2, 2013 and did not propose a minimum soil cover requirement. (78 FR 19802) At that time, EPA correctly noted that the "methane flux rate entering the soil layer" is the "key variable" for determining methane oxidation. (78 FR 19825) As a result, EPA proposed "[t]hree different default oxidation fractions depending on the methane flux bin." (RTI Memo at 2) RTI explains that the original binned approach was meant to "provide a more realistic estimate of the role of methane oxidation in the surface soil on the methane emissions than the single default oxidation fraction" of 10%. (RTI Memo at 2)
EPA's original proposal for the binned approach would have allowed any MSW landfill to take advantage of the larger oxidation fractions depending on site-specific methane flux rates. However, RTI explains that the 24-inch soil cover requirement was subsequently added as a response to a comment from the Center for a Competitive Waste Industry ("CCWI"), which noted that "`oxidation only occurs in landfill covers that are comprised only of soil (with the necessary depth, porosity, temperature and microbes), and not through composite covers that include a low permeable geomembrane.'" (RTI Memo at 2) Though CCWI did not comment directly on the binned approach, and made no suggestion as to an appropriate depth of soil cover, RTI states that the "24 inch soil cover depth requirement was a logical outgrowth of these comments."[2] (RTI Memo at 2) 
After describing the basis for the 24-inch soil cover requirement, the RTI Memo lists the steps taken by RTI in response to WM's Petition for Reconsideration. RTI explains that to evaluate WM's proposal to remove the 24-inch soil cover requirement RTI:
Gathered copies of all studies explicitly mentioned by WM in their petition;
Compiled information on the fraction of methane oxidized, soil cover type, and/or depth in the studies included in the WM petition as well as the studies included in SWICS 2012;
Reviewed each study to verify that all quotations cited in the petition were direct quotes; and
Determined if any additional information in the cited studies contradicts or supports the quotes used in the petition.
 (RTI Memo at 4.) In conducting its analysis, RTI reviewed only 27 of the 90 peer-reviewed landfill studies that were "included in either or both the SWICS 2012 Addendum or in RTI 2011" for "soil cover depths in relation to the oxidation fraction." (RTI Memo at 5) From these 27 studies, RTI considered only 61 out of 90 measurements, including only data points, where "both an oxidation fraction and a soil cover depth" were mentioned. (RTI Memo at 5 and 14) Neither EPA in the preamble to the 2015 Revisions, nor RTI explains why the review comprised only data points reporting both cover depth and methane oxidized. 
Based on its review, RTI explains that "85% (or 52 of 61) of the data points gathered from these studies . . . had a cover depth of 24 inches or above." (RTI Memo at 15) RTI further explains that 15 of the 27 peer-reviewed studies consulted by RTI were cited in the WM Petition for Reconsideration in support of its proposal to remove the 24-inch soil cover requirement, and that "[o]f these 15 studies, 14 were conducted at landfills and 13 (93%) of these included an average cover depth of 24 inches or greater." (RTI Memo at 15) 
The RTI Memo fails to acknowledge that WM conducted a detailed review of the 15 studies cited in its petition, and described the authors' conclusions. Many authors concluded that varieties of site-specific factors influence methane oxidation, and that oxidation primarily occurs in the upper part of the cover, close to the surface of the landfill. Several of the studies did not even calculate methane oxidation at depths below 30 to 45 cm (15 to 18 inches) (WM Petition for Reconsideration at 18). Such findings are consistent with the fact that the atmosphere above the cover supplies the oxygen necessary for methane oxidation, and as the thickness of cover increases, it can become more difficult for oxygen to penetrate deep cover depths. (WM Petition for Reconsideration at 19) The cited literature shows that methane oxidation is influenced by a number of factors other than cover depth, including climate, moisture levels, and soil characteristics (2012 SWICS Addendum at 16, WM Petition for Reconsideration at 19). Thus, no single factor influencing methane oxidation is appropriate as a prerequisite for using the binned approach. (WM Petition for Reconsideration at 19)  
Moreover, the RTI Memo fails to acknowledge that two-thirds of the measurements in the SWICS Addendum studies do not reference cover depth, thereby creating the impression that cover depth is more a significant variable affecting methane oxidation than the scientific data in the record indicates. Therefore, prior to finalizing the 2015 Revisions, the Agency should request that RTI revise its analysis to acknowledge that the scientific literature does not support cover depth as a primary factor influencing methane oxidation, and that two-thirds of the relevant measurements do not reference soil cover depths.
The RTI Memo correctly acknowledges that none of the oxidation studies "specifically investigated the optimal cover depth for methane oxidation." (RTI Memo at 15) RTI also notes, "soil cover depths were neither presented in every study reviewed, nor explicitly mentioned as an influencing variable in every study reviewed." (RTI Memo at 5) Though RTI accepts that the oxidation studies do not consider soil cover depth as a factor influencing methane oxidation, RTI nevertheless states, "[a] conclusion cannot be made that cover depth does not impact methane oxidation because a cover material of various depths was included in all measurements." (RTI Memo at 15) Elsewhere in the RTI Memo, RTI concludes, "some amount of soil cover is important for methane oxidation to occur; however the studies do not allow for a conclusion on the optimal depth of that soil cover." (RTI Memo at 5) The RTI Memo does not provide any additional detail or analysis of the amount of soil cover that is necessary for methane oxidation. 
RTI's findings, therefore, appear to be based solely on the fact that the majority of the measurements included in RTI's limited review noted depth of soil cover of 24 inches or more. Such a conclusory observation is inconsistent with the scientific record, and has the potential to create confusion regarding why EPA removed the 24-inch soil cover requirement. As WM has demonstrated in its Petition for Reconsideration, including Figure 1 contained therein,[3] there is no statistically significant correlation between cover depth and the rates of observed methane oxidation in the relevant oxidation studies. (WM Petition for Reconsideration at 16-17 and Figure 1) 
[Note: The commenter submitted Figure 1 from Chanton, 2014, which provides a representation of the depth of soil cover and methane oxidation fractions for the 32 measurements from the SWICS studies that reported cover depth. See DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0536-0049 for additional details.]
Though RTI recognizes that "the studies do not allow for a conclusion on the optimal depth of that soil cover," the RTI Memo does not comment on the lack of statistical relationship between soil cover depth and methane oxidation, a fact that should be included in RTI's discussion of cover depth and oxidation rates. (RTI Memo at 5) Moreover, the RTI Memo's conclusions regarding soil cover depth are belied by the relevant literature that RTI itself uses, as the oxidation studies show that methane oxidation is influenced by a number of factors other than cover thickness, including climate, moisture levels, and soil characteristics. (2012 SWICS Addendum at 16) The fact that no single factor influencing methane oxidation is appropriate as a prerequisite for the binned approach is lost in the RTI Memo, given its attention to cover depth at the expense of all other factors. 
Moving forward, EPA and RTI have an opportunity to strengthen the stated scientific bases for revising the binned approach to remove the 24-inch soil cover requirement by clearly concluding and stating in the final rule preamble that the scientific data in the record does not support a depth of cover prerequisite to using the binned approach. 
Footnotes:
(2) WM notes that "logical outgrowth" is a term of legal consequence, the concept being that an administrative agency does not satisfy its notice and comment obligation when an interested party could not have anticipated that a change in a final rule was possible based on the contents of the proposed rule. See Northwest Maryland Waste Disposal Authority v. EPA, F.3d 936, 951-52 (D.C. Cir. 2004). To the extent that the RTI Memo is suggesting that WM should have anticipated that EPA could or would include the 24-inch soil cover requirement in the 2013 Rule and commented accordingly, the RTI Memo misapplies the relevant case law. A final rule must be a logical outgrowth of an agency's proposal, not of the comments submitted on the proposal. Because EPA's original proposal gave no indication that EPA was considering any depth of cover requirement, the 24-inch soil cover requirement was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed 2013 Rule. For further discussion of the "logical outgrowth" requirement, see WM's Petition for Reconsideration at 11-13. In addition, for the reasons set forth at pages 9-11 of the WM Petition for Reconsideration, CCWI's comments cannot reasonably be read to have supported any cover depth requirement because such comments did not address depth of soil cover as prerequisite or direct parameter for determining methane oxidation.
(3) Figure 1, Chanton, 2014 (unpublished), was developed to provide a graphical representation of the relationship between depth of soil cover and methane oxidation fractions for the 32 measurements from the SWICS studies that reported cover depth. The graph clearly shows that there is no significant correlation between the cover depths and oxidation rates reported in those studies, as indicated by the scatter of oxidation data at almost every cover depth. A perfect correlation of r[2] = 1.0 would show the data points aligning along a trend line and would demonstrate that methane oxidation increases with depth of cover. Instead, the studies show that the value of r[2] is very low, at only 0.07. Further the p-statistic, which describes how well the data "fit" a linear relationship between oxidation and cover depth  -  as shown by the diagonal line in Figure 1  -  is 0.137. Such p value demonstrates a lack of correlation between soil depth and oxidation rate. By conventional criteria, a p value this high is considered statistically insignificant, whereas a value for p=0.05 or 1/20 chance is the standard boundary between statistical significance and statistical insignificance. 
Response: While EPA has not adopted the commenter's specific suggestions, we have provided further explanation in section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule regarding the final revisions to the rule in response to the Petition for Reconsideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Ted Michaels 
Commenter Affiliation:  Energy Recovery Council (ERC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: The EPA's proposal to effectively reduce the cover soil depth requirement to 12 inches, consistent with typical intermediate cover thickness requirements administered by the states, is not supported by the arguments presented in the preamble or the referenced literature investigation.
As the EPA observes in the preamble to the Rule proposal, "85 percent of the data points in the
literature where both methane oxidized and cover depth were reported had a cover depth of 24
inches or more." While several studies observed that a majority of soil oxidation occurs in the
top 12 to 15 inches of soil oxidation, the EPA notes that "it is unclear whether these soils would
have had similar oxidation rates if only 12 or 15 inches of soil cover were present." Furthermore,
the investigation report observed that "none of the 27 peer-reviewed studies specifically
investigated the optimal cover depth for methane oxidation."
Given that it is "unclear whether these soils would have had similar oxidation rates if only 12 or
15 inches of soil cover were present" the EPA has not presented a logical rationale for ignoring
this uncertainty and then assuming that oxidation rates over 12 inches will be equivalent to those
reported when a large majority (85%) of studies relied upon soil oxidation for the higher
collection efficiency estimates were based on cover soils at least 24 inches thick.
Response: See Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule for our response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Gilman 
Commenter Affiliation:  Covanta
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0034
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: The EPA's proposal to effectively reduce the cover soil depth requirement to 12 inches, consistent with typical intermediate cover thickness requirements administered by the states, is not supported by the arguments presented in the preamble or the referenced literature investigation.
As the EPA observes in the preamble to the Rule proposal, "85 percent of the data points in the literature where both methane oxidized and cover depth were reported had a cover depth of 24 inches or more." While several studies observed that a majority of soil oxidation occurs in the top 12 to 15 inches of soil oxidation, the EPA notes that "it is unclear whether these soils would
have had similar oxidation rates if only 12 or 15 inches of soil cover were present." Furthermore, the investigation report observed that "none of the 27 peer-reviewed studies specifically investigated the optimal cover depth for methane oxidation."
Given that it is "unclear whether these soils would have had similar oxidation rates if only 12 or 15 inches of soil cover were present" the EPA has not presented a logical rationale for ignoring this uncertainty and then assuming that oxidation rates over 12 inches will be equivalent to those reported when a large majority (85%) of studies relied upon soil oxidation for the higher
collection efficiency estimates were based on cover soils at least 24 inches thick.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033, Excerpt 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Ted Michaels 
Commenter Affiliation:  Energy Recovery Council (ERC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: Before any changes are made to the soil oxidation factors, the EPA should re-evaluate the flux-based methodology and the underlying calculations and consider returning to the 10% default in the interim.
The data upon which the flux-based methodology are based on flux chambers, which exclude certain sources of methane emissions from landfills and are generally recognized as underreporting emissions. The Rule applies a soil oxidation factor to the entire fraction of uncollected methane, assuming that all of the methane is subject to soil oxidation. However, as clearly stated in the SWICS Addendum, the emission results which are the basis of the flux-based methodology "do not include gas leaking from pipes and vents or the working face." Instead, the emission results only represent "emissions through the cover soil as determined from flux chambers."[7] This is an important consideration given that a flux box is only a nominal 2 foot by 2 foot box and that the subsurface and surface of a landfill can be highly variable. Flux chambers have been criticized by the EPA and the IPCC [8,9,10] as under-reporting emissions. Those who have used the 10% value in the past have done so in explicit recognition that the advection and diffusion of methane through a soil cap is not the only mechanism of methane emissions to the atmosphere.[11] In response to earlier proposals for elevated soil oxidation factors, the EPA concluded that "a significant portion of the landfill gas is likely to exit the landfill in a limited number of areas under much higher flow rates than other locations. These high volume flows will not have significant oxidation."[12] The EPA's observation mirrors a
similar one made by the IPCC:
      "Field and laboratory CH4 and CO2 emission concentrations and flux measurements that determine CH4 oxidation from uniform and homogeneous soil layers should not be used directly to determine the oxidation factor, since in reality, only a fraction of the CH4 generated will diffuse through such a homogeneous layer. Another fraction will escape through cracks/fissures or via lateral diffusion without being oxidised. Therefore, unless the spatial extent of measurements is wide enough and cracks/fissures are explicitly included, results from field and laboratory studies may lead to over-estimation of oxidation in SWDS cover soils." [13]
The use of soil oxidation data, with the important exception of whole plume isotope data, must be combined with another term representing the fraction of landfill methane not subject to significant soil oxidation.
In addition, the flux based methodology presumes that emissions flux is a reasonable predictor of the fraction of methane oxidized; however, emissions flux explains a relatively minor fraction of the variation seen in soil oxidation values. A linear regression of methane emissions flux (i.e. independent variable) and fraction of soil oxidation as the dependent variable from SWICS Addendum Table 2 reveals a statistically significant correlation (p<0.01), albeit one that only explains ~14% of the variation in soil oxidation fraction (R2 = 0.138). There is also a statistically significant correlation between the natural log of methane emissions flux and the non-transformed fraction of soil oxidation (p<0.01) that explains ~26% of the variation in soil
oxidation fraction. Other variables (e.g. test method, climate, temperature, rainfall prior to sampling event, cover thickness, surface wind, atmospheric pressure, soil type, soil porosity and permeability, cover age, quarterly surface monitoring results) should also be evaluated in a multivariate statistical test to ascertain their ability to predict the fraction of methane oxidation.
The SWICS Addendum provides no justification for the use of methane emissions flux as a predictor of methane oxidation over these other potential variables. In addition, a one-way ANOVA of the soil oxidation fraction grouped by test method (e.g. isotope chamber, lab column) reveals that there is a statistically significant difference between the groups (p<0.01). This is a very problematic result since it demonstrates that there are significant differences between results obtained from different measurement methodologies within the SWICS dataset.
