2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
Federal RegisterJan 15, 2016
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 98
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526; FRL-9934-93-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS60
2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed rule; grant of reconsideration.
SUMMARY:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend 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. This action also proposes confidentiality determinations for the reporting of certain data elements to the program. This action also proposes action in response to a petition to reconsider specific aspects of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.
DATES:
Comments must be received on or before February 29, 2016.
Public hearing
. The EPA does not plan to conduct a public hearing unless requested. To request a hearing, please contact the person listed in the following
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by January 20, 2016. If requested, the hearing will be conducted on February 1, 2016, in the Washington, DC area. The EPA will provide further information about the hearing on its Web site (
http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/index.html
) if a hearing is requested.
ADDRESSES:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email address:
GHGReporting@epa.gov.
Alternatively, you may contact the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Helpline at:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrule_contactus.htm
or Carole Cook at 202-343-9263.
Worldwide Web (WWW).
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available through the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated entities.
These proposed revisions affect entities that must submit annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reports under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) (40 CFR part 98). This proposed rule would impose on entities across the U.S. a degree of reporting consistency for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from most sectors of the economy and therefore is “nationally applicable” within the meaning of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Although the EPA concludes that the rule is nationally applicable, the EPA is also making a determination, for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1), that this action is of nationwide scope and effect and is based on such a determination. (See CAA section 307(b)(1) (a petition for review may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia “if such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination”). Further, the Administrator has determined that rules codified in 40 CFR part 98 are subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine”). These are proposed amendments to existing regulations. If finalized, these amended regulations would affect owners or operators of certain suppliers and direct emitters of GHGs. Regulated categories and entities include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 1 of this preamble:
Table 1—Examples of Affected Entities by Category
Category
NAICS
Examples of affected facilities
General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources
Facilities operating boilers, process heaters, incinerators, turbines, and internal combustion engines.
211
Extractors of crude petroleum and natural gas.
321
Manufacturers of lumber and wood products.
322
Pulp and paper mills.
325
Chemical manufacturers.
324
Petroleum refineries, and manufacturers of coal products.
316, 326, 339
Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastic products.
331
Steel works, blast furnaces.
332
Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring.
336
Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and accessories.
221
Electric, gas, and sanitary services.
622
Health services.
611
Educational services.
Acid Gas Injection Projects
211111 or 211112
Projects that inject acid gas containing CO
2
underground.
Adipic Acid Production
325199
Adipic acid manufacturing facilities.
Aluminum Production
331312
Primary aluminum production facilities.
Ammonia Manufacturing
325311
Anhydrous and aqueous ammonia manufacturing facilities.
CO
2
Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery Projects
211
Oil and gas extraction projects using CO
2
enhanced oil and gas recovery.
Electrical Equipment Use
221121
Electric bulk power transmission and control facilities.
Electronics Manufacturing
334111
Microcomputers manufacturing facilities.
334413
Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing facilities.
334419
LCD unit screens manufacturing facilities. MEMS manufacturing facilities.
Geologic Sequestration Sites
N/A
CO
2
geologic sequestration projects.
Glass Production
327211
Flat glass manufacturing facilities.
327213
Glass container manufacturing facilities.
327212
Other pressed and blown glass and glassware manufacturing facilities.
HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction
325120
Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturing facilities
Hydrogen Production
325120
Hydrogen manufacturing facilities.
Iron and Steel Production
331111
Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic oxygen process furnace shops.
Lime Production
327410
Calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, dolomitic hydrates manufacturing facilities.
Nitric Acid Production
325311
Nitric acid manufacturing facilities.
Petrochemical Production
32511
Ethylene dichloride manufacturing facilities.
325199
Acrylonitrile, ethylene oxide, methanol manufacturing facilities.
325110
Ethylene manufacturing facilities.
325182
Carbon black manufacturing facilities.
Phosphoric Acid Production
325312
Phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities.
Petroleum Refineries
324110
Petroleum refineries.
Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
322110
Pulp mills.
322121
Paper mills.
322130
Paperboard mills.
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
562212
Solid waste landfills.
221320
Sewage treatment facilities.
Soda Ash Manufacturing
325181
Akalies and chlorine manufacturing facilities.
212391
Soda ash, natural, mining and/or beneficiation.
Suppliers of Coal Based Liquids Fuels
211111
Coal liquefaction at mine sites.
Suppliers of Petroleum Products
324110
Petroleum refineries.
Suppliers of Natural Gas and NGLs
221210
Natural gas distribution facilities.
211112
Natural gas liquid extraction facilities.
Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases
325120
Industrial gas manufacturing facilities.
Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide
325120
Industrial gas manufacturing facilities.
Underground Coal Mines
212113
Underground anthracite coal mining operations.
212112
Underground bituminous coal mining operations.
Industrial Wastewater Treatment
322110
Pulp mills.
322121
Paper mills.
322122
Newsprint mills.
322130
Paperboard mills.
311611
Meat processing facilities.
311411
Frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable manufacturing facilities.