Lastly, the SWICS Addendum incorrectly uses the arithmetic mean to characterize the central tendency of a non-normal dataset. The data presented in Table 2 of the SWICS Addendum is not normally distributed (Anderson-Darling test, p<0.005; Kolmogorov - Smirnov test, p<0.01; Ryan-Joiner test, p<0.01). In defending its use of the mean to characterize the central tendency of the data, the SWICS Addendum overgeneralizes the conclusions reached by Abichou et al. stating that the article "reported that methane oxidation values are normally distributed so mean values are an acceptable way to express the central tendencies of the data." The article actually assesses the distributions of samples collected at individual sites, not average soil oxidation values across multiple sites. Application of the geometric mean to the dataset yields a fraction of 0.29, well below the mean value of 0.38. Other researchers and the EPA have suggested that the geometric mean is more appropriate to use.[14,15]
Footnotes:
(7) See p16 of SWICS (2012).
(8) See p75 of EPA (2008) Emission Factor Documentation for AP‐42 Section 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills EPA/600/R‐08‐116
(9) See p1-1 of EPA (2012) Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste Landfills EPA/600/R-11/033
(10) See p3.15 of IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5: Waste, Chapter 3: Solid Waste Disposal.
(11) See p3.15 of IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5: Waste, Chapter 3: Solid Waste Disposal.
(12) See p56336 of US EPA (2008) Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Federal Register 74: 209, 56260  -  56519 (October 30, 2009)
(13) See p3.15 of IPCC (2006)
(14) See p56336 of US EPA (2008) Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Federal Register 74: 209, 56260  -  56519 (October 30, 2009)
(15) Amini, H.R., D. Reinhart, A. Niskanen (2013) Comparison of first‐order‐decay modeled and actual field measured municipal solid waste landfill methane data, Waste Management 33: 12 (December 2013), 2720  -  2728
Response: Regarding this suggestion that EPA re-evaluate the flux-based methodology and the underlying calculations and consider returning to the 10% default in the interim, EPA did not solicit comment on such changes in the proposed rule. The proposed revisions to Table HH-4 did not substantively revise the flux-based methodology. Previous footnote "a" to Table HH-4 was revised solely to renumber the footnote to be footnote "b," to allow new footnote "a" to be inserted. Therefore, this comment is outside of scope for this rulemaking. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Gilman 
Commenter Affiliation:  Covanta
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0034
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: 
Before any changes are made to the soil oxidation factors, the EPA should re-evaluate the flux-based methodology and the underlying calculations and consider returning to the 10% default in the interim.
The data upon which the flux-based methodology are based on flux chambers, which exclude certain sources of methane emissions from landfills and are generally recognized as underreporting emissions. The Rule applies a soil oxidation factor to the entire fraction of uncollected methane, assuming that all of the methane is subject to soil oxidation. However, as clearly stated in the SWICS Addendum, the emission results which are the basis of the flux-based methodology "do not include gas leaking from pipes and vents or the working face." Instead, the emission results only represent "emissions through the cover soil as determined from flux chambers."[7] This is an important consideration given that a flux box is only a nominal 2 foot by 2 foot box and that the subsurface and surface of a landfill can be highly variable. Flux chambers have been criticized by the EPA and the IPCC.[8,9,10] as underreporting emissions.
Those who have used the 10% value in the past have done so in explicit recognition that the advection and diffusion of methane through a soil cap is not the only mechanism of methane emissions to the atmosphere.[11] In response to earlier proposals for elevated soil oxidation factors, the EPA concluded that "a significant portion of the landfill gas is likely to exit the landfill in a limited number of areas under much higher flow rates than other locations. These high volume flows will not have significant oxidation."12 The EPA's observation mirrors a similar one made by the IPCC:
      "Field and laboratory CH4 and CO2 emission concentrations and flux measurements that determine CH4 oxidation from uniform and homogeneous soil layers should not be used directly to determine the oxidation factor, since in reality, only a fraction of the CH4 generated will diffuse through such a homogeneous layer. Another fraction will escape through cracks/fissures or via lateral diffusion without being oxidised. Therefore, unless the spatial extent of measurements is wide enough and cracks/fissures are explicitly included, results from field and laboratory studies may lead to over-estimation of oxidation in SWDS cover soils." [13]
The use of soil oxidation data, with the important exception of whole plume isotope data, must be combined with another term representing the fraction of landfill methane not subject to significant soil oxidation.
In addition, the flux based methodology presumes that emissions flux is a reasonable predictor of the fraction of methane oxidized; however, emissions flux explains a relatively minor fraction of the variation seen in soil oxidation values. A linear regression of methane emissions flux (i.e. independent variable) and fraction of soil oxidation as the dependent variable from SWICS Addendum Table 2 reveals a statistically significant correlation (p<0.01), albeit one that only explains ~14% of the variation in soil oxidation fraction (R2 = 0.138). There is also a statistically significant correlation between the natural log of methane emissions flux and the non-transformed fraction of soil oxidation (p<0.01) that explains ~26% of the variation in soil
oxidation fraction. Other variables (e.g. test method, climate, temperature, rainfall prior to sampling event, cover thickness, surface wind, atmospheric pressure, soil type, soil porosity and permeability, cover age, quarterly surface monitoring results) should also be evaluated in a multivariate statistical test to ascertain their ability to predict the fraction of methane oxidation.
The SWICS Addendum provides no justification for the use of methane emissions flux as a predictor of methane oxidation over these other potential variables. In addition, a one-way ANOVA of the soil oxidation fraction grouped by test method (e.g. isotope chamber, lab column) reveals that there is a statistically significant difference between the groups (p<0.01). This is a very problematic result since it demonstrates that there are significant differences between results obtained from different measurement methodologies within the SWICS dataset.
Lastly, the SWICS Addendum incorrectly uses the arithmetic mean to characterize the central tendency of a non-normal dataset. The data presented in Table 2 of the SWICS Addendum is not normally distributed (Anderson-Darling test, p<0.005; Kolmogorov - Smirnov test, p<0.01; Ryan- Joiner test, p<0.01). In defending its use of the mean to characterize the central tendency of the data, the SWICS Addendum overgeneralizes the conclusions reached by Abichou et al. stating that the article "reported that methane oxidation values are normally distributed so mean values are an acceptable way to express the central tendencies of the data." The article actually assesses the distributions of samples collected at individual sites, not average soil oxidation values across multiple sites. Application of the geometric mean to the dataset yields a fraction of 0.29, well
below the mean value of 0.38. Other researchers and the EPA have suggested that the geometric mean is more appropriate to use.[14, 15]
Footnotes:
(7) See p16 of SWICS (2012) 
(8) See p75 of EPA (2008) Emission Factor Documentation for AP‐42 Section 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills EPA/600/R‐08‐116
(9) See p1-1 of EPA (2012) Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste Landfills EPA/600/R-11/033; 
(10) See p3.15 of IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5: Waste, Chapter 3: Solid Waste Disposal.
(11) See p3.15 of IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5: Waste, Chapter 3: Solid Waste Disposal.
(12) See p56336 of US EPA (2008) Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Federal Register 74: 209, 56260  -  56519 (October 30, 2009)
(13) See p3.15 of IPCC (2006)
(14) See p56336 of US EPA (2008) Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Federal Register 74: 209, 56260  -  56519 (October 30, 2009); 
(15) Amini, H.R., D. Reinhart, A. Niskanen (2013) Comparison of first‐order‐decay modeled and actual field measured municipal solid waste landfill methane data, Waste Management 33: 12 (December 2013), 2720  -  2728
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033, Excerpt 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: WM reviewed comments submitted to the Docket for the 2015 Revisions by Covanta and the Energy Recovery Council (ERC), the trade association representing waste-to-energy facility owner/operators. Both organizations commented on the soil depth requirement and the use of flux-based methane oxidation fractions. However, we noted a number of errors and instances where commenters misapplied the scientific data in their comment letters. 
Both Covanta and ERC criticized the flux-based methodology as being founded upon data collected using flux chamber studies, which the commenters said are prone to miss surficial sources of methane emissions and under report emissions. However, they have improperly described the preponderance of the data supporting the Agency's "binned approach" to calculating methane oxidation. Measurement of methane oxidation has progressed over the last decade with researchers using isotopic measurements of air collected above landfill surfaces, as well as whole landfill plume studies conducted with cavity ring down spectrometers (CRDS).[4] Both methods overcome the limits associated with use of flux chambers and explicitly included any emissions from cracks and cover penetrations associated with landfill infrastructure. These more sophisticated studies, conducted across a variety of landfill soils and climate types, showed an oxidation value of 36% + 8%. Whole landfill plume studies, conducted with EPA, confirmed those oxidation values even though plume isotope studies underestimate the oxidation fraction as described in the 2012 SWICS Addendum.
The Covanta comment letter criticizes the Agency's use of the flux-based methodology by claiming a weak relationship between the emissions rate and percent oxidation based upon a linear regression they conducted of what they thought were methane emissions rates and the soil oxidation fractions in Table 2 of the 2012 SWICS Addendum. They clearly misread and misapplied the data. Table 2 does not report methane emissions rates, but instead reports methane oxidation rates. As a result, Covanta correlated methane oxidation rates versus percent methane oxidation rather than methane emissions versus percent oxidation. The 2012 SWICS Addendum provides clear field and laboratory, column study data and theoretical justification for the Agency's binned approach, which is based upon a negative relationship between percent oxidation rate and methane emissions. Figure 4 of the 2012 SWICS Addendum plots methane oxidation rates (y-axis) as a function of methane loading to the bottom of the landfill soil cover (x-axis) and shows results from a series of studies that employed surface air samples to calculate methane oxidation. Only one landfill had a methane oxidation rate below 10%.
Lastly, the Covanta comment letter states that the SWICS 2012 Addendum incorrectly uses the arithmetic mean to characterize the central tendency of a non-normal dataset presented in Table 2. The SWICS Addendum Table 2 includes column, laboratory and field studies from most of the available peer-reviewed literature. Abichou et al. 2011 reported that methane surface emissions at a single landfill followed a log-normal distribution and the oxidation data obtained from measurements at single landfill followed a normal distribution. It was argued that the methane emissions were log-normal because they reflect that the soil hydraulic properties governing flow are also log-normal.[5] On the other hand, the oxidation data is based on the comparison of the isotopic signal of the methane below the cover as opposed to above the cover. Therefore, grouping the average oxidation reported in Table 2 and performing normality tests is not appropriate, and reporting their arithmetic or geometric means is not statistically meaningful. We do note that Chanton et al. 2011, referenced above, reported that the distribution of 701 determinations of methane oxidation made during 37 seasonal sampling events was normally distributed.
Footnotes:
(4) Chanton, J. Abichou, T., Langford, C., Hater, G., Green, R., Goldsmith, D., and Swan, N. 2011, Landfill Methane Oxidation Across Climate Types in the U.S., Environmental Science Technology, 45 (1): 313-319
(5) Abichou, T., Clark, J. Chanton, J., 2011, Reporting Central Tendencies of Chamber-measured Surface Emission and Oxidation, Waste Management, 31, 1002-1008
Response: Regarding this suggestion that EPA re-evaluate the flux-based methodology, EPA did not solicit comment on any such changes in the proposed rule. The proposed revisions to Table HH-4 did not substantively revise the flux-based methodology. Previous footnote "a" to Table HH-4 was revised solely to renumber the footnote to be footnote "b," to allow new footnote "a" to be inserted. Therefore, this comment is out of scope for this rulemaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: Covanta and the ERC suggest the cover depth requirement remain unchanged, and that EPA should reconsider the flux-based methodology because it is based only on flux chamber studies. However, Covanta and ERC appear to have misunderstood the extent of the data that EPA relied upon in developing the proposed revisions.
First, Covanta and ERC have criticized the flux-based methodology as being dependent on data from flux chamber studies, which could miss some sources of methane emissions. However, the commenters fail to recognize that a significant portion of the data supporting EPA's "binned approach" for methane oxidation calculations include both isotopic measurements of air collected above landfill surfaces as well as whole landfill plume studies conducted with EPA using cavity ring down spectrometers (CRDS).[7] These methods specifically address other potential emissions from landfills such as cracks and vents, thus dealing with flux chamber limitations. The studies utilizing isotopic measurements and CRDS were conducted across a variety of soils and climates and resulted in an oxidation value of 36% + 8%. Although plume isotope studies can also underestimate oxidation, whole landfill plume studies have confirmed those oxidation values.
Second, Covanta criticizes EPA's use of the flux-based methodology by claiming a weak relationship between the emissions rate and percent oxidation based upon a linear regression they conducted. However, they erroneously assumed methane oxidation in Table 2 of the 2012 SWICS Addendum were methane emissions rates. This led Covanta to incorrectly correlate methane oxidation rates versus percent methane oxidation rather than methane emissions versus percent oxidation. As a result, they claim that the SWICS Addendum provides no justification for use of the binned approach. In fact, the 2012 SWICS Addendum provides clear justification for the Agency's binned approach based upon both theoretical and actual results. There is a clear inverse relationship between percent oxidation rate and methane emissions. Figure 4 of the 2012 SWICS Addendum plots methane oxidation rates (y-axis) as a function of methane loading to the bottom of the landfill soil cover (x-axis) and shows results from a series of studies that employed surface air samples to calculate methane oxidation.
Lastly, Covanta states the SWICS 2012 Addendum "incorrectly uses the arithmetic mean to characterize the central tendency of a non-normal dataset." The SWICS Addendum includes data from most of the available peer-reviewed literature. Abichou et al. 2011 reported that methane surface emissions at a single landfill followed a log-normal distribution and the oxidation data obtained from measurements at a single landfill followed a normal distribution. It was argued that the emissions were log-normal because they reflect the soil hydraulic properties governing flow, which are log-normal.[8] On the other hand, the oxidation data is based on the comparison of the isotopic signal of the methane below the cover as opposed to above the cover. Therefore, grouping the average oxidation reported in Table 2 and performing normality tests is not appropriate, and reporting their arithmetic or geometric means is not statistically relevant. Also, Chanton et al. 2011, referenced above, reported normal distributions for 701 determinations of methane oxidation made during 37 seasonal sampling events.
Footnotes:
(7) Chanton, J. Abichou, T., Langford, C., Hater, G., Green, R., Goldsmith, D., and Swan, N. 2011, Landfill Methane Oxidation Across Climate Types in the U.S., Environmental Science Technology, 45 (1): 313-319

(8) Abichou, T., Clark, J. Chanton, J., 2011, Reporting Central Tendencies of Chamber-measured Surface Emission and Oxidation, Waste Management, 31, 1002-1008
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049, Excerpt 4. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Other Amendments: Revisions to the oxidation fraction for landfills with passive vents/passive flares or active vent systems (Table HH-4)
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: EPA is considering revisions to Table HH-4 of subpart HH to require landfills that have passive or active vent systems that service greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste to use the default 10% oxidation value in their emissions calculations. EPA is also considering requiring landfills that have only passive or active vent systems to use a methane oxidation value of 10%. Although these landfills would meet all other site criteria qualifying them to calculate a site-specific methane flux rate and use an oxidation value of 25% or 35%, the proposed change would preclude these landfills from doing so.
EPA states that its motivation for the change is to increase the accuracy of landfill emissions estimates by adding an additional conservative factor to the estimation of methane oxidation. While WM agrees with the Agency's goal of accurate reporting, the proposed change will reduce accuracy of the rule's methodology, which already conservatively overestimates emissions. The relevant data demonstrates that landfills with venting systems are likely to have methane oxidation rates in excess of 10%.