311421
Fruit and vegetable canning facilities.
325193
Ethanol manufacturing facilities.
324110
Petroleum refineries.
Industrial Waste Landfills
562212
Solid waste landfills.
221320
Sewage treatment facilities.
322110
Pulp mills.
322121
Paper mills.
322122
Newsprint mills.
322130
Paperboard mills.
311611
Meat processing facilities.
311411
Frozen fruit, juice and vegetable manufacturing facilities.
311421
Fruit and vegetable canning facilities.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of facilities than those listed in the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A or the relevant criteria in the sections related to industrial gas suppliers and direct emitters of GHGs. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. Many facilities that are affected by 40 CFR part 98 have GHG emissions from multiple source categories listed in Table 1 of this preamble.
Acronyms and Abbreviations.
The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CAS Chemical Abstracts Service
CBI confidential business information
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH
4
methane
CO
2
carbon dioxide
CO
2
e carbon dioxide equivalent
DE destruction efficiency
EDC ethylene dichloride
e-GGRT electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool
EF emission factor
EGU NSPS Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
EIA Energy Information Administration
EO Executive Order
ER enhanced oil and gas recovery
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
GHG greenhouse gas
GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
GWP Global warming potential
Hg mercury
HHV high heat value
ICR Information Collection Request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISBN International Standard Book Number
IUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
IVT Inputs Verification Tool
kg kilograms
LDC local distribution company
LNG liquefied natural gas
mmBtu/hr million British thermal units per hour
mmcfd million cubic feet per day
MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration
MSW municipal solid waste
mtCO
2
e metric tons of CO2 equivalents
N
2
O nitrous oxide
NGL natural gas liquid
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
ODS ozone-depleting substances
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PFC perfluorocarbon
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RY Reporting year
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
UIC Underground Injection Control
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
VCM vinyl chloride monomer
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. How is this preamble organized?
B. Executive Summary
C. Background on This Proposed Rule
D. Legal Authority
E. When would the proposed amendments apply?
F. Where can I get a copy of information related to the proposed rule?
G. Methods Incorporated by Reference
II. Overview and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to Part 98
A. Revisions To Streamline Implementation of Part 98
B. Revisions To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory
C. Other Amendments
D. Minor Corrections, Clarifications, and Harmonizing Revisions
III. Proposed Amendments to Each Subpart
A. Subpart A—General Provisions
B. Subpart C—General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources
C. Subpart E—Adipic Acid Production
D. Subpart F—Aluminum Production
E. Subpart G—Ammonia Manufacturing
F. Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing
G. Subpart N—Glass Production
H. Subpart O—HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction
I. Subpart Q—Iron and Steel Production
J. Subpart S—Lime Manufacturing
K. Subpart V—Nitric Acid Production
L. Subpart X—Petrochemical Production
M. Subpart Y—Petroleum Refineries
N. Subpart Z—Phosphoric Acid Production
O. Subpart AA—Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
P. Subpart CC—Soda Ash Manufacturing
Q. Subpart DD—Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment
R. Subpart FF—Underground Coal Mines
S. Subpart HH—Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
T. Subpart II—Industrial Wastewater Treatment
U. Subpart LL—Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels
V. Subpart NN—Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids
W. Subpart OO—Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases
X. Subpart RR—Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide
Y. Subpart TT—Industrial Waste Landfills
Z. Other Minor Revisions, Clarifications, and Corrections
IV. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Changed Data Reporting Elements
A. Overview and Background
B. Approach to Proposed Confidentiality Determinations
C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Reporting Elements
D. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Other Part 98 Data Reporting Elements for Which No Determination Has Been Previously Established
E. Proposed Revised Confidentiality Determination for Subpart NN Data Elements
F. Request for Comments on Proposed Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations
V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments
A. How was the incremental burden of the proposed rule estimated?
B. Additional Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to Part 98
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
I. Background
A. How is this preamble organized?
The first section of this preamble contains background information regarding the origin of the proposed amendments. This section also discusses the EPA's legal authority under the CAA to promulgate (including subsequent amendments to) the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, codified at 40 CFR part 98 (hereinafter referred to as “Part 98”) and the EPA's legal authority to make confidentiality determinations for new or revised data elements required by this amendment or for existing data elements for which a confidentiality determination has not previously been proposed. Section I of this preamble also discusses when the proposed amendments would apply and provides additional information regarding materials referenced in this rulemaking. Section II of this preamble describes the types of amendments included in this rulemaking, and includes the rationale for each type of proposed change. Section III of this preamble is organized by Part 98 subpart and contains detailed information on the proposed revisions to each subpart and the rationale for the proposed revisions in each section. Section IV of this preamble discusses the proposed confidentiality determinations for new or substantially
revised (i.e., requiring additional or different data to be reported) data reporting elements, as well as proposed confidentiality determinations for certain existing data elements in subparts I, Z, MM, NN, PP, and RR for which the EPA has not previously made a determination or where the EPA has determined that the current determination is no longer appropriate. Section V of this preamble discusses the impacts of the proposed amendments. Finally, section VI of this preamble describes the statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this action.
B. Executive Summary
The GHGRP is a well-known, reliable source for high-quality, timely greenhouse gas emissions data that enables key stakeholders to understand greenhouse gas emissions, identify emission reduction opportunities, and take action. Since the first year of data collection through the GHGRP, the EPA has responded to tens of thousands of questions from reporters, engaged in stakeholder outreach through compliance assistance webinars, solicited feedback via a public testing process to help improve the EPA's electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT), and learned about various site specific scenarios via interaction with reporters during the verification of submitted data. Through these extensive outreach efforts, the EPA has improved our understanding of the technical challenges and burden associated with implementation of the Part 98 provisions, as well as issues that may impact the quality of the data received. The proposed changes would amend specific provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to streamline and improve implementation of the rule, improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the rule, and clarify or provide minor updates to certain provisions that have been the subject of questions and feedback from reporting entities.
The EPA is proposing amendments that can be categorized as follows:
• Revisions to streamline implementation and reduce burden. These changes reduce or simplify requirements in a manner that would ease burden on reporters and the EPA. The changes would also improve the usefulness of data for the public. Such revisions include revising requirements to focus EPA and reporter resources on relevant data, removing reporting requirements for specific facilities that report little to no emissions, or removing reported data elements that are no longer necessary.
• Amendments to improve quality of data. These 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 (hereafter referred to as the “U.S. GHG Inventory”).
• Minor amendments to better reflect industry processes and emissions. Such revisions include amendments to calculation, monitoring, or measurement methods that would address prior petitioner or commenter concerns (e.g., amendments that provide additional flexibility for facilities or that more accurately reflect industry processes and emissions).
• Minor clarifications and corrections to improve understanding of the rule. Such revisions include the following: Corrections to errors in terms and definitions in certain equations; clarifications that provide additional information for reporters to better or more fully understand compliance obligations; changes to correct cross references within and between subparts; and other editorial or harmonizing changes that would improve the public's understanding of the rule.
This action also proposes to establish confidentiality determinations for the reporting of certain data elements added or revised in these proposed amendments, and for certain existing data elements for which no confidentiality determination has been previously proposed.
1
Finally, section III.S of this preamble describes the proposed changes in response to a petition to reconsider specific aspects of subpart HH, which applies to municipal solid waste landfills.
1
During the development of Part 98, the EPA received a number of comments from stakeholders regarding their concern that some of the data reported consisted of confidential business information that, if released to the public, would likely harm their competitive position. The EPA has subsequently published a series of notices to establish determinations for the confidentiality status of data required to be reported under the GHGRP
(i.e.
, “confidentiality determinations”). See section IV.A of this preamble for additional information.
The proposed revisions are anticipated to increase burden for Part 98 reporters in cases where they would expand current applicability, monitoring, or reporting, and are anticipated to decrease burden for reporters in cases where they would streamline Part 98 to remove notification or reporting requirements or simplify the data that must be reported. The estimated incremental change in burden from the proposed amendments to Part 98 includes burden associated with: (1) Changes to the reporting requirements by adding, revising, or removing existing reporting requirements; (2) revisions to the applicability of subparts such that additional facilities would be required to report; and (3) additional monitoring requirements for underground coal mines. Many of the amendments that the EPA is proposing in this action are not anticipated to have a significant impact on burden. As discussed in section I.E of this preamble, we are proposing to implement these changes over reporting years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in order to stagger the implementation of these changes over time. The burden has subsequently been determined based on when the proposed revisions would be implemented in each year (
e.g.
, the burden for RY2016 only reflects changes to subparts I (Electronics Manufacturing) and HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills), and related changes to subpart A (General Provisions)). The EPA determined that one-time implementation costs would apply for certain revisions to applicability and monitoring requirements that would first apply in reporting year (RY) 2017 and RY2018; therefore, we have estimated costs through RY2019 to reflect the subsequent annual costs incurred by industry. As more fully explained in section V of this preamble, the EPA has determined that the total estimated incremental burden associated with all revisions in this proposed rulemaking would be $2,049,478 over the 3 years covered by the proposed rule, with an estimated annual burden of $1,081,830 per year once all changes have been implemented. The incremental implementation costs for each reporting year are summarized in Table 2 of this preamble.
Table 2—Incremental Burden for Reporting Years 2016-2019
[$/year]
Reporting year
2016
2017
2018
2019
Total Annual Cost (all subparts)
$9K
$34K
$2.0M
$1.1M
C. Background on This Proposed Rule
The GHG Reporting Rule was published in the
Federal Register
on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). The final rule became effective on December 29, 2009 and requires reporting of GHGs from various facilities and suppliers, consistent with the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
2
2
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128.