In our opinion, the field data do not support the Agency's proposed revision. In the preamble to the rule EPA states, "in our review of the oxidation studies, we noted that some investigators observed that soil methane flux near passive vent locations was low." (81 FR 2570) The observations to which the Agency refers involve statements made in two of the more than 90 scientific studies provided to the Agency for its review and consideration. The first, published in 1998[6] found that in the warm season, 24 to 35% of methane transported across the soil cap is oxidized, and further noted,
"However, aggregate landfill oxidation, which would be a measure of methane oxidation relative to total methane emissions from the landfill (including soil transport, vent pipe escape, and methane released through cracks in the soil cap) may be less because methane escaping...might be subjected to a lesser degree of oxidation." (emphasis added)
The authors were unable to test their hypothesis with field measurements, but noted, "Isotopic analysis of the methane plume downwind of a landfill...will enable aggregate or whole landfill estimates of oxidation." 
However, neither this 1998 study, nor the second study cited by EPA published in 2000[7], attempted to measure whole landfill methane emissions as the 1998 study recommended to estimate methane oxidation. Indeed, the authors of the two cited studies did not measure emissions from vents, nor did they attempt to estimate the proportional impact of emissions from vents, relative to emissions moving through the surface of the landfill, and subject to oxidation in the cover. 
In 2012, EPA's Office of Research and Development, under a cooperative research and development agreement with WM and Dr. Chanton of Florida State University, has produced aggregate or whole landfill estimates of oxidation using isotopic analysis of the methane plume downwind of four older closed and vented landfills. EPA and WM obtained the data to measure the potential influence of vents on methane oxidation following the approach recommended by Liptay et al. in the 1998 study. The peer-reviewed and published findings of this work by EPA and WM contradict the rationale for EPA's proposal to require landfills with passive or active vents to use a 10% methane oxidation fraction.[8]
WM and EPA measured methane emissions at four closed landfills using the tracer correlation approach, and assessing the downwind plume with a vehicle-mounted cavity ring down spectrometer (CRDS). This cooperative research involved nine measurement campaigns conducted in 2010 and 2011 at the four sites. All four of the sites operated passive vents. In addition to taking whole-landfill measurements, the study authors also modeled landfill emissions using 1) the GHG MRR requirements, and 2) using the GHG MRR, but substituting the SWICS methane oxidation value listed for other soil mixtures (30%) for the default 10% oxidation value used in the GHG MRR. The authors then compared measured emission rates to those modeled under the GHG MRR:
      Measured emission rates                                     ranged from 2.4 to 7.1 g CH4 m[-2]d[-1]
      GHG MRR modeled emission rates                   ranged from 16.5 to 21.6 g CH4 m[-2]d[-1]
      SWICS modeled emission rates                          ranged from 12.8 to 16.8 g CH4 m[-2]d[-1]
The results of these comparisons are displayed in Figure 1 below. The measured methane emissions are only 33%, 12%, 44%, and 17% of the total methane generation predicted by the GHG MRR methodology. Clearly, the entire landfill in each case is emitting less of the generated methane than would be predicted to occur from the vents alone should the proposed 10% oxidation rate be assigned to vented landfills. For example, consider Center Point Landfill, in Figure 1. The EPA MRR value is 22g CH4/m2/d (qualifying for a 25% oxidation per Table HH-4) and the measured emission is 7.5g CH4/m2/d (qualifying for a 35% oxidation per Table HH-4). If the vents were actually releasing 60% of the emitted methane of 22g, then the flux would be 13.2 g CH4/m2/d, or twice the amount measured, which equates to a 25% methane oxidation rate and not a 10% rate as proposed by EPA.
In conjunction with the CRDS emission measurements shown below, WM conducted upwind and downwind plume isotopic measurements. The average oxidation percentage from these four landfills, weighting each landfill equally was determined to be 34 +- 12%.[9]
[Note: The commenter submitted Figure 1, "Comparison of Methane Emissions from CRDS Measurements and Models". See DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0536-0049 for additional details.]
The landfill sector uses passive and active vents in areas that are unable to produce enough landfill gas flow or a sufficient concentration of methane to support an active gas collection and control system (GCCS) or an active flare. In these low-emitting areas, vents protect cover integrity by preventing gas buildup that might cause cracks or fissures. Some landfills with active GCCS also operate vents. In these cases, the vents tend to be in segregated, defined areas of the landfill -- usually closed areas or boundary areas that can be outside the waste footprint. 
Actual measurements at four landfills with passive vents clearly demonstrate that the GHG MRR methodology is already very conservative and is significantly overestimating landfill emissions. EPA's proposed change would take an already conservative methodology and make it even more conservative. We therefore recommend that EPA not finalize this proposal to require landfills with passive or active vents covering more than 50% of the landfill area, or landfills with no active GCCS and passive or active vents to use a 10% oxidation factor. The conservative assumptions already built into the GHG MRR methodology have accounted for any methane loss through vents. Moreover, EPA cannot disqualify sites from using a 25% or 35% oxidation fraction based on site-specific flux calculations simply because they have one or two vents covering LESS than 50% of the landfill as EPA suggests in its proposed changes to C3 of Table HH-4. The results of the direct measurement study illustrated in Figure 1 clearly do not support this assumption. We have provided suggested language for Table HH-4 in Attachment A.
Footnotes:
(6) Liptay, K, Chanton, J. Czepiel, P and Mosher, B., 1998, "Use of stable isotopes to determine methane oxidation in landfill cover soils", Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol., 103.
(7) Chanton et al. 2000, "Seasonal variation in methane oxidation in landfill cover soil as determined by an in situ stable isotope technique", Global Biochemical Cycles, Vol., 14
(8) Green, R., Swan, N., Thoma, E., Footer, T., Chanton, J., Hater, G., 2012. "Measured and Modeled Methane Emissions at Closed MSW Landfills without Gas Collection", Proceedings of the Global Waste Management Symposium, San Antonio, Texas. 
(9) Chanton, J. et al, 2014, Proceedings of the Global Waste Management Symposium, Orlando, FL.
Response: EPA is not finalizing the proposed revision to Table HH-4 to include landfills "with passive vents/passive flares that service greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste, or for landfills with only passive vents/passive flares or active venting" to use the default 10% oxidation fraction. See Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: EPA is proposing to revise Table HH-4 to require landfills with passive vents/flares that service greater than 50% of the landfill area to use the default 10% oxidation value in their emissions calculations. EPA has reported that a significant portion of the methane emissions is expected to be released via the vent pipe, and therefore bypass the surface soil. Because the oxidation factor for the methane released via the passive vent is expected to be 0, EPA concludes that it may be appropriate to limit the use of high oxidation fractions for landfills with passive vents.
EPA cites two studies to support this conclusion. The first, published in 1998[9] noted that "aggregate landfill oxidation...may be less because methane escaping...might be subjected to a lesser degree of oxidation." The authors suggested that "isotopic analysis of the methane plume downwind of a landfill...will enable aggregate or whole landfill estimates of oxidation." Neither this study, nor the second study cited by EPA,[10] measured whole landfill methane emissions as Liptay et. al. recommended.
To measure the potential influence of vents on methane oxidation as recommended by Liptay et al., EPA's Office of Research and Development, under a cooperative research and development agreement with Waste Management and Dr. Chanton of Florida State University, analyzed the methane plume downwind of four older closed landfills using passive vents and produced estimates of oxidation. The findings of this work contradict EPA's rationale for the proposed change to reporting methane oxidation.[11]
In addition to the field measurements, the study modeled landfill emissions using 1) the GHG MRR requirements, and 2) using 30% methane oxidation value as modeled by SWICS. The authors then compared measured emission rates to those modeled:
      Measured emission rates............................................................ranged from 2.4 to 7.1 g CH4 m-2d-1
GHG MRR modeled emission rates...........................................ranged from 16.5 to 21.6 g CH4 m-2d-1
SWICS modeled emission rates.................................................ranged from 12.8 to 16.8 g CH4 m-2d-1
The field measured methane emissions are significantly below the predicted modeled emissions which indicates that the entire landfill emitted less of the generated methane than would be predicted to occur from the vents alone.
The landfill sector uses passive vents in areas that do not produce sufficient landfill gas to support an active gas collection and control system (GCCS) or an active flare. In these low-emitting areas, vents protect cover integrity by preventing gas buildup that might cause cracks or fissures. Some landfills with active GCCS also operate passive vents or flares. In these cases, the passive systems tend to be in segregated, defined areas of the landfill -- usually closed areas or boundary areas that can be outside the waste footprint. Further, passive flares, unlike passive vents, thermally destruct the methane. Sometimes passive flares are used on inactive areas of the GCCS or on leachate pump stations. These passive vents/flares have a limited radius of influence in routing landfill gas, as there is no vacuum applied to the waste as with an active system.
Actual measurements at landfills with passive vents demonstrate that the GHG MRR methodology is conservative, thereby significantly overestimating landfill emissions. EPA's proposed change would increase the inaccuracies by further overestimating landfill methane emissions. We therefore recommend that EPA not finalize this proposal limiting landfills utilizing passive vents/flares to a 10% oxidation factor.
Footnotes:
(9) Liptay, K, Chanton, J. Czepiel, P and Mosher, B., 1998, "Use of stable isotopes to determine methane oxidation in landfill cover soils", Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol., 103. 
(10) Chanton et al. 2000, "Seasonal variation in methane oxidation in landfill cover soil as determined by an in situ stable isotope technique", Global Biochemical Cycles, Vol., 14 
(11) Green, R., Swan, N., Thoma, E., Footer, T., Chanton, J., Hater, G., 2012 "Measured and Modeled Methane Emissions at Closed MSW Landfills without Gas Collection," Proceedings of the Global Waste Management Symposium, San Antonio, TX
Response: EPA is not finalizing the proposed revision to Table HH-4 to include landfills "with passive vents/passive flares that service greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste, or for landfills with only passive vents/passive flares or active venting" to use the default 10% oxidation fraction. See Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  J. Chanton
Commenter Affiliation:  
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0050
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: I understand that EPA is considering the use of a value of 10% for methane oxidation for landfills where passive vents are present over 50% of the surface, or where gas collection systems have been turned off because methane concentrations are insufficient to support combustion in a flare and the gas is vented. In my opinion, this rule will underestimate the value of landfill cover soils in attenuating methane emissions particularly at these older sites with passive vents. Our cavity ring-down measurements on older Midwestern facilities with passive vents in place clearly show emissions that are well below those predicted by models of methane generation. This is due either to lower than predicted methane production or elevated soil cover methane oxidation. Consistent with these flux results, our plume-based isotope oxidation measurements, indicate a methane oxidation percentage of 34 +- 12 % for these sites. 
Response: EPA is not finalizing the proposed revision to Table HH-4 to include landfills "with passive vents/passive flares that service greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste, or for landfills with only passive vents/passive flares or active venting" to use the default 10% oxidation fraction. See Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments on Subpart HH Issues not proposed
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: WM also recommends that EPA remove the requirement for reporters under Subpart HH to report average waste depths, as the data element is not used in any Subpart A or HH calculation. 
Response: EPA did not solicit comment on the requirement to report average waste depths in the proposed rule and this comment is outside of scope for this rulemaking. There are no revisions to the rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  10
Comment: EPA is proposing to amend the GHG MRR to allow, but not require, facilities to exclude pilot gas from the flare gas GHG emissions calculations in Part 98 subparts Q, X, and Y. (81 FR 2560) WM requests that the Agency extend the same exclusion for pilot gas used in flares at MSW landfills reporting under subpart HH for the following related reasons. Some landfill gas flares use continuous pilots that burn landfill gas or other fuels. These flares are often used in conjunction with landfill renewable energy facilities. Landfill gas flares provide such facilities with a back-up combustion mechanism should an energy plant need to be placed offline for maintenance or due to a malfunction. Pilot gas may also be used to ensure a stable flame when a flare is operating at low flow rates. As the Agency discussed in the preamble to explain its proposal to reduce reporter burden by allowing those subject to Subpart Y to exclude pilot gas when making GHG emission calculations, the quantity of GHG emissions associated with the pilot gas is very small relative to the total GHG emissions from the flare. (81 FR 2559) Given that the same is true for pilot gas used in MSW landfill flares, EPA should extend the pilot gas exclusion to Subpart HH. Moreover, providing Subpart HH reporters with the option to eliminate required monitoring of this small quantity of pilot gas is consistent with EPA's objective of decreasing the monitoring burden for reporters while not adversely affecting the quality of GHG reporting.
Response: EPA did not solicit comment on the reporting of pilot gas used in flares at MSW landfills reporting under subpart HH in the proposed rule and this comment is outside of scope for this rulemaking. There are no revisions to the rule as a result of this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: EPA is proposing to allow facilities to exclude pilot gas from GHG emissions calculations in Part 98 subparts Q, X, and Y (81 FR 2560). NWRA and SWANA request that EPA extend the same exclusion for pilot gas used in flares at landfills reporting under subpart HH. Some landfill gas flares use continuous pilots in conjunction with renewable energy facilities. The flare provides a back-up combustion mechanism should the renewable energy plant go offline. In addition, pilot gas may be used where the landfill gas is insufficient to maintain a flame. As the EPA states, the quantity of GHG emissions associated with the pilot gas is very small relative to the total GHG emissions from the flare. Moreover, providing the option to eliminate required monitoring of this small quantity of gas will decrease the monitoring burden for reporters while not adversely affecting the quality of GHG reporting.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049, Excerpt 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
Commenter Name:  Jean E. Bogner
Commenter Affiliation:  College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0047
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: The purpose of this letter is to, first, document the deficiencies of the current IPCC (2006) FOD model for landfill methane generation, recovery, and emissions as currently applied to U.S. sites under the GHGRP HH- methodologies [Spokas et al., 2011, 2015; Bogner et al., 2010, 2014, 2016]. In general, IPCC (2006) relies on 40-year old science using a 1970's landfill gas generation model as well as a default 10% oxidation value based on a 20-year old study for oxidation at one U.S. site (Czepiel et al., 1996a,b). Importantly, neither IPCC (2006) nor the recent modifications for oxidation and emissions added to the GHGRP methodologies explicitly model the major climate drivers for emissions now known from literature. In addition, these model applications lack comprehensive field-validation for emissions. See Appendix A for more detailed discussion.
A second purpose is to introduce an existing, freely-available [www.ars.usda.gov], fully-documented, user-friendly JAVA tool for landfill methane emissions inventory reporting. This model [CALMIM] was developed using established relationships for gaseous & heat transport, then independently field-validated [Bogner et al., 2010; 2014]. There were two CALMIM projects completed during the last decade. First, the initial project was funded by the CEC [California Energy Commission] (2007- 2010) to develop and independently field-validate an improved model for California. The second CALMIM project was funded by EREF [Environmental Research & Education Foundation] (2011-2014) and resulted in expanded model capabilities & improvements, as well as independent global field validation using 29 global sites on 6 continents. For the EREF project, as discussed below, we also developed a new 2010 landfill methane inventory for the 372 permitted California landfill sites (Spokas et al., 2015) to compare with the prior inventory using IPCC (2006).