The EPA subsequently proposed and finalized amendments to various subparts, including subparts in this action. The amendments generally did not change the basic requirements of Part 98, but were intended to improve clarity and ensure consistency across the calculation, monitoring, and data reporting requirements. The EPA issued additional rules in 2010 finalizing the requirements for subparts T, FF, II, and TT (75 FR 39736, July 12, 2010); subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS (75 FR 74774, December 1, 2010); and subparts RR and UU (75 FR 75060, December 1, 2010). Following the promulgation of these subparts, the EPA finalized several technical and clarifying amendments to these and other subparts under the GHGRP. A number of subparts have been revised since promulgation (75 FR 79092, December 17, 2010; 76 FR 73866, November 29, 2011; 77 FR 10373, February 22, 2012; 77 FR 29935, May 21, 2012; 77 FR 51477, August 24, 2012; 78 FR 68162, November 13, 2013; 78 FR 71904, November 29, 2013; 79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014; and 79 FR 73750, December 11, 2014). The amendments in this action are a continuation of the effort to improve the GHGRP and address issues identified during implementation.
D. Legal Authority
The EPA is proposing these rule amendments under its existing CAA authority provided in CAA section 114. As stated in the preamble to the 2009 final GHG reporting rule (74 FR 56260), CAA section 114(a)(1) provides the EPA broad authority to require the information proposed to be gathered by this rule because such data would inform and are relevant to the EPA's carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions. See the preambles to the proposed and final GHG reporting rule for further information.
In addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations for proposed new, revised, and existing data elements in Part 98 under its authorities provided in sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA. Section 114(c) of the CAA requires that the EPA make publicly available information obtained under CAA section 114, except for information (excluding emission data) that qualifies for confidential treatment. The Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA. Generally section 307(d) contains a set of procedures relating to the issuance and review of certain enumerated CAA rules.
E. When would the proposed amendments apply?
In this action, the EPA is proposing: (1) Numerous amendments to Part 98 including subpart-specific revisions that would streamline implementation of Part 98, improve the quality of the data collected under the rule, update certain provisions to more accurately reflect industry processes and emissions, and other corrections, as described in sections II and III of this preamble; and (2) new or revised confidentiality determinations for data elements that are added or revised in the proposed amendments or for certain existing data elements, as described in section IV of this preamble. The EPA is planning to phase in implementation of the proposed requirements depending on the nature of the revision. Some of the amendments would apply in RY2016, some in RY2017, and some in RY2018. This section describes when each of the proposed amendments would apply.
We are proposing that amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subparts I (Electronics Manufacturing) and HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills), with related revisions to subpart A (General Provisions), would apply to the RY2016 reports, which must be submitted by March 31, 2017. The remaining amendments proposed in this action would apply to annual reports submitted for RY2017, except for amendments to V (Nitric Acid Production), Y (Petroleum Refineries), FF (Underground Coal Mines) and OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases) which would apply to reports for RY2018.
We are proposing to implement these revisions over reporting years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in order to stagger the implementation of these changes over time, in consideration of the types of changes being made and the associated revisions needed to implement them, including impacts to reporters and revisions to EPA's e-GGRT. Specifically, some of the proposed changes include revisions to software that would need to be updated in e-GGRT. The time phasing also allows sufficient lead time for reporters to implement the proposed changes following the promulgation of the final rule revisions. For example, where the proposed changes would require reporters to collect new data that are not readily available or that could not be determined from existing monitoring and recordkeeping, the EPA would not apply these changes to RY2016 reports. The proposed schedule also provides sufficient time for new reporters who would become subject to Part 98 as a result of the proposed amendments to acquire monitoring equipment and begin collecting data. The amendments that would apply to RY2016, RY2017, and RY2018 reports are discussed in sections I.E.1, I.E.2, and I.E.3 of this preamble.
1. Which proposed amendments would apply beginning with RY2016?
Table 3 of this preamble lists the affected subparts and proposed changes that would apply to RY2016.
Table 3—Proposed Changes to Part 98 Applicable to RY2016
Subpart affected
a
Changes applicable in RY2016
A—General Provisions
40 CFR 98.6 (definition of “Gas collection system or landfill gas collection system” only).
I—Electronics Manufacturing
All proposed changes in subpart.
HH—Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
All proposed changes in subpart.
a
Subpart names may also be found in the Table of Contents for this preamble.
We are proposing that all changes to subparts I and HH, and minor revisions to subpart A, would apply to reports for RY2016, which must be submitted by March 31, 2017. For subpart I, we are proposing several revisions that would improve the quality of the data collected. For example, we are proposing to revise the requirements of the technology triennial report in 40 CFR 98.96(y), which applies to semiconductor manufacturing facilities with emissions from subpart I processes greater than 40,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e) per year. Per the requirements of 40 CFR 98.96(y)(1), facilities are required to submit the first triennial report on March 31, 2017. The changes we are proposing to 40 CFR 98.96(y) would clarify the types of data and measurements to be submitted with the triennial report, but would not fundamentally alter the data reported or require additional data collection from reporters. Specifically, we are clarifying that where reporters provide any utilization and by-product formation rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency data in the triennial report, they must also include information on the methods and conditions under which the data were collected, where available (see section III.F of this preamble for additional information). We are proposing to implement the changes to subpart I in RY2016 in order to ensure that the data submitted in the triennial reports submitted on March 31, 2017 reflects these methods and conditions, which will help the EPA to more efficiently review the reported data. In addition to the proposed changes to 40 CFR 98.96(y), the EPA is proposing revisions to improve the methodology used to calculate the fraction of fluorinated-GHG and fluorinated-GHG byproduct destroyed or removed in a fab using the stack testing methodology.
Under subpart HH, we are proposing several revisions to improve the quality of the data collected, better align the rule requirements with industry operating practices, and streamline the reporting requirements. We are also proposing one related change to subpart A of Part 98 to update the definition of “gas collection system or landfill gas collection system” in 40 CFR 98.6. These revisions, which are described in section III.S of this preamble, are proposed to apply to RY2016 reports because they provide additional clarifications and flexibility regarding the existing regulatory requirements that address questions raised by reporters during implementation.
We have determined that it would be feasible for existing reporters to implement the proposed changes to subparts A, I, and HH for RY2016 because these changes are consistent with the data collection and calculation methodologies in the current rule. The proposed revisions would not add new monitoring requirements, and would not substantially affect the type of information that must be collected. The owners or operators are not required to actually submit RY2016 reports until March 31, 2017, which is three months or more after we expect the final rule amendments based on this proposal to be published, thus providing ample opportunity for reporters to adjust to the amendments.
2. Which proposed amendments would apply beginning with RY2017?
Table 4 of this preamble lists the affected subparts and proposed changes that would apply to RY2017. For these revisions, reporters would submit an annual report on March 31, 2018.
Table 4—Proposed Changes to Part 98 Applicable to RY2017
Subpart affected
Changes applicable in RY2017
A—General Provisions
§ 98.2; § 98.3; § 98.4; § 98.6; § 98.7(e)(33); and Tables A-3 and A-4.
C—General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources
All proposed changes in subpart.
E—Adipic Acid Production
All proposed changes in subpart.
F—Aluminum Production
All proposed changes in subpart.
G—Ammonia Manufacturing
All proposed changes in subpart.
N—Glass Production
All proposed changes in subpart.
O—HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction
All proposed changes in subpart.
P—Hydrogen Production
All proposed changes in subpart.
Q—Iron and Steel Production
All proposed changes in subpart.
S—Lime Manufacturing
All proposed changes in subpart.
U—Miscellaneous Uses of Carbonate
All proposed changes in subpart.
X—Petrochemical Production
All proposed changes in subpart.
Z—Phosphoric Acid Production
All proposed changes in subpart.
AA—Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
All proposed changes in subpart.
CC—Soda Ash Manufacturing
All proposed changes in subpart.
DD—Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment
All proposed changes in subpart.
II—Industrial Wastewater Treatment
All proposed changes in subpart.
LL—Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels
All proposed changes in subpart.
MM—Suppliers of Petroleum Products
All proposed changes in subpart.
NN—Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids
All proposed changes in subpart.
PP—Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide
All proposed changes in subpart.
RR—Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide
All proposed changes in subpart.
TT—Industrial Waste landfills
All proposed changes in subpart.
UU—Injection of Carbon Dioxide
All proposed changes in subpart.
The changes to subparts listed in Table 4 of this preamble would apply to the annual reports submitted for RY2017 on March 31, 2018; these changes are proposed to apply to the 2017 reporting year in order to allow for adequate time for the agency to integrate the revisions through e-GGRT and the Inputs Verification Tool (IVT), as well as prepare to incorporate the revisions into other GHGRP datasets and publications. The changes to subparts included in Table 4 of this preamble would be feasible for reporters to implement for RY2017 because these changes are consistent with the data collection and calculation methodologies in the current rule. In most cases, the proposed revisions include minor revisions such as editorial corrections, corrections to cross-references, and technical clarifications regarding the existing regulatory requirements. Where calculation equations are proposed to be modified, the changes generally clarify terms in the emission calculation equations and do not materially affect monitoring requirements or how emissions are calculated. In some cases, we are adding flexibility by providing alternative monitoring methods or missing data procedures that would reduce burden on reporters. For example, in subpart AA (Pulp and Paper Manufacturing), for missing measurements of the mass of spent liquor solids or spent pulping liquor flow rates, we are proposing to allow reporters to use the daily mass of spent liquor solids fired that are currently reported under 40 CFR 63, subpart MM (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills) as an alternative to maximum mass and flow rate values currently required in 40 CFR 98.275(b) (see section III.O of this preamble for additional information). Other proposed changes would reduce the type of information that must be collected;
e.g.
, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) of subpart A to clarify the EPA's policies allowing reporters to cease reporting under Part 98 (see section III.A.1 of this preamble), and we are proposing to remove reporting requirements in subpart O (HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction) (see section III.H of this preamble) and subpart LL (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels) (see section III.U of this preamble) that are no longer needed to support verification or other activities. Although some of the proposed revisions included in Table 4 of this preamble would include reporting additional data, the EPA has determined that the data we are proposing to collect would be readily available to reporters. For example, we are proposing to add requirements to 40 CFR part 98, subpart DD (Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use) and subpart NN (Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids) for reporters to include the name of the U.S. state or territory covered in the facility's annual report. Because these revisions would not require the collection of additional data or changes to existing monitoring requirements, it is feasible for these revisions to be implemented for RY2016. However, we are not implementing these changes until RY2017 to allow the agency sufficient time to incorporate the revisions into e-GGRT and IVT. Finally, we note that the reporters affected under the subparts in Table 4 of this preamble are not required to actually submit RY2017 reports until March 31, 2018. Because a final rule based on this proposal would be finalized in late 2016, reporters will have over a year to prepare for the amendments before they must submit RY2017 reports.
3. Which proposed amendments would apply beginning with RY2018?
We are proposing that the revisions to the subparts listed in Table 5 of this preamble would apply to annual reports submitted for RY2018, which must be submitted by March 31, 2019.
Table 5—Proposed Changes to Part 98 Applicable for RY2018
Subpart affected
Changes applicable in RY2018
A—General Provisions
§ 98.7(l)(1); Table A-5.
V—Nitric Acid Production
All proposed changes in subpart.
Y—Petroleum Refineries
All proposed changes in subpart.
FF—Underground Coal Mines
All proposed changes in subpart.
OO—Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases
All proposed changes in subpart.
We are proposing that revisions to subparts V, Y, FF, and OO, and related changes to 40 CFR 98.7(l)(1) and Table A-5 of subpart A, would apply to RY2018, with reporters following the revised rule requirements beginning January 1, 2018. In several cases, the proposed changes would revise the applicability of a source category to certain facilities or significantly revise existing calculation or monitoring methodologies. For example, we are proposing to revise the definition of the industrial gas supplier source category in 40 CFR part 98, subpart OO to include facilities that destroy, but do not produce, fluorinated GHGs and fluorinated HTFs. These proposed changes could expand the applicability of Part 98 to additional facilities that were not previously required to report under the rule; these facilities would require more time to acquire and install monitoring equipment and begin collecting data under Part 98. Similarly, we are proposing to revise the calculation methodology for delayed coking units in 40 CFR part 98, subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) to better reflect industry emissions (see section III.M of this preamble).
As discussed in section III.R of this preamble, we are proposing some methodological changes to subpart FF to clarify the type of facilities included in the source category and revise the monitoring and data collection requirements to improve the quality of the data collected. We are proposing a related revision to 40 CFR 98.7(l)(1) in
subpart A to incorporate updated methods for sampling methane concentration and conducting measurements of flow rate, temperature, pressure, and moisture content. Given that the final rule revisions would not be finalized until the second half of 2016, it is assumed that it would not be feasible for these facilities to acquire, install, and calibrate new monitoring equipment, or to perform more frequent monitoring, in time for the reports submitted for RY2017. However, the EPA is also seeking comment on whether underground coal mine facilities would indeed be able to meet these revised requirements for RY2017.
In past rulemakings, the EPA has typically required monitoring to begin a few months after finalization of revised rules, and has offered Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) to be used temporarily to provide sufficient time for facilities to come into full compliance with the newly finalized monitoring methods. In this action, to avoid the need to offer the use of BAMM and to stagger the burden associated with making revisions to e-GGRT, we are proposing that the revisions to these subparts would apply to RY2018 reports. If finalized, subpart V, Y, FF, and OO reporters, including new reporters, would begin following the revised rule requirements on January 1, 2018 and submit the first annual reports using the revised monitoring and data collection methods on March 31, 2019. This schedule would allow at least one year for subpart V, Y, FF, and OO reporters to acquire, install, and calibrate any new monitoring equipment, as well as implement any changes to existing monitoring methods, for the 2018 reporting year. The proposed timeline also allows sufficient time for the agency to integrate any associated changes to reporting requirements in the affected subparts into e-GGRT and other GHGRP activities, such as verification.
The EPA is proposing one related change to subpart A that could apply to certain subpart FF reporters prior to January 1, 2018. In keeping with the proposed changes discussed in section III.A.1 of this preamble, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) of subpart A to streamline the reporting requirements for closed coal mines. These proposed revisions would apply beginning January 1, 2017, consistent with the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 98.2 listed in Table 4 of this preamble, and could affect owners and operators of abandoned underground mines (see section III.A and III.R of this preamble for additional information). All other proposed revisions related to subpart FF would apply beginning January 1, 2018 for the reasons described above.