CALMIM stands for CAlifornia Landfill Methane Inventory Model. Instead of relying on a landfill gas generation model, CALMIM explicitly models landfill methane emissions based on 1-dimensional gaseous, heat, and water transport in each cover material for a typical annual cycle of 365 days. The major drivers are: 1) the individual cover thicknesses and physical properties at a specific site; 2) the annual climate cycle for each cover as it affects soil moisture and temperature at various depths and, in turn, methane transport and oxidation rates; and 3) the physical effect of engineered gas recovery on soil gas concentration gradients. Required inputs are limited to the area, thickness, and physical properties of each cover material, plus the presence or absence of engineered gas extraction under each cover. See Appendix B.
A third purpose is to initiate discussion regarding the application of CALMIM as an alternative to IPCC (2006) for landfill methane emissions inventory reporting under the GHGRP. As stated in IPCC (2006), "higher order validated" models are permitted under IPCC national GHG inventory guidelines.
As Appendices A and B provide more detailed discussion of the shortcomings of the IPCC (2006) FOD model and an overview of the CALMIM model, the remainder of this letter will specifically address: (1) Why did CALMIM abandon both the 10% oxidation value and, similarly to the current GHGRP, using a wider range of generalized oxidation values for site-specific cover soils? (2) Why did CALMIM abandon the FOD model for methane generation? Rather, CALMIM directly models emissions rather than partitioning the estimated generation to emissions and other pathways?
The most efficient way to answer those questions is to provide a brief history of the CALMIM projects and discuss how our thinking evolved during those studies. In 2007, Drs. Kurt Spokas [U.S. Dept. of Agriculture], Jeffrey Chanton [Florida State University] and I, were funded by the California Energy Commission-Public Interest Energy Research [PIER] Program to develop an improved landfill methane emissions methodology for the state of California. A recent review of California GHG methodologies by Farrell et al. (2005) had concluded that an improved landfill methane methodology was a research priority for the state. As the three of us had conducted and published field and laboratory research on landfill methane for many years, we intended to focus on: a) expanding the universal 10% default value for methane oxidation to a range of values supported by field and laboratory investigations; and b) improving the underlying landfill gas generation methodology as mismatches were observed between measured methane emissions vs. emissions estimated from IPCC (2006).
Regarding a) the 10% oxidation default value, this was based solely on the first study in the literature (Czepial et al., 1996a,b), and had been approved at a 1996 U.S./European workshop which I convened at Argonne National Laboratory with Keith Smith of the University of Edinburgh under the auspices of the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry/International Geosphere Biosphere Program [IGAC/IGBP]. At that time, Peter Czepial and colleagues had completed the only combined field, laboratory, and modeling study in the refereed literature addressing annual oxidation at a landfill in Nashua NH. In the intervening decade (1996-2006) between that workshop and the CEC study, there had been a number of field and laboratory studies addressing site-specific landfill methane emissions and oxidation (see Scheutz et al., 2009; Spokas et al., 2011, and references cited therein). In general, very wide ranges for methane emissions and oxidation had been quantified, often not aligning with the 10% value and ranging from negligible to >100% (uptake of atmospheric methane). A major difference, however, between the majority of those studies and Czepiel et al. (1996a,b) was that the Nashua study had included all three of the following: (1) field campaigns to directly measure methane emissions [mass methane per area per day] using two techniques (tracer, chambers); (2) laboratory incubations to quantify the soil moisture and temperature dependencies for methane oxidation rates in the Nashua cover soil; and (3) use of a climate model with the oxidation rate dependencies to estimate the cumulative annual oxidation at the Nashua cover soil.
Thus the 10% oxidation was a cumulative annual value, reflecting the expected daily temperature & precipitation which, in turn, affect temporal soil temperature & moisture and temporal oxidation and emission rates. It is reasonable to point out that, in the intervening years, the expected temporal variability of oxidation rates over an annual cycle in site-specific cover materials has often been overlooked. In short, oxidation is a variable, not a constant, for each specific cover material at a specific global location.
For the CEC study, we had begun by considering various modifications to the10% default for oxidation, similar to the current "modified" HH- methodologies. However, K. Spokas had independently developed and globally-validated 0.5 deg latitude X 0.5 deg longitude global USDA climate models based on 30-year data for precipitation (GlobalRainSIM) and temperature (Global TempSIM), as well as models for surface energy balance (SOLARCALC), and soil temperature and moisture (STM2). By embedding these fully-developed, validated models into the CALMIM model, he greatly expanded the climate dependencies for site-specific determinations over an annual cycle. Unlike the Czepiel et al. (1996a,b) site-specific climate modeling, CALMIM was now applicable to sites globally. Also (Appendix B), CALMIM includes 1-dimensional diffusive transport equations for CH4 and O2, as well as functional relationships for oxidation rates relative to the modeled soil moisture and temperature profiles. The oxidation rates were based on extensive incubations by K Spokas using a variety of California landfill cover soils over the full range of temperature and soil moisture potential conditions (Spokas and Bogner, 2011). CALMIM thus includes: site-specific cover soils; site-specific climate including climate interactions with specific cover soils; modeling of both methane transport & oxidation at 10-min timesteps and 2.5 cm depth increments over a typical annual cycle; and calculation of total annual site emissions as the sum of daily emissions from each cover.
Regarding b), potential improvements to the underlying IPCC (2006) FOD gas generation model, there were many problems with trying to fit this conceptual model to a growing database of site-specific field measurements for emissions. Those problems included large mismatches between modeled & measured emissions, a primary dependency for FOD-modeled methane emissions on waste in place for the California inventory [Appendix A] irregardless of waste composition data & k values, and observational data from current California sites where measured gas recovery rates were robustly & linearly related to WIP only [Appendix A; Spokas et al., 2015]. Thus CALMIM was developed as a new "emissions-only" model as discussed in Appendix B.
Finally, I wish to initiate a conversation about including CALMIM as a possible tool for landfill methane emissions estimates under the GHGRP. Having worked more than 2 decades on Federal programs for DOE, EPA, DOD and other agencies while employed at Argonne National Laboratory from 1976-1996, I do appreciate the difficulties of modifying "official" methodologies in response to improvements in scientific understanding and modeling tools. I also worked with EPA and its contractors during 2004-2007 while I was the coordinating lead author for the Waste Management chapter for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report/ AR4 (2007) for Working Group III (Mitigation of Climate Change) (Bogner et al., 2007). In the decade since the AR4, there have been significant advances by the scientific community with regard to understanding the observed rates and variability of landfill methane emissions and oxidation. CALMIM is the product of that updated science incorporated into a field-validated global model.
[See Appendix A to the letter, "Shortcomings of current IPCC (2006) methodology for landfill methane emissions," for a list of the major deficiencies of the current IPCC (2006) model, with supporting references and datasets.]
Response: This comment relates to a section on which EPA did not solicit comment, thus this comment is outside of scope for this rulemaking and no revisions have been made because of this comment. We appreciate the explanation of CALMIM and its benefits. We also understand that there are limitations and uncertainties of the IPCC FOD model. We will continue to explore the possibilities for improving the accuracy of monitoring and calculation of GHG emissions at landfills to the extent practicable while also minimizing confusion and burden on reporters and ensuring the ability to facilitate trends analyses and comparison with the U.S. GHG Inventory. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart MM (Table of Revisions)
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  24
Comment: In §98.395, the EPA is proposing to amend the missing data procedures by removing item (c) which allowed companies an alternative method to determining API gravity and sulfur content of missing crude oils data. This revision is proposed to align with previous changes to §98.396(a) promulgated in 2013, where the EPA revised the reporting requirements by changing the data element from "the batch volume of crude oil that enters the refinery in barrels" to "the annual quantity of crude oil that enters the refinery in barrels."
AFPM supports this revision as it is directly related to revisions from 78 FR 71904 (November 29, 2013) that removed the requirement to measure API gravity and the sulfur content of each batch of crude oil.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: In 98.395 EPA proposes to amend the missing data procedures by removing item (c) which allowed companies an alternative method to determining API gravity and sulfur content of missing crude oils data. Starting in reporting year 2014, EPA no longer required refiners to report crude sulfur and density and thus API agrees with removing 98.395(c).
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart NN
Other comments on proposed Subpart NN Revisions (Table of Revisions)
Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  10
Comment: In 98.403 EPA is proposing to amend Calculation Method 1 by requiring that, "The annual volume of each NGL product supplied (Fuelh) shall include any amount of that NGL supplied in a mixture or blend of two or more products listed in Tables NN-1 and NN-2 of this subpart. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied shall exclude any amount of that NGL contained in bulk NGLs exiting the facility not fractionated by the reporter (e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and other bulk NGLs)."
API acknowledges the proposed revisions to Subpart NN where EPA addresses the issue of double counting by excluding from reporting the bulk NGLs exiting the facility. Due to the inherent complexity and diversity in the NGL value chain; situations may arise where more precise language would be needed.
For example, a plant, where NGLs are fractionated and processed, is reporting in accordance with 40 CFR 98.403. This plant delivers to its end-use customers either individual or blended mixtures of fractionated products by truck/rail. However, the remaining fractions  -  including fractions that were fractionated earlier but not sold in the market - may be recombined and leave the plant as bulk product via pipeline to another plant downstream. This second plant then goes on to fractionate and process the bulk NGLs for delivery to customers and would also report its emissions according to 98.403.
Due to the fact that some NGLs or fractions of NGLs may be fractionated and reprocessed by several plants  -  depending on market conditions and customers' needs  -  API is requesting that EPA revise the proposed language to ensure that such situations would not lead to double counting.
API's request for language revision in 98.403 (a) (1): "The annual volume of each NGL product supplied shall exclude any amount of that NGL contained in bulk NGLs exiting the facility not fractionated by the reporter (e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and other bulk NGLs)."
Additionally, the same change should apply to the explanation of the term Fuelh in Eq. NN-1 and NN-2 that refers to the total volume of product "h" supplied:
      "The annual volume of each NGL product supplied (Fuelh) shall include any amount of that NGL supplied in a mixture or blend of two or more products listed in Tables NN-1 and NN-2 of this subpart. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied shall exclude any amount of that NGL contained in bulk NGLs exiting the facility not fractionated by the reporter (e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and other bulk NGLs).
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter's remarks regarding the revisions to the proposed text for 40 CFR 98.403(a)(1) and (a)(2). Fractionators reporting under subpart NN should report separately NGLs that leave the plant as bulk NGL from NGLs that leave the plant as NGL products (either as single NGL products or blended products comprised of two or more NGLs). As the commenter correctly notes, the CO2 equivalent emissions calculated by Equations NN-1 and NN-2 should exclude any quantities of NGL that are recombined with and subsequently exit the plant as bulk NGL. We have incorporated the changes as recommended by the commenter. Additionally, we have removed the words "that are not fractionated by the reporter" from 40 CFR 98.406(a)(4)(ii) where the volume of bulk NGL exiting the facility is to be reported. These final revisions are included in the Table of Revisions to this rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526). 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart OO
Improve Quality: Revising the source category to include and require reporting from facilities that that produce, import, transform, export, or destroy F-HTFs that are not also F-GHGs. 
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  17
Comment: ACC does not support EPA's proposal to require reporting from suppliers of Low Vapor Pressure Heat Transfer Fluids (HTFs).
EPA is proposing to expand Subpart OO to include facilities that produce, import, transform, export, or destroy fluorinated HTFs that are not also fluorinated GHGs under the Subpart A definition, and to require these facilities to report under Subpart OO. (81 FR 2572) Currently, Subpart OO requires reporting by facilities that supply nitrous oxide and fluorinated GHGs. In this proposed rule, EPA wants to define HTFs under Subpart A (based on the definition in Subpart I - Electronics Manufacturing) and require reporting from fluorinated-HTF suppliers.
EPA is seeking this information as a means of comparing "reported supplies to the demand for fluorinated HTFs" reported under Subpart I, as well as smaller facilities that do not report under Subpart I. (81 FR 2572) According to EPA, "large differences would imply that emissions are being over- or underestimated, for example because some users or emitters of fluorinated HTFs are not accounted for. (81 FR 2572)
EPA is proposing that suppliers of fluorinated HTFs be subject to the same threshold as suppliers of fluorinated GHGs, which is no threshold (e.g., comprehensive reporting). Further, EPA asserts that "few, if any, suppliers of fluorinated HTFs would be required to begin reporting under this provision because all suppliers of fluorinated HTFs are believed to report under subpart OO already." (81 FR 2572)
First, it is ACC's view that the burden required to implement these changes is not "modest." We note that while "all suppliers of fluorinated HTFs are believed to report under subpart OO already," (81 FR 2572) any facility that produces, imports, exports or transforms any amount of HTFs would need to report "one to twelve additional compounds." (81 FR 2573) It is also our view that implementation of these proposed requirements will not be a "minor change," but will instead require significant additional activities, including additional monitoring, QA/QC, and recordkeeping.
While EPA asserts that "the incremental burden associated with reporting ... fluorinated gases that are not fluorinated GHGs is expected to be modest," the cost of the proposed Subpart OO requirements are the third highest of all the changes in this proposal. The costs associated with the proposed changes to Subpart OO account for 23% of first year costs for the all subparts (excluding Subpart FF), and 21% of costs in subsequent years.[7] Given the minor impact of fluorinated HTFs, as compared to other fluorinated GHGs for which EPA currently requires reporting, ACC concludes that the expected burden is not modest and does not justify the cost.
For these reasons, we urge EPA to reconsider this proposed revision. Should EPA insist on requiring reporting for fluorinated HTFs, we ask the reporting requirements apply to only those facilities with fluorinated-HTF emissions above the 25,000 ton-CO2e threshold. EPA's own economic analysis indicates that cost of requiring fluorinated-HTF reporting is significant, and we are concerned that this reporting will be burdensome for potential reporters as well as of questionable value to EPA.
Footnotes:
(7) Subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines) costs are anomalously high  -  $1.9 million in first year costs and $950,000 in subsequent year costs  -  because EPA is requiring either the installation of CEMS for methane monitoring or the use of monthly grab samples.
Response: EPA is finalizing revisions to the definition of the source category to include entities that produce, import, export, or destroy fluorinated heat transfer fluids that are not also fluorinated greenhouse gases. See Section III.W.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. We are also finalizing minor conforming changes to clarify the dates on which the revisions apply; these changes are included in the Final Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart PP (Table of Revisions)
Commenter Name:  William A. Collins, Jr.
Commenter Affiliation:  Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: In Subpart PP, EPA has made a minor revision in the missing data procedures at 98.425(b), simply deleting the phrase "of this subpart" from the text.[17]
We agree with all of these changes.
Footnotes:
(17) U.S. EPA, 2015 Proposed Technical Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations, p. 2,624.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart RR
Improve Quality: Reporting whether the facility is injecting a CO2 stream to enhance the recovery of oil or natural gas
Commenter Name:  William A. Collins, Jr.
Commenter Affiliation:  Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: "EPA has proposed a new data element under 98.446(g) that enables EPA and the public to identify which Subpart RR facilities inject CO2 into non-EOR geologic storage formations and which inject CO2 for EOR." 