F. Where can I get a copy of information related to the proposed rule?
This preamble references several documents developed to support the proposed rulemaking. These documents provide additional information regarding the proposed changes to Part 98, and supplementary information which the EPA considered in the development of the proposed revisions. These documents are referenced in sections II through V of this preamble and are available in the docket to this rulemaking or other rulemaking dockets, as follows:
• “Table of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.” EPA memorandum summarizing the less substantive minor corrections, clarifications, and harmonizing revisions in the proposed rule, as discussed in section II of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
• “Re: Strong Nitric Acid Facilities in the U.S.” From Natalie Tang, EPA to Alexis McKittrick and Mausami Desai, EPA, dated January 29, 2015. Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart V (Nitric Acid Production) as discussed in section III.K of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
• “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.” Letter received from Occidental Chemical Company, July 10, 2015, as discussed in section III.L of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
• “Proposed Changes to Flare Pilot Gas Reporting Requirements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).” From Jeff Coburn, Leslie Pearce and Kevin Bradley, RTI International (RTI) to Brian Cook, EPA, dated July 10, 2015. Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) as discussed in section III.M of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
• “Revised Emission Methodology for Delayed Coking Units.” From Jeff Coburn, RTI to Brian Cook, EPA, dated June 4, 2015. Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) as discussed in section III.M of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
• “Evaluating Possible VAM Emissions Estimation Errors Based on Different Sampling Intervals (Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly).” Ruby Canyon Engineering, dated June 10, 2015. Memorandum supporting revisions to subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines) as discussed in section III.R of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
• “Use of Inspection Data from the Mine Safety Health Administration for Reporting Quarterly Methane Liberation from Mine Ventilation Shafts.” From Clark Talkington, Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI) to Cate Hight, EPA, dated November 13, 2015. Memorandum supporting revisions to subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines) as discussed in section III.R of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
• “Review of Oxidation Studies and Associated Cover Depth in the Peer-Reviewed Literature.” From Kate Bronstein, Meaghan McGrath, and Jeff Coburn, RTI to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated June 17, 2015, Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills) as discussed in section III.S of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
• “Review of Site-Specific Industrial Waste Degradable Organic Content Data” from Jeff Coburn and Katherine Bronstein, RTI to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated June 17, 2015. Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart TT (Industrial Waste Landfills) as discussed in section III.Y of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
• “Proposed Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements in the Proposed 2015 Revisions.” Memorandum listing all proposed new, substantially revised, and existing data elements with proposed category assignments and confidentiality determinations, as described in Section IV of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
• “Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of `Inputs to Equations' Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015.” Memorandum, September 2014. Available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929.
• “Summary of Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) Part 98 `Inputs to Emission Equations' Data Elements Deferred Until 2013.” Memorandum, December 17, 2012. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
• “Final Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Part 98 Reporting Elements.” Memorandum, April 29, 2011. Available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0924.
• “Assessment of Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.” Memorandum describing the costs of the proposed revisions to Part 98, as discussed in section V of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
G. Methods Incorporated by Reference
In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text for 40 CFR 98.7 that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following:
• Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples using Radiocarbon Analysis (ASTM D6866-12), which would apply to subpart C reporters (see section III.B.2 of this preamble). These standards are available on the ASTM Web site (
http://www.astm.org/
) to everyone at a cost determined by the ASTM ($50). The ASTM also offers memberships or subscriptions that allow unlimited access to their methods. The cost of obtaining these methods is not a significant financial burden, making the methods reasonably available for reporters. The EPA will also make a copy of these documents available in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information) for review purposes only.
• Inspection and sampling standards from the Coal Mine Safety and Health General Inspection Procedures Handbook Number: PH13-V-1 (February 2013) as published by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which would apply to subpart FF reporters (see section III.R.2 of this preamble). These standards are available free of charge through the MSHA Web site (
http://www.msha.gov
). The EPA has also made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through
www.regulations.gov.
Because these standards do not present a significant financial burden to reporters, the EPA has determined that these methods are reasonably available. The EPA has also made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).
II. Overview and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to Part 98
In this action, the EPA is proposing to revise specific provisions in Part 98 to simplify and streamline implementation of the rule, 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 and feedback from reporting entities. The EPA has identified four categories of changes that we are proposing in this rulemaking, which include the following:
• Revisions to streamline implementation of the rule by reducing or simplifying requirements that would ease burden on reporters and the EPA, such as revising requirements to focus GHGRP and reporter resources on relevant data, removing reporting requirements for specific facilities which report little to no emissions, or removing reported data elements that are no longer necessary;
• Amendments that would expand monitoring, applicability, or reporting requirements that are necessary to enhance the quality of the data collected, improve verification of collected data under the GHGRP, and improve the accuracy of data included in the U.S. GHG Inventory;
• Other amendments, such as amendments to calculation, monitoring, or measurement methods that would address prior petitioner or commenter concerns (e.g., amendments that provide additional flexibility for facilities or that more accurately reflect industry processes and emissions).
• Minor clarifications and corrections, including: corrections to terms and definitions in certain equations; clarifications that provide additional information for reporters to better or more fully understand compliance obligations; changes to correct cross references within and between subparts; and other editorial or harmonizing changes that would improve the public's understanding of the rule.
Sections II.A through II.D of this preamble describe each of the above categories in more detail and provide rationale for the changes included in each category.