We also agree that this data element will provide information and improve the public's understanding regarding which and how many facilities reporting under Subpart RR conduct EOR and which are injecting CO2 into geologic storage sites (e.g., using Class VI wells under the Underground Injection Control program). This differentiation is important because, as described in the following sections, the release of data on the quantity CO2 received and CO2 produced at EOR sites could cause severe competitive harm to companies like Occidental, whereas such harms are unlikely for sites injecting CO2 for the purpose of geologic storage.
Occidental strongly supports EPA's proposal, as it will ensure that confidential data associated with the quantity of CO2 received and CO2 produced at EOR facilities reporting under Subpart RR will be protected. Occidental initially submitted comments to EPA on this issue in March 2012, in response to EPA's proposed 2012 Confidentiality Determinations.[4] In the final 2012 rule, EPA acknowledged that for EOR operators, data on the quantity of CO2 received and produced at a facility was not publicly available and that public disclosure could cause substantial competitive harm. However, without a data element that could distinguish EOR and non-EOR facilities under Subpart RR, any CBI determinations on the quantity of CO2 received and CO2 produced would be made on a case-by-case basis.[5]
We believe that the approach proposed in the current rule-making, when finalized, will provide a consistent and predictable framework for EOR operators that might opt into Subpart RR and affirm that the data associated with the amounts of CO2 received and produced at EOR facilities will remain confidential. EPA should finalize this data element as proposed.
Footnotes:
(4) U.S. EPA, 2012 Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, 77 FR 1,434, January 10, 2012.
(5) U.S. EPA, 2015 Final Confidentiality Determinations for Regulations Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, 77 FR 48,072, August 13, 2012, p. 48,083.
Response: No substantive amendments to subpart RR are being finalized in this rulemaking. See Section III.Y and Section IV.C.1 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Ann Brewster Weeks
Commenter Affiliation:  Clean Air Task Force
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0062
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: CATF supports the advancement and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies in order to achieve the near term reductions in climate change pollution from energy production and other U.S. industry that are essential to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. From that perspective, CATF supports changes to the subpart RR reporting rules that enhance EPA's ability to track the fate of injected carbon dioxide, particularly but not exclusively anthropogenic carbon dioxide, for enhanced oil recovery or for the purpose of permanent sequestration, and where the intention is to prevent further atmospheric release. We also support changes that can satisfy both private companies' need to guard their business information, and the need to ensure that the public can track the fate of the injected carbon dioxide so as to feel confident that the injection and storage component of carbon capture and sequestration technology (whether in enhanced oil recovery operations or saline injection), is successfully isolating the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
For these reasons, CATF supports EPA's proposal to add a data element indicating whether carbon dioxide injections are undertaken for enhanced oil recovery (proposed section 98.446(g)), and that this information is not confidential business information ("CBI").
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058, Excerpt 2. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart TT
Improve Quality: Revisions to default DOC values in Table TT-1 (includes comments re: EPA's analysis of industrial waste DOC data)
Commenter Name:  Brad Upton
Commenter Affiliation:  National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0038
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: The Agency proposes to provide default degradable organic carbon (DOC) values for four specific pulp and paper industry waste types in Table TT-1 [boiler ash (0.06); kraft recovery wastes (0.025); wastewater sludge (0.12); other pulp and paper wastes (not otherwise listed) (0.20)]. This change is aligned with the available data and will allow improved accuracy in emissions estimates. NCASI recommends that the agency provide an additional new default DOC value for "pulp and paper manufacturing wastes, general" in Table TT-1, with value 0.10 (wet basis), which could be used by pulp and paper manufacturing facilities that do not segregate their wastes into separate streams. The value of 0.10 is the weighted average of the waste stream-specific DOC values reported to the greenhouse gas reporting program within subpart TT by pulp and paper facilities in 2013[2], and is therefore appropriate for estimating industrial landfill methane emissions from general pulp and paper manufacturing wastes.
Footnotes:
(2) National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2016. Comments on public review draft US inventory of greenhouse gases and sinks: 1990-2014. Letter from B. Upton to Leif Hockstad (EPA). March 23. Attached as Appendix A.
[Appendix A is provided and is described in Footnote 2 above.]
Response: EPA agrees that an additional general category and corresponding DOC value should be retained in Table TT-1 for pulp and paper manufacturing wastes that do not segregate wastes (except to account for industrial sludge), but is finalizing a DOC value of 0.15 for this waste type. See Section III.Z.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  14
Comment: AF&PA and AWC are particularly pleased to see that EPA has proposed to use default degradable organic carbon (DOC) values for four specific pulp and paper industry waste types that are more consistent with findings of NCASI studies and which we supplied in our 2013 comments. We agree with the proposed values of 0.06 for boiler ash, 0.025 for kraft recovery wastes, 0.12 for pulp and paper wastewater treatment sludge, and 0.20 for "other pulp and paper wastes".
We would like to recommend an additional default DOC category and value for "pulp and paper manufacturing wastes, general" in Table TT 1, with value 0.10 (wet basis), which could be used by pulp and paper manufacturing facilities that do not segregate their wastes into separate streams. The value of 0.10 is the weighted average of the waste stream-specific DOC values reported to the greenhouse gas reporting program within subpart TT by pulp and paper facilities in 2013, and is therefore appropriate for estimating industrial landfill methane emissions from general pulp and paper manufacturing wastes. EPA should not preclude this option for pulp and paper mills that, for whatever reason, find it more appropriate to report their waste DOC values in the aggregate.
Response: EPA agrees that an additional general category and corresponding DOC value should be retained in Table TT-1 for pulp and paper manufacturing wastes that do not segregate wastes (except to account for industrial sludge), but is finalizing a DOC value of 0.15 for this waste type. See Section III.Z.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Revisions to Subpart UU (Table of Revisions)
Commenter Name:  William A. Collins, Jr.
Commenter Affiliation:  Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: In Subpart UU, EPA has made another minor edit at 98.474(c)(2), capitalizing the "s" in "Standard."[19]
We agree with all of these changes.
Footnotes:
(19) U.S. EPA, 2015 Proposed Technical Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations, p. 2,625.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Confidentiality Determinations and Data Category Assignments 
Comments re: proposed new and revised data elements assigned to data categories with categorical confidentiality determinations 
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: EPA determined that the seven new data elements that would result from the proposed changes in the 2015 GHGRP Revisions should all be Confidential Business Information (CBI). TFI supports EPA's determination that these additional data elements should be CBI because they are either raw materials or production information that could be used by competitors to determine production. 
[Note: The commenter refers to the seven new data elements proposed for subpart G, including 40 CFR 98.76(a)(3): annual ammonia production; 40 CFR 98.76(b)(2): annual gaseous feedstock consumption, annual liquid feedstock consumption, annual solid feedstock consumption; and 40 CFR 98.76(b)(7):  annual average carbon contents of the gaseous feedstock, annual average carbon contents of the liquid feedstock, and annual average carbon contents of the solid feedstock.]
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Kimberly S. L. Bauman
Commenter Affiliation:  Mississippi Lime Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0041
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Under the proposed Subpart S revisions, lime plants that do not utilize Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) to measure CO2 and other greenhouse gases from lime kilns and other applicable process equipment must report - beginning in reporting year 2017 - the following data:  Annual emission factors for each lime product type produced; annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold. The annual average emission factors USEPA is seeking in the proposal are highly Confidential Business Information, not only to Mississippi Lime, but to the entire lime industry. The annual average data elements are informed by monthly data elements that are currently entered in to the Inputs Verifier Tool (IVT) during annual GHG reporting, as recognized by USEPA in Section III.J of the proposed rule preamble. As such, the proposed annual data elements would provide information to competitors on product composition, production rates, and breakdown of product types on an annual basis. The lime industry is highly competitive, and ALL information about the chemical composition, including emission factors which are derived from confidential chemical composition data, of products produced at Mississippi Lime is highly sensitive. Mississippi Lime strongly believes that USEPA should refrain from collecting and retaining highly Confidential Business Information unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Mississippi Lime urges USEPA to drop from the final rule the proposed data elements for the lime industry in Subpart S of the GHGRR due to the significant concerns or Confidential Business Information.
Mississippi Lime's previous comments explained that the domestic lime industry is highly concentrated with U.S. and foreign producers and is very competitive. Moreover, there are commodity aspects to production and marketing of some grades of lime, as well as critical but often subtle differences between lime products based on regional and local lime attributes and how it is produced at different lime plants. Accordingly, many of the data elements on emissions inputs and other elements are very sensitive to each lime producer's competitive position. Access to CBI can be used to reverse engineer a specific lime plant's production efficiency, cost per unit of lime, and process for lime production. This threatens unfair competition, price pressure on rivals, and ultimately harm to the competitive process. Notably, manufacturers of lime substitutes or lime process replacements could also obtain an unfair advantage in competition for specific types of applications, including cement companies and Chinese magnesite producers.
Mississippi Lime is aware that the National Lime Association ("NLA") has submitted comments germane to the collective interests of all lime industry participants. Mississippi Lime, a long-standing member of the NLA, fully supports those comments.
Response: As indicated in section III.J of the preamble to the final rule, EPA is requiring reporting of annual average emission factors for each lime product type produced, annual average emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold, and annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced and calcined byproduct/waste sold. See Section III.J.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's reasoning for requiring the reporting of this information. 
As noted in Section III.J of the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA proposed to determine that these data elements are CBI and therefore eligible for confidential treatment. EPA received no adverse comment on the proposed determinations. EPA has minimally revised these data elements in the final rule, such that the same information will be collected. Therefore, we are finalizing the proposed confidentiality determinations for these data elements. See Section III.J.2 and IV.B of the preamble to the final rule for additional information. EPA will only publish information related to these data based on the criteria outlined for aggregation and publication of CBI information in Federal Register Notification - 9911 - 98 - OAR (e.g. national averages based on GHGRP facility-level data). 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  William C. Herz
Commenter Affiliation:  National Lime Association (NLA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0031
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: Under the proposed Subpart S revisions, for lime plants that do not use CEMS to measure CO2 emissions, beginning in reporting year 2017, reporters must now include annual emission factors for each lime product type produced and for each calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold. The emission factors EPA is seeking in the proposal are highly confidential business information in the lime industry. They would potentially provide information to competitors on product composition, production rates, and breakdown of product types on an annual basis. The lime industry is highly competitive, and information about what products are being produced at plants across various market areas is highly sensitive.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0041, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  16
Comment: ACC is concerned that mistakes made by EPA regarding the confidentiality determinations for the proposed new data elements could result in the public release of confidential information.
"On page 2563 of the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA proposes for Subpart CC  -  Soda Ash Manufacturing to revise 40 CFR 98.296 to add two new data elements to be reported at the facility-level related to the annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock. These proposed revisions are in 40 CFR sections 98.296(a)(1) and (b)(5). The preamble then directs the reader to section IV of the preamble for EPA's proposed confidentiality determinations for these two data elements, see discussion beginning at p.2574 and Tables 7 and 8.
Unfortunately, there is no discussion in subpart IV on the CBI determination for these two new data elements, nor are they included in either Table 7 or 8. However, there is an EPA memorandum in the docket, entitled "To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526" from Ms. Rachel Schmeltz, et al., dated December 11, 2015 that proposes confidentiality determinations for various data elements in the proposed 2015 revisions and it includes Subpart CC sections 98.296(a)(1) and 98.296(a)(5) (sic). The memorandum proposes that these two data elements are determined to be CBI.
This omission and error raises serious concern for ACC and some of its member companies. If the rule is finalized as proposed, Subpart CC facilities will be required to report the annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock but without needed CBI protection since EPA did not properly "notice" that issue for comment. Based on the attached EPA memorandum, it is clear that EPA believes these two data elements should have CBI protection, but EPA failed to include a discussion of that in the preamble and failed to include them in either Table 7 or 8 of the preamble to the proposed rule. Lastly, EPA's memorandum erroneously identifies the regulatory citation for soda ash manufacturing facilities not using a CEMS to measure carbon dioxide emissions, to report the annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline as 98.296(a)(5) rather than 98.296(b)(5).
ACC strongly supports EPA's determination in its Dec. 11, 2015 memorandum that the two data elements proposed to be reported at 98.296(a)(1) and (b)(5) should be protected as CBI. At this time, we do not believe that EPA should promulgate a requirement that these two data elements be reported without first providing notice and an opportunity for the public to comment on whether the data should be protected from disclosure as CBI. To do so would contravene the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. We therefore urge EPA not to finalize a reporting requirement for these data unless and until EPA proposes for comment that the data be afforded protection as confidential business information.
While there may be more than one way for EPA to address this problem, one option would be for EPA not to finalize the proposed revised reporting requirements in section 98.296(a)(1) and (b)(5) in this rulemaking. Instead, EPA could publish a notice for supplemental comment on EPA's proposed CBI determination for these two data elements. Once that supplemental comment period closes, EPA then could consider at the same time the comments submitted in this January 15, 2016 rulemaking on the need for this data to be reported and the supplemental comments submitted on whether, if reported, this data should be protected as CBI. Of course there is also the possibility that commenters may oppose the proposed revisions to sections 98.296(a)(1) and (b)(5) and convince EPA that the data is not needed "to improve the quality of data collected under subpart CC", in which case EPA may decide not to promulgate these reporting requirements and the issue of whether the reported data should be afforded CBI protection then becomes moot."
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA failed to propose confidentiality determinations for these new data elements. However, we are not finalizing confidentiality determinations for these data elements because we are not finalizing the addition of these reporting requirements in the final rule. See Section IV.A of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Chris Greissing
Commenter Affiliation:  Industrial Minerals Association-North America (IMA-NA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0068
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: EPA cannot proceed with implementing the changes proposed, as the Confidential Business Information (CBI) determinations have not been properly made. In the preamble to the rule, EPA proposes adding two new data elements related to the annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock. These data elements are 98.296(a)(1) and (b)(5). However, EPA failed to include these data elements in any of the CBI tables in Section IV of the preamble. While EPA has determined, in a supporting memo in the docket, that both of these data elements are properly classified as CBI, the proposed rule omits this determination. Furthermore, in that memo, EPA has mislabeled the data element that applies to non-CEMs reporters. In the memo, it is referenced as 98.296(a)(5), rather than the proper reference of 98.296(b)(5).
Response: EPA disagrees with the comment that EPA failed to propose confidentiality determinations for these new data elements. However, we are not finalizing confidentiality determinations for these data elements because we are not finalizing the addition of these reporting requirements in the final rule. See Section IV.A of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments re: proposed individual confidentiality determinations for new and revised data elements in two direct emitter data categories and two supplier data categories
Commenter Name:  David Isaacs
Commenter Affiliation:  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0043
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: The new information being sought raises confidentiality issues. The industry considers product and technology information to be confidential business information. Data EPA has added is specific to products and technology and would be considered CBI.
Certain of the proposed data requirements  -  such as film type being manufactured, technology node and linewidth  -  move in the direction of recipe specific emission factors that were the problem with the original Subpart I and resulted in SIA's petition for reconsideration and EPA's grant of our petition. SIA objected to recipe specific testing several years ago because of technical infeasibility, high cost of compliance, and the disclosure of valuable intellectual property. The EPA proposal gives rise to these same concerns.
EPA contends that linewidth or technology data are not confidential because this data is publicly available in the World Fab Forecast. This database is compiled from publicly available information, which may or may not be accurate, and has not necessarily been verified by the companies. Disclosing linewidth or technology node with a specific emissions characterization data set threatens the disclosure of intellectual property.
Response: EPA is not finalizing the proposed requirements for facilities to provide the film type, the substrate type, and the linewidth or technology node (see Section III.F of the preamble to the final rule for further explanation); therefore, we are not finalizing the confidentiality determinations for these data elements.  EPA is finalizing the remaining revisions to the Triennial Report requirement at 40 CFR 98.96(y), with minor changes that do not significantly change the data to be reported, as shown in Table 6 in Section IV.B of the preamble to the final rule. We received no adverse comment on the proposed determinations for these data elements, and data sets including the same data elements are already in the public record for previous subpart I rulemakings. Thus, we are finalizing the proposed confidentiality determinations for these data elements. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Kimberly S. L. Bauman
Commenter Affiliation:  Mississippi Lime Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0041
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: Under the proposed Subpart S revisions, lime plants that do not utilize Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) to measure CO2 and other greenhouse gases from lime kilns and other applicable process equipment must report - beginning in reporting year 2017 - the annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced/waste sold.
The annual average chemical composition analyses USEPA is seeking in the proposal are highly Confidential Business Information, not only to Mississippi Lime, but to the entire lime industry. The annual average data elements are informed by monthly data elements that are currently entered in to the Inputs Verifier Tool (IVT) during annual GHG reporting, as recognized by USEPA in Section III.J of the proposed rule preamble. As such, the proposed annual data elements would provide information to competitors on product composition, production rates, and breakdown of product types on an annual basis. As previously noted in this letter, as well as historic comment letters to USEPA concerning GHGRR CBI, the lime industry is highly competitive, and ALL information about the chemical composition, including emission factors which are derived from confidential chemical composition data, of products produced at Mississippi Lime is highly sensitive. Mississippi Lime strongly believes that USEPA should refrain from collecting and retaining highly Confidential Business Information unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Mississippi Lime urges USEPA to drop from the final rule the proposed data elements for the lime industry in Subpart S of the GHGRR due to the significant concerns or Confidential Business Information.
Mississippi Lime is aware that the National Lime Association ("NLA") has submitted comments germane to the collective interests of all lime industry participants. Mississippi Lime, a long-standing member of the NLA, fully supports those comments.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0041, Excerpt 1 in section 27.1 of this document.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  William C. Herz
Commenter Affiliation:  National Lime Association (NLA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0031
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Under the proposed Subpart S revisions, for lime plants that do not use CEMS to measure CO2 emissions, beginning in reporting year 2017, reporters must now include annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced/waste sold. The chemical composition analyses EPA is seeking in the proposal are highly confidential business information in the lime industry. They would potentially provide information to competitors on product composition, production rates, and breakdown of product types on an annual basis. The lime industry is highly competitive, and information about what products are being produced at plants across various market areas is highly sensitive.
Response: As noted in Section III.J of the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA proposed to determine that this data element is CBI and is therefore eligible for confidential treatment. EPA received no adverse comment and therefore, we are finalizing the proposed confidentiality determination for this data element.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: In Subpart O, EPA has proposed requiring facilities to report production and emissions information for each HCFC-22 production process, where previously such reporting had been required at the facility level. While ACC is not opposed to implementing these requirements, we believe that the associated CBI determinations need to be clarified.
At the end of the Subpart O preamble, EPA states "for more information on subpart O confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of the preamble." (81 FR 2556) Upon review of section IV, however, we found no information on the Subpart O confidentiality determinations. We did find a discussion of CBI determinations for Subpart O in a supporting memorandum for the rule, "Proposed Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements in the Proposed 2015 Revisions," dated December 11, 2015. This memo listed eleven Subpart O data elements in Table 1, ten of which were "revised to require reporting at the process level," and the last of which was identified as "new."
None of these proposed data elements  -  revised or new  -  are listed in the CBI tables in the proposed rule. (See 81 FR 2576  -  2593) Further, EPA has provided no information on how a data element that was previously applied at the facility level could, when this rule is final, be applied at the process level, without having included the data elements in the proposed CBI determinations.
We understand that the revisions to change "at the facility level" to "for each HCFC-22 production process" in section 98.156(a) is not by itself a "data element," and as such, it was not included in the CBI determination tables. Since this revision represents a significant change to the CBI data to be reported, however, we request that EPA confirm that the Agency's approach for this "revision" will not impact the CBI status of any of the data elements in this section.
Response: See Section IV.A of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment, which clarifies the EPA's handling of new or revised data elements for which the EPA proposed confidentiality determinations in the memorandum "Proposed Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements in the Proposed 2015 Revisions". This memorandum included proposed confidentiality determinations for all data elements, including data elements assigned to data categories with previously determined category-based confidentiality determinations that were not further discussed in the preamble. 
For subpart O, EPA assigned all new and revised data elements, including data elements related to reporting for each HCFC-22 production process, to data categories with a previously determined category-based confidentiality determination. Per the memorandum, we assigned the following data elements to data categories with a categorical confidentiality determination of CBI:
 For each HCFC-22 production process, annual mass of HCFC-22 produced in metric tons. (98.156(a)(1))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, annual mass of reactants fed into the process in metric tons of reactant. (98.156(a)(3))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, mass (in metric tons) of materials other than HCFC-22 and HFC-23 (i.e., unreacted reactants, HCl and other by-products) that occur in more than trace concentrations and that are permanently removed from the process. (98.156(a)(4))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, the names of facilities to which any HFC-23 was sent for destruction. (98.156(a)(6))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, the addresses of facilities to which any HFC-23 was sent for destruction. (98.156(a)(6))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, the quantities of HFC-23 (metric tons) sent to each. (98.156(a)(6))
Per the memorandum, we also proposed to assign the following data elements to data categories with a categorical confidentiality determination of not CBI:
 For each HCFC-22 production process, the method for tracking startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions and HFC-23 generation/emissions during these events. (98.156(a)(5))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, annual mass of HFC-23 emitted in metric tons. (98.156(a)(11))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, annual mass of HFC-23 emitted from equipment leaks in metric tons. (98.156(a)(12))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, annual mass of HFC-23 emitted from process vents in metric tons. (98.156(a)(13))
 Method used to calculate revised destruction efficiency, specifying whether § 98.154(l)(1) or (2) has been used for the calculation. (98.156(d))
We received no adverse comments on the proposed confidentiality determinations. Therefore, we are finalizing the proposed confidentiality determinations for these data elements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  11
Comment: In the proposal, EPA states that the year of abatement technology installation is not considered CBI. TFI opposes this determination and requests that the date of abatement technology installation be considered CBI.
Response: See Section IV.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Dow Chemical Company
Commenter Affiliation:  Dow Chemical Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: Proposed changes to Subpart X require the owner/operator to report the annual average of the measurements of CC and MW of each feedstock and product stream. We agree with EPA's assessment that this information should be treated as Business Confidential information. Furthermore, we suggest that EPA's final rule clarify that this information is to be reported through the Inputs Verification Tool instead of direct entry into the e-GGRT to ensure that it is treated as Business Confidential information. 
Response: The proposed requirements to report the annual average carbon content and molecular weight of feedstocks and products under 40 CFR 98.246(a)(14) and (15) require these data elements be reported directly to EPA through e-GGRT where they will be treated as CBI following established procedures, rather than being used in the emissions calculations housed within the Inputs Verification Tool. These requirements are being finalized as proposed.
In the "Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under the GHGRP" (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014), the EPA finalized the use of the Inputs Verification Tool (IVT) as a means to provide an alternative to collecting certain inputs to emission calculation equations for which reporting was deferred and disclosure concerns were identified. The IVT, which calculates GHG emissions based on the inputs to the emissions equations and performs additional verification checks on the inputs to emission equations, provides EPA with information necessary to conduct further verification once the annual report is submitted and maintains the EPA's ability to verify data and ensure compliance with the GHGRP for certain inputs to emission calculation equations. Data elements that are not inputs to emission calculations that have been determined to be CBI have been collected by the GHGRP through e-GGRT, and protected as CBI, since the inception of the program. 

EPA proposed and has finalized the determination that the proposed data elements, annual average carbon content and molecular weight of feedstocks and products, should be treated as CBI, however these data elements are not inputs to emission calculations specified in Part 98 or used by sources to calculate their annual GHG emissions under Part 98. Therefore, these data elements are not eligible to be entered in IVT and will be collected through e-GGRT, used to verify the accuracy of reported emissions, and protected as CBI.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  12
Comment: ACC supports EPA's proposed determinations to treat new data elements under Subpart X as confidential business information. Data elements 98.246(a)(14) and (a)(15) must be treated as CBI because they describe the facility's carbon content and annually averaged weight of the feedstocks. If this information is made public, a competitor could use it to determine a facility's feedstock composition. EPA also states that the release of such data could reveal the facility's "competitive and marketing strategies, or reveal its suppliers and sourcing strategies." (81 FR 2580) We strongly urge EPA to ensure in the final rule that these data elements are classified as CBI.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P.
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: EPA should allow reporters to declare information submitted under subpart DD as CBI. EPA proposes that there are "no disclosure concerns" for the information that would be required in the proposed amendments to the Subpart DD reporting requirements.[29] EPA further states that reporters "are public or publicly-regulated utilities that are not affected by competitive market conditions that may apply to other industries" and that "these [required] data elements do not disclose any information about a manufacturing process or operating conditions that would be proprietary."30 
The Class of '85 disagrees with EPA's conclusion that there are no disclosure concerns under the proposed Subpart DD reporting requirements. Reporting detailed equipment counts, equipment types, and linked geographical data to the public will relay company-specific information that may jeopardize competitive advantage in the industry. If EPA does finalize the requirement for reporters to distinguish between hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other SF6-containing equipment, the Group requests that EPA allow reporters to declare this information as CBI. 
Footnotes:
(29) 81 Fed. Reg. at 2,564. EPA proposes to determine that the following data elements are not CBI: the numbers of (i) new hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year; (ii) new SF6 or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year; (iii) retired hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year; and (iv) retired SF6 or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year. Id. at 2,578.
(30) Id. at 2,564.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed determination of "Not CBI" for the new subpart DD reporting elements. See Section IV.B of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  18
Comment: ACC supports EPA's proposed determination that most of the new data elements added under Subpart OO should be determined to be CBI.
EPA has added several new data elements under Subpart OO related to the proposed requirement to report of [sic] supplies of fluorinated HTFs. Based on our review, ACC concludes that EPA has properly identified those data elements that should be treated as "CBI" and those that should be treated as "not-CBI."
Under Table 7, 23 new Subpart OO data elements have been added, all of which are designated as CBI in EPA's proposal.[8] Twenty of these data elements are assigned to the "production/throughput quantities and composition" category. These data must be designated as CBI because the data elements describe production and throughput quantities and product compositions. Should such data be made public, competitors could gain insight into a firm's market strength and competitive position. In addition, the release of facility-level data of this type could provide competitors with insight into a firm's local and regional market conditions and expansion plans, which could enable competitors to devise strategies to prevent expansion and steal market share. (81 FR 2581) In addition, EPA acknowledges "these data elements are the same type of data that must be reported for fluorinated GHGs, for which we have previously assigned a determination of CBI. (81 FR 2581)
The remaining three data elements in EPA's proposed rule are designated as CBI and describe dates of import and export shipments and ports of entry and exit. Release of this type of information could allow competitors to link customs records on quantities and product composition with the import and export data reported under Subpart OO, and allow competitors to determine market share and devise marketing strategies to undermine or weaken a competitor's position. In addition, as above, EPA states "these proposed data elements, which apply to fluorinated HTFs, are the same type of data that must be reported for fluorinated GHGs, for which we have previously assigned a determination of CBI." (81 FR 2585)
ACC strongly agrees with EPA's proposed determination that all of the new Subpart OO data elements designated as CBI have been correctly classified. We appreciate EPA's recognition that the public release of such data could cause substantial competitive harm. We also agree with EPA that these data elements, when applied to fluorinated HTFs, must be treated in the same manner as when applied to fluorinated GHGs.
Footnotes:
(8) The data elements assigned to the "Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition Supplier Data Category include: 98.416(a)(1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (11), (12), (14), (15); (c)(1), (2), (6), (8), (9), (10), and (d)(1) and (4), (i), and (j). 81 FR 2581  -  2584). In addition, three data elements in the "Unit/Process Operating Characteristics" Supplier Data Category are also designated as CBI: 98.416(c)(4), (d)(5), and (j).
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  19
Comment: Finally, there are four new data elements under Subpart OO with a proposed designation of "not CBI."[9] The first three of these data elements include the destruction efficiency of each fluorinated HTF destruction unit, the chemical identity of the fluorinated HTF, and the name of all applicable federal and state regulations that apply to destruction processes. EPA states that "the proposed data elements do not reveal business sensitive information about the process, nor do they reveal the technology used for the fluorinated GHG destruction, or the operating conditions for a particular technology." (81 FR 2584) The fourth data element relates to the date on which changes were made to the composition of a fluorinated HTF product. This information does not disclose "the actual composition of the product, the raw materials used to make the product, the method of manufacture, or the efficiency of the manufacturing process."
As described earlier in our Subpart OO comments, we do not support the proposed requirement to report the production of fluorinated HTFs. Should EPA finalize this requirement, however, we agree with EPA's CBI determinations.
Footnotes:
(9) These data elements, assigned to the "Unit/Process Operating Characteristics" Supplier Data Category are: 98.416(b)(1), (4), and (5), and 98.416(j).
Response: As discussed in Section III.W of the preamble to the final rule, we are finalizing a requirement to report the destruction of fluorinated HTFs. EPA acknowledges the supportive comment regarding EPA's proposed confidentiality determinations for 40 CFR 98.416(b)(1), (4), and (5), and 40 CFR 98.416(j).  We received no adverse comments on the proposed determinations and are finalizing the proposed determinations of "Not CBI."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  William A. Collins, Jr.
Commenter Affiliation:  Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA has proposed a new data element under 98.446(g) that enables EPA and the public to identify which Subpart RR facilities inject CO2 into non-EOR geologic storage formations and which inject CO2 for EOR.[2] We support EPA's determination that this data element need not be treated as CBI, and we agree with EPA's conclusion that "this data element does not reveal any significant details regarding the activities at the facility, the quantities of CO2 received, or the CO2 utilization rates at the facility."[3]
Footnotes:
(2) U.S. EPA, 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (GHGRP), 81 FR 2536, January 26, 2016., p. 2,624.
(3) Ibid., p. 2,579, Table 7.

Response: We are not finalizing the proposed data reporting element or associated confidentiality determination for this data element at this time. See Section IV.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments re: proposed categorical and confidentiality determinations for existing Part 98 data elements for which no determination has been previously established
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  13
Comment: ACC agrees with EPA that the data element "annual phosphoric acid production by origin of phosphate rock" should be treated as confidential business information. (81 FR 2587) Public release of this data element could cause significant competitive harm, should competitors gain access to information on the source and composition of raw materials used in the manufacturing process. If such information were to become public, it could enable competitors to gain insight into the facility's raw material suppliers, production costs and manufacturing processes; information which they could use to gain market advantage. This data element is not an "input to emission equations," and as such can be treated as CBI based on the likelihood of competitive harm.
Response: This comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  13
Comment: EPA proposes to clarify that the origin of Phosphate Rock as set forth at 40 C.F.R. §98.266(a) is production/throughput data and is considered CBI. TFI supports this clarification.
Response: This comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  25
Comment: In rule amendments published on November 29, 2013 (78 FR 71904), the EPA revised the data element under §98.396(a)(20) from "the batch volume of crude oil that enters the refinery in barrels" to "the annual quantity of crude oil that enters the refinery in barrels." However, the EPA did not make a confidentiality determination for this revised data element at that time. The EPA is proposing that the revised data element be assigned to the "Amount and Composition of Materials Received" category, which has a categorical confidentiality determination of CBI.
AFPM supports this CBI determination. Maintaining this data as CBI is consistent with the long tradition of maintaining confidentiality of similar data reported to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).[1] This data, if released, would provide valuable information to competitors that could be damaging to individual refiners.
Footnotes:
(1) Provisions regarding Confidentiality of Information from Form EIA-810: "All other information reported on Form EIA-810 will be protected and not disclosed to the public to the extent that it satisfies the criteria for exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552, the DOE regulations, 10 C.F.R. §1004.11, implementing the FOIA, and the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §1905."
Response:   This comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  William A. Collins, Jr.
Commenter Affiliation:  Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: Under Subpart PP, EPA should ensure that the amount of CO2 transferred from an electric generating unit to an EOR facility reporting under Subpart RR is treated as CBI.
In its proposed rule, EPA determined that an electric generating unit (EGU) that captures a CO2 stream and transfers it to any facility subject to Subpart RR must report the annual quantity of CO2 in metric tons that is transferred to each Subpart RR facility. EPA proposes that this data element is not CBI because "this information does not reveal any significant details regarding production or production and import/export data that may be considered CBI."[13]
We disagree with EPA's proposed determination and the accompanying rationale because the quantity of CO2 transferred from an EGU to a subpart RR facility becomes, at the point of transfer, CO2 received at the facility. As described in Section 1.2, publically releasing data on the amount of CO2 received at a Subpart RR facility that is conducting EOR is likely to cause significant competitive harm to EOR operators, as EPA acknowledged in the current proposal.[14] For that reason, EPA has proposed that such data, when received at an EOR facility, would be treated as CBI.
Because the quantity of CO2 transferred by the EGU and the amount of CO2 received at the EOR facility is essentially the same, we respectfully request that EPA reverse this determination and ensure that CO2 transferred is treated as CBI when the transfer take place between an EGU that has captured CO2 and an EOR facility reporting under Subpart RR. Publication of this data would likely cause significant competitive harm, resulting in unwillingness on the part of the EOR industry to purchase such CO2.
It is Occidental's view that this change can be readily implemented, based on the EPA's proposal to include a data element under Subpart RR that distinguishes between sites doing EOR and sites injecting CO2 into subsurface geologic formations.[15] In addition, we expect a significant amount of the CO2 transferred to Subpart RR facilities by EGUs to be injected at EOR facilities, because this approach may be more economical for EGUs than injecting into saline aquifers using Class VI wells. EPA, too, believes that EOR facilities will be the preferred type of injection.[16]
With respect to the other data elements added to Subpart PP, we support EPA's "not CBI" determinations, both of which would require reporting of the facility identification numbers for the EGU capturing a CO2 stream and for the Subpart RR facilities to which the captured CO2 is transferred. We find that these data elements are unlikely to pose any commercial risk to Subpart RR facilities injecting CO2 for EOR purposes.
Footnotes:
(13) U.S. EPA, 2015 Proposed Technical Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations, p. 2,589, Table 8, data element 98.426(h)(3).
(14) Ibid, pp. 2,589  -  2,590.
(15) Ibid., p. 2,579. See EPA's rationale: "This data element would identify whether a facility is performing enhanced oil recovery. We are proposing that this data element is not CBI because this data element does not reveal any significant details regarding the activities at the facility, the quantities of CO2 received, or the CO2 utilization rates of the facility."
(16) U.S. EPA, Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; Final Rule, 80 FR 64,510, October 23, 2015, p. 64,566.
Response: EPA is not finalizing categorical confidentiality determinations for this subpart PP data element at this time.  See Section IV.C.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  11
Comment: For data element 98.426(h)(3) in the proposed rule, EPA has determined that an electric generating unit (EGU) that captures a CO2 stream and transfers it to any facility subject to Subpart RR must report the annual quantity of CO2 in metric tons that is transferred to each Subpart RR facility. Further, EPA has proposed that this data element is not CBI because "this information does not reveal any significant details regarding production or production and import/export data that may be considered CBI."[3] API disagrees with this proposed determination and EPA's accompanying rationale, because the quantity of CO2 transferred from an EGU to a subpart RR facility becomes, at the point of transfer, CO2 received at the facility. Public availability of data on the amount of CO2 received at a Subpart RR facility that is conducting Enhanced Recover (ER)  -  regardless of the source of CO2  -  is likely to cause significant competitive harm and EPA acknowledged this possibility in the current proposal.[4] For that reason, EPA has proposed that such data, when received at an ER facility, would be treated as CBI. However, if CO2 captured at EGUs (and subsequently transferred to ER operators) is not afforded the same CBI protection as CO2 obtained from other sources, then ER operators will likely be unwilling to utilize such EGU-sourced CO2.
API requests that the EPA reverse this determination and ensure that CO2 transferred is treated as CBI when the transfer takes place between an EGU that captures CO2 and an ER facility reporting under Subpart RR. This change can be readily implemented using the same approach that EPA has used to include a data element under Subpart RR that distinguishes between sites doing ER and sites injecting CO2 into subsurface geologic formations.[5] API insists that when promulgating Subpart PP, EPA ensure that the amount of CO2 transferred from an EGU to an ER facility reporting under Subpart RR be treated as CBI.
Footnotes:
(3) U.S. EPA, 2015 Proposed Technical Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations, p. 2,589, Table 8, data element 98.426(h)(3).
(4) Ibid, pp. 2,589  -  2,590.
(5) Ibid., p. 2,579. See EPA's rationale: "This data element would identify whether a facility is performing enhanced oil recovery. We are proposing that this data element is not CBI because this data element does not reveal any significant details regarding the activities at the facility, the quantities of CO2 received, or the CO2 utilization rates of the facility."
Response: EPA is not finalizing categorical confidentiality determinations for this subpart PP data element at this time. See Section IV.C.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Ann Brewster Weeks
Commenter Affiliation:  Clean Air Task Force
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0062
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: We further support EPA's proposal that the information about carbon dioxide collected from an electric generating facility required to report under subpart PP and transferred to a facility required to report under subpart RR is not CBI. Data reported by facilities that inject carbon dioxide for the exclusive purpose of sequestering it from atmospheric release also should not be CBI and we support that aspect of the Agency's proposal.
We urge the Agency in finalizing this rule to maintain non-CBI data status for sufficient data elements to allow the public access  -  even if through arithmetic means  -  to information demonstrating that enhanced oil recovery injections have the effect of providing secure sequestration for the injected carbon dioxide against atmospheric release. That is vitally necessary to allow the public to maintain confidence that enhanced oil recovery operations are sufficiently climate protective to be credited with sequestration of captured anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Enough information should be maintained non-CBI to allow the assessment through calculations of the fate of the injected carbon dioxide. That does not require all data about enhanced oil recovery injections to be maintained as non-CBI. We urge the Agency to consider balancing the needs of the industry and the need for public confidence in the ability of enhanced oil recovery to sequester carbon dioxide from atmospheric release, in finalizing changes to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.
Response: EPA is not finalizing categorical confidentiality determinations for this subpart PP data element at this time. See Section IV.C.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  William A. Collins, Jr.
Commenter Affiliation:  Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: Occidental requests that data related to the quantity of CO2 received on-site[6] at EOR facilities be protected as CBI for the following reasons. First, Occidental can demonstrate that its data on the quantity of CO2 received at its EOR facilities is treated as CBI. These data are competitively sensitive because, as explained below, they are important to Occidental's commercial dealings with CO2 suppliers. In addition, these data are treated as confidential by employees and are available to employees of Occidental only on a "need to know" basis. Further, these data are typically not made public, as EPA tacitly acknowledged in its final confidentiality determination of August 2012.[7] Moreover, absent a judicial or quasi-judicial process, the data are not reasonably obtainable without Occidental's consent. Occidental's policy and practice is not to share these data with third parties.
Disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to Occidental's competitive position because it is a business-sensitive contract term that is directly correlated to CO2 demand. Producers set prices based on CO2 demand, and public release of purchased CO2 amounts would provide CO2 producers with market insight they could use in price negotiations on future contracts. CO2 producers do not currently have information on a company's demand for CO2, because CO2 injection data are only publicly available by well. Only a few producers supply CO2 to the EOR industry. In fact, two producers dominate the market, already severely impacting purchasers' negotiating leverage. If data on the amount of CO2 received by each facility and company is made publicly available, purchasers will lose what little negotiating leverage remains.
A decision by EPA to treat received CO2 as confidential would not adversely affect the public because the usefulness of these data elements are limited. The quantity of CO2 received is not emissions data. The mass-balance equations (RR-11 and RR-12) do not include a term for the amount of CO2 received, because these data are not needed to calculate emissions from EOR projects engaged in long-term or incidental geologic storage.
Finally, EPA has already determined that data elements related to the quantity of CO2 received data is CBI under Subpart UU.[8] As noted in Section 1.1, without a data element to distinguish EOR from non-EOR facilities, EPA could not provide a similar determination under Subpart RR in 2012. The current proposal, however, appropriately finds that these data elements should be categorically treated as CBI for EOR facilities reporting under Subpart RR.
Occidental strongly supports EPA's determination that data elements related to the quantity of CO2 received at an EOR facility should be treated as CBI, and urges EPA to finalize this determination.
Occidental supports EPA's proposal to treat all data elements related to the amount of CO2 produced[9] as confidential business information. EPA explains in the proposal:
      [A]lthough some data from EOR wells is publicly available, the total mass of produced CO2 by well or within a field is not already in the public domain. Publication of produced CO2 data, when coupled with publicly available information on oil and gas production by well, could enable competitors to calculate CO2 utilization rates for both individual wells and fields and possibly track changes in CO2 utilization overtime. This data could be used to gain insight into production costs and reservoir performance which could result in competitive harm.[10]
Information on produced CO2 from EOR wells is not publicly available. In fact, a review of data sources identified by EPA in its 2012 proposal confirmed that CO2 data are not available on a well-by-well or site-level basis. Occidental's policy is not to share these data with third parties. Moreover, absent judicial or quasi-judicial process, the data is not obtainable without Occidental's consent.
Occidental strongly agrees with EPA's proposed rationale for protecting the confidentiality of data on the quantity of CO2 produced at EOR facilities because it is important to the company's commercial dealings with CO2 suppliers and competitors seeking insight into Occidental's CO2 utilization rates for wells and fields. These data could, in turn, be used to Occidental's disadvantage in contract negotiations for CO2 supply, as well as in in [sic] investment, acquisition, and development decisions. Thus, this information is treated as confidential by Occidental and is available to employees of Occidental only on a "need to know" basis.
We also agree with EPA that severe competitive harm could result from the release of data on the quantity of CO2 produced. EPA is correct that publication of these data, when combined with information on oil and gas production by well, would enable competitors to calculate CO2 utilization rates for both individual wells and fields. If this information was made available annually under the GHGRP, it would be possible to track CO2 utilization over time, which would enable competitors to gain insight into production costs and reservoir performance. Such information could be used in contract negotiations for CO2 supply, as well as enabling competitors to fine tune investment, acquisition, and development strategies.
Finally, we note that in the preamble to EPA's final rule in 2012, EPA agreed with Occidental's conclusion that data on the quantity of CO2 produced should be considered CBI where EOR is being conducted.11 We strongly support EPA's conclusion and urge EPA to maintain this position when the current proposal is finalized.
Occidental strongly recommends that EPA ensure all Subpart RR data elements associated with the quantity of CO2 received and CO2 produced at EOR sites are held as CBI. Publication of the quantity of either CO2 received or CO2 produced could enable back-calculation of the other parameter. For these reasons, the data elements related to the quantity of CO2 received and CO2 produced must be protected to avoid serious competitive harm. We urge EPA to ensure that all data elements related to the amount of CO2 received and CO2 produced at EOR operations are treated as CBI in the final rule.
EPA proposes that, for non-EOR facilities, CO2 received by pipeline and annual CO2 mass produced at each separator flow meter should be treated as non-CBI. Both of these data elements apply only to non-EOR activities. Data element 98.446(a)(1) applies to facilities that receive CO2 by pipeline, and requires reporting of the total net mass of CO2 received annually by pipeline. Data element 98.446(f)(4)(i) requires reporting the CO2 mass produced annually for each separator flow meter.
We agree that these data elements, when reported by non-EOR facilities, do not need CBI protection. We are confused, however, by the discussion in the rationale referring to Class II wells, specifically EPA's statement that:
      These data can be derived from UIC permits, which are issued for each injection well by EPA [e.g., under the UIC Class VI wells] or by states that have assumed primary enforcement authority for permitting Class II injection wells.[12]
Class II wells inject CO2 for EOR and it is highly unlikely that an EOR facility would inject CO2  -  which is traditionally a commodity that the EOR operator purchases  -  for another purpose. If a CO2 injection well is operating at a non-EOR facility, it would not have a Class II permit; it would be expected to have a Class VI permit or perhaps a Class V permit. On this basis, we recommend that EPA delete references to UIC Class II wells in the context of non-EOR activities.
Footnotes:
(6) U.S. EPA, pp. 2,589  -  2,590. Referring to Items 98.446(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(ii), (a)(3)(iii), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (c).
(7) U.S. EPA, 2012 Final Confidentiality Determinations, p. 48,082  -  48,083.
(8) Ibid., Subpart UU, p. 48,083.
(9) U.S. EPA, 2015 Proposed Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations, p. 2,591, referring to: 98.446(f)(4)(i), (f)(4)(ii), (f)(4)(iii), (f)(4)(iv).
(10) U.S. EPA, ibid.
(11) U.S. EPA, 2012 Final Confidentiality Determinations, p. 48,083.
(12) U.S. EPA, 2015 Proposed Technical Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations, pp. 2,591 and 2,593.
Response: At this time, EPA is not finalizing the proposed amendment to subpart RR to require reporters to indicate whether the facility is injecting a CO2 stream in subsurface geologic formations to enhance the recovery of oil or natural gas. We are also not finalizing the proposed confidentiality determinations for that proposed data element or the proposed confidentiality determinations for existing data elements in subpart RR at this time. See Section IV.C.1 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
Regarding the commenter's concerns on the discussion in the rationale referring to Class II wells, EPA acknowledges that the proposed rule contained a typographical error. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  13
Comment: EPA has designated that ER injection in 98.446(a)(1) is CBI. API supports confidential business information (CBI) for enhanced recovery (ER) injection data as provided in Table 8 on pages 2589  -  2593, if the operator has declared its CO2 injection stream is used for ER, under Section 98.446(g). However, API believes that there is a typographical error in the rationale column of Table 8 for Sections 98.446(a)(1) and 98.446(f)(4)(i): the reference to "Class II" wells should be to "Class VI." If a CO2 injection well is operating at a non-ER facility, it would not have a Class II permit; it would only have a Class VI permit, or some other class.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058, Excerpt 3. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments on methodology for CBI assignments and/or determinations
Commenter Name:  William C. Herz
Commenter Affiliation:  National Lime Association (NLA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0031
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: It is essential that robust procedures to protect the confidentiality of the data be put into place, and the proposed rule fails to do this.
Although EPA has indicated that the new data elements are eligible for confidential treatment, the way in which data will be captured, stored, and subsequently retained as CBI are not defined in the proposal. Currently, confidential monthly emission factors for lime and calcined byproducts (for example) are calculated in e-GGRT using the Inputs Verifier Tool (IVT) and the various inputs to equations are not stored by EPA. Presumably, the newly requested various annual average emission factors will be reported within e-GGRT to allow EPA access to the information. This implies that the IVT will somehow be bypassed in such a manner that confidential data can be entered and stored for later analysis. The NLA is very much concerned that bypassing the IVT increases the risk for sensitive and confidential information inadvertently released to the public domain.
Likewise, EPA must also state whether the new data will automatically be granted CBI protection and excluded from public reports, or will reporters request CBI protection each year? Having reporters request CBI protection increases both the reporting effort and the potential for sensitive information to inadvertently be made public.
Response: As indicated in sections III.J and IV of the preamble to the final rule, EPA intends to treat the following new data elements as confidential business information: annual average emission factors for each lime product type produced, annual average emission factors for each calcined by-product/waste by lime type that is sold, and annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced and calcined by-product/waste sold. These data are not inputs to emissions calculations specified in Part 98 or used by sources to calculate their annual GHG emissions under Part 98. These data elements are annual averages which will be used to verify the accuracy of reported emissions. These data elements will be entered into e-GGRT and captured, stored, and retained as CBI following the existing security procedures for e-GGRT, as described in the "Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under the GHGRP" (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014)). Specifically, the EPA complies with the strict security procedures and guidance governing access to federal data servers established by the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) and in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA). All EPA information systems must meet the security requirements defined in the NIST Special Publication 800 - 53.13 Adherence to the NIST Federal Information Systems requirements are intended to protect EPA information systems, including e-GGRT, from a diverse set of threats including hostile cyber-attacks, natural disasters, structural failures, and human errors. As such, the program keeps a security plan up to date and conducts annual reviews of the security controls.
With regard to this information being found in public reports, EPA will only publish data determined to be confidential in aggregate form (e.g., national averages based on GHGRP data) and if it meets criteria outlined for aggregation and publication of CBI information in Federal Register Notification - 9911 - 98 - OAR available here: https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/confidential-business-information-ghg-reporting#CBI Data Aggregation. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Kimberly S. L. Bauman
Commenter Affiliation:  Mississippi Lime Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0041
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: Although USEPA has indicated that the new data elements are eligible for confidential treatment, the way in which data will be captured, stored, and subsequently retained as CBI are not defined in the proposed rule. Currently, as noted by USEPA in Section III.J of the proposed rule preamble, confidential data are calculated using the IVT and the various inputs to equations are not stored by USEPA. Presumably, the newly requested annual average data will be reported within e-GGRT to allow USEPA access to the information. This implies that the IVT will somehow be bypassed in such a manner that confidential data can be entered and stored for later analysis. Mississippi Lime is very concerned that bypassing the IVT increases the risk for sensitive and confidential business information to be released to the public and our competitors.
Mississippi Lime is aware that the National Lime Association ("NLA") has submitted comments germane to the collective interests of all lime industry participants. Mississippi Lime, a long-standing member of the NLA, fully supports those comments.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0031, Excerpt 2. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments re: Impacts and Burden
Comments re: impacts/burden: Revision of Reporting Requirements
Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P.
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  10
Comment: Eliminating Reporting Requirements Under Subpart DD. EPA states in the Proposed Rule that the Agency is reducing the reporting burden on facilities subject to Subpart DD.[32] However, the proposed amendments to Subpart DD appear to include only additional reporting requirements, with no proposed elimination of reporting requirements. The Group generally supports reducing the reporting burden on facilities and requests that EPA clearly state in any final rule which reporting requirements under Subpart DD the Agency is eliminating to reduce the reporting burden on T&D operators.
Footnotes:
(32) See 81 Fed. Reg. at 2,596.
Response: The reference to removing data elements in subpart DD accounts for the removal of the following requirements: to report combined nameplate capacity for all new SF6-insulated equipment and hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year (former 40 CFR 98.302(a)(2)), and to report combined nameplate capacity for all SF6-insulated equipment and hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear retired during the year (former 40 CFR 98.302(a)(3)). Because they will be entering the data for each type of equipment separately, reporters are no longer required report combined nameplate capacity. Therefore, for the purposes of estimating burden, we considered these data elements "removed." EPA listed each data element that is considered "new" or "removed" in the memorandum "Assessment of Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule" in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments re: impacts/burden: Monitoring Requirements for Underground Coal Mines
Commenter Name:  Bruce Watzman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0051
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: We believe the proposed revisions to Subpart FF are unnecessary and will impose an economic burden on the underground coal industry that is totally out-of-line when compared to the additional benefit that may inure from the new monitoring and reporting hierarchy. As the Supreme Court concluded in Michigan v. EPA, 576 US ___ (2015), "it is not rationale [sic], never mind appropriate, to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health benefits." Slip op. at 7. In this instance, EPA has summarily failed to quantify any benefits that will result from the proposed action while imposing millions of dollars of costs on the underground coal industry. For this reason, as well as those discussed below, the proposed revisions to Subpart FF should be stricken from the final rule.
Response: The final rule presents no additional economic burden to reporters, and should, in fact, relieve the burden on some reporters that report to the GHGRP, notably those who are closing, sealing, and abandoning underground coal mines. In the proposed rulemaking, EPA calculated the economic burden for the proposed rule based on the removal of the use of quarterly MSHA data as a monitoring method for methane liberation in mine ventilation systems (40 CFR 98.324(b)(2). EPA is not moving forward with this proposed change, and is instead retaining the option for mines to use this method. Therefore, there is no economic burden being placed on reporters with the finalization of this rule. While this final rule does add one additional requirement for reporters using MSHA data  -  namely, that they submit, as attachments to their subpart FF reports, the actual MSHA quarterly reports they relied upon in preparing their subpart FF reports  -  reporters will already have these MSHA quarterly reports, and submitting them to EPA through the e-GGRT online reporting system will not impose additional economic burden.
As mentioned, the final rule should result in a net overall decrease in burden due to changes that streamline reporting, most notably allowing facilities that have been abandoned and sealed to take advantage of the reporting "off-ramp" provided by 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3). We expect this to enable some mines to stop reporting one to three years earlier than would otherwise have been the case. 
See the memorandum "Assessment of Burden Impacts of Final 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule" in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526 for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Bruce Watzman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0051
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment:  Financial Impacts
According to EPA:
The incremental increase in costs for subpart FF reporters from the revised monitoring requirements are $28,440 per facility in the first year (RY2018) and $14,609 in subsequent years ($2011). The proposed revisions are estimated to affect 65 respondents and would have an industry incremental cost of $1,848,571 in the first year (RY2018) and $949,582 in subsequent years. The annual hourly burden associated with these monitoring costs are 320 hours per reporter in the first year and 165 hours in subsequent years.
80 Fed. Reg. At 2597.
The incremental cost increase represents a cost increase of over 3 times what underground coal mines operators currently incur. Indeed, one member has calculated a cost increase of more than 500 percent to comply with the proposed regulation.

If viewed more comprehensively, the coal industry has incurred significant financial burdens due to the cumulative cost increases from many new regulations that have recently been finalized. (i.e. WOTUS, SPR, MACT, CPP, and others). The cumulative effect of these regulations is significantly eroding the industry's ability to remain competitive. We believe the rule has specific and cumulative impacts of costs that outweigh the potential benefits, especially when more reasonable and more common sense alternatives are available.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0051, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Bill Bissett
Commenter Affiliation:  Kentucky Coal Association
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0072
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: The proposed revisions to Subpart FF place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the underground coal mining industry, and EPA has not explained how the revisions will provide any appreciable benefit to the environment. The Supreme Court has recently instructed EPA that it cannot enact rules that impose costs with no reasonable relationship to the benefits provided. See Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015). The proposed revisions ignore this directive. 
EPA estimates that the proposed rule will impose a 300% cost increase for GHG monitoring on those underground mines subject to the reporting rule. But the proposal provides no indication that this threefold cost increase will result in any environmental benefit, or the collection of any data that could reasonably be expected to inform future policy decisions. Because the data to be gathered, even if more accurate, will not drive policy decisions in the future, there is no reasoned basis for imposing a such an enormous increase in monitoring costs. 
Underground coal mines are simply not a significant source of GHG emissions. Based on prior reports required by the GHG Reporting Rule, underground coal mines emitted approximately 43.2 million metric tons of C02-e in 2014. This represents approximately 1.3% of total U.S. GHG emissions. This insignificant component of overall GHG emissions does not warrant further scrutiny, particularly at enormous cost to the mining industry. Even if the current MSHA sampling methodology has underreported GHG emissions from underground coal mines by 30%, then GHG emissions from underground coal mines still represent only about 1.7% of total U.S. GHG emissions. Thus, under the proposed revision, EPA expects the underground coal mining industry to spend several millions dollars to help EPA answer a question that is not worth the agency's time to ask in the first place: Whether or not underground coal mines contribute an additional four tenths of one percent of overall GHG emissions. In sum, any "improved consistency" that may result from the proposed rule's enormous costs will serve to provide no useful benefit in terms of environmental protection or development of future GHG emission policy. 
EPA estimates that monitoring costs will increase under the proposed rule by $28,400 per facility in the first year, and $14,609 per facility in subsequent years. This represents a 300% increase in current costs compared to what the industry currently spends to comply with the existing requirements of the GHG Reporting Rule. 
Although EPA characterizes these costs as minimal, that characterization ignores the current perilous state of the U.S. coal industry. Partially as a result of unnecessary regulatory burdens imposed on the industry and its customers in the electric utility sector by a series of federal initiatives, the coal industry is under significant financial strain. Many underground coal operators are in bankruptcy and others are struggling to remain financially viable. As such, the industry simply cannot sustain additional regulatory burdens, particularly where those burdens do not provide a corresponding benefit to the public. 
The cumulative effect of the unnecessary regulation of the U.S. coal mining industry leads to the conclusion that the primary intent of EPA and other federal agencies is to direct the manner in which the United States produces electricity. This ongoing effort reduces the coal industry's ability to remain competitive in the current market environment, while alternative energy sources obtain favorable treatment. A rule that serves only to burden the coal industry for no benefit other than to answer a purely academic question about GHG emissions is yet another example of this trend to set a national energy policy, something not authorized by the Clean Air Act or any other statute administered by EPA. 
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0051, Excerpt 1. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
General support for the amendments
Commenter Name:  Paul Gilman 
Commenter Affiliation:  Covanta
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0034
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: We support the EPA's continued efforts to improve the Rule and the quality and accuracy of the data collected.
Response: This comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Anonymous public comment
Commenter Affiliation:  
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0037
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: As a graduate student specializing in clean energy policy, I find the EPA's proposed rule on revisions to the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to be fair, applicable, and environmentally relevant. Under the proposed rule (ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0001) the reporting process for greenhouse gas emissions will become an amended, streamlined process that allows for more consistent, reliable, and accurate data.
As a policy student, I applaud the EPA's efforts in attempting to disclosure relevant emissions data for public record.
As a voting citizen concerned about the preservation of our natural resources, I commend the EPA on its work in developing a mandatory rule for greenhouse gas reporting.
If we ever have any hope of fighting climate change then we must be able to show our progress. We must be able to self-report our own failings and findings. We must be able to demonstrate our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a mission that is even more urgent given our place as one of the world's top producers of greenhouse gases.
Petrochemical companies may balk at the new constraints imposed by the proposed rule change. These constraints do require extensive work by emitters, particularly in the areas of data collection and assessment. Specific constraints, such as those on nitric acid production, may be frustrating for companies that produce only low-strength acid.
Yet it is important to consider the greater good in submitting to these proposed changes. Yes, companies that specialize in phosphorous acid, nitric acid, lime, adipic acid, and aluminum manufacturing will face obstacles in the short term by adhering to these new rules. Facilities that meet the rule's requirements will need to commit a greater number of company resources to data collection and research.
Greenhouse gas reporting is not new, though, nor is the United States the only nation to develop such a program. We must protect human health and the environment, and as the EPA has a constitutional mandate to do so under the Clean Air Act, then the greenhouse gas reporting stands as our only viable, legally-bound option in doing so.
I believe that these rules have produced important benefits, specifically those regarding emissions tracking by industry and category, yet the proposed rule also helps reduce associated costs. Smaller facilities, abandoned coal mines, and other producers with little to no emissions production should not need to report to the GHGRP. Such reporting would produce little gain for a larger, taxpayer-supported cost. It would also cost the EPA time and resources for a low-priority project.
Response: This comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commenter Name:  Anonymous public comment
Commenter Affiliation:  
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0040
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: This regulation is a smart idea because it provides the part about the privacy when reporting certain data. It also will improve the greenhouse gasses because they have to report more often.
Response: This comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Out of Scope Comments
Commenter Name:  Anonymous public comment
Commenter Affiliation:  
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0037
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: I would encourage the EPA to maintain its proposed rule dedicated to subpart W leak detection methods. While I approve of the agency's allowance for voluntary reporting as it encourages participation in the Methane Challenge program, I would caution the agency to establish clear boundaries regarding leaks in oil and gas equipment, particularly those in natural gas systems.
Methane leakage, particularly in underground wells and well-based equipment, can damage air and water quality. Methane is a hazardous air pollutant and a highly potent greenhouse gas. If left unchecked, methane leakage can pollute drinking water and water ecosystems. Unchecked methane leakage can also release thousands of metric tons of methane pollutants into the atmosphere each year.
Oil and gas companies will need to invest resources in fixing methane leakage in their collection and dispersal equipment. They will also need to submit annual reports on leakage parameters, data, and emissions collection. Yet it is for these very reasons that the EPA must continue to remain true to its mission to protect human health and the environment.
Still, the EPA must extend methane-based leak detection and repair standards to other applicable sites, such as compressors, pneumatic controllers, and storage vessels. These are low-cost fixes that should have been adapted long ago, but if standards are implemented then companies will need to adhere to these new regulations.
Furthermore, the EPA must regulate inspection times in a more concrete manner. Inspections of methane facilities, sites, equipment, and vessels should be done on a quarterly or even monthly basis, not an annual basis. This allows for any leakage issues to be addressed in a more rapid and preventative manner, reducing the risk of prolonged, unchecked leakage.
Finally, the EPA must ensure that any facilities that fall under the parameters of methane leakage reporting - particularly those that have non-voluntary status - submit all relevant emissions data. Companies may refuse to submit, given the confidentiality of their documentation, yet it is in the public's best interest to report all emissions data in order to most accurately track any negative changes.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the current rulemaking. EPA will consider this comment under the proposed rulemaking, Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems, Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2015 - 0764.