The proposed changes in this action would advance the EPA's goal of maximizing rule effectiveness. For example, these proposed changes would clarify existing rule provisions, thus enabling government, regulated entities, and the public to easily identify and understand rule requirements. In addition, specific changes such as increasing the flexibility given to reporting entities related to requesting extensions for revising annual reports would make compliance easier than non-compliance. The proposed changes also serve to clarify whether and when reporting requirements apply to a facility, and more specifically when a facility may discontinue reporting, thereby allowed a regulated entity to regularly assess their compliance and prevent noncompliance.
The proposed changes would also improve the EPA's ability to assess compliance by adding reporting elements that allow the EPA to more thoroughly verify GHG data and understand trends in emissions. For example, the proposed requirement to report the date of installation of any abatement equipment at Adipic Acid and Nitric Acid Production facilities will increase the EPA and public's understanding of the use of and trends in emissions reduction technologies. Lastly, the proposed changes further advance the ability of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program to provide access to quality data on greenhouse gas emissions by adding key data elements to improve the usefulness of the data. One example is the proposed addition of the reporting of emissions by state for Suppliers of Natural Gas (subpart NN reporters). This data will allow users of the GHGRP data to more easily identify the state within which the reporter operates, which will be useful for determining state level GHG totals associated with natural gas supply and increase transparency and usefulness of the data reported.
Additional details for the specific amendments proposed for each subpart are included in section III of this preamble. To reduce the length of this preamble, we have summarized the remaining less substantive minor corrections, clarifications, and harmonizing revisions in the memorandum, “Table of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule” (hereafter referred to as the “Table of Revisions”) available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526). These changes include straightforward clarifications of
requirements to better reflect the EPA's intent; harmonizing changes within subparts (such as harmonizing terminology); corrections to calculation terms and cross-references; editorial and minor error corrections; and removal of redundant text. The Table of Revisions describes each proposed change within a subpart, including those itemized in this preamble, and provides the current rule text and the proposed correction. Where the proposed change is listed only in the Table of Revisions, the rationale for the proposed change is also listed there.
We are seeking public comment only on the issues specifically identified in this notice (including the changes listed in the Table of Revisions) for the identified subparts. We are not reopening other aspects of Part 98.
A. Revisions To Streamline Implementation of Part 98
Following implementation of Part 98, the EPA has identified several areas of the rule which could be revised or simplified to improve the efficiency of the requirements or to reduce the burden on reporters and the EPA. We are consequently proposing several revisions that would streamline the requirements as well as improve implementation of the rule.
Several of the proposed revisions would clarify and revise the requirements of Part 98 in order to focus the GHGRP and reporter resources on the most relevant data. In some cases, we are proposing to revise requirements to reduce when facilities must report emissions, such as by clarifying requirements for facilities that may report very little or no emissions. The EPA does not anticipate a significant change in the overall reported emissions or a reduction in the quality of reported carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions and supply. Removing these instances of reporting would also reduce burden on some reporters.
As an example, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR part 98, subpart FF to allow an underground coal mine to cease reporting after it has closed and its status is determined to be “abandoned” by MSHA. The CO
2
e emissions from abandoned and sealed mines are far below the reporting threshold. The EPA is proposing these types of changes to reduce burden, as well as to focus the collection of data under the GHGRP on those sources that are expected to emit, import, or export larger amounts of greenhouse gases.
In addition, the EPA is proposing in this rulemaking 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 for subparts Q (Iron and Steel Production), X (Petrochemical Production), and Y (Petroleum Refineries). The quantity of GHG emissions associated with pilot gas is very small relative to the total GHG emissions from a flare at petroleum refineries, petrochemical production facilities, and iron and steel production facilities. Eliminating the monitoring of this small quantity of emissions will not adversely impact the quality of the greenhouse gas data collected and may decrease the burden associated with monitoring the flare gas. We are proposing similar revisions to other subparts that simplify data collection for reporters and focus the provisions of the rule on the essential data that the EPA requires to review, assess, and verify reported emissions.
Other proposed revisions to the rule include changes that would streamline the rule, such as removing reported data elements that are no longer necessary. For example, for 40 CFR part 98, subpart LL (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels), we are proposing to remove requirements of 40 CFR 98.386 that are no longer needed to support verification or other activities. In a prior notice, “2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Final Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements” (78 FR 71904, November 29, 2013, hereafter referred to as “2013 Revisions Rule”), we finalized amendments to subpart LL that removed requirements in 40 CFR 98.386 for suppliers to report the annual quantity of each product or natural gas liquid on the basis of the measurement method used. Subpart LL reporters are currently only required to report the total annual quantities of each product or natural gas liquid in metric tons or barrels supplied. In this action, we are proposing to remove the provisions of 40 CFR 98.386 that require suppliers to report the methods used to measure the quantities of each product reported. This change would harmonize with the previously finalized revisions which removed the requirement to report products by method and would reduce the burden on reporters.
We are also proposing certain revisions that would streamline the reporting and verification process. These proposed changes would ease the burden on reporters (e.g., by reducing the actions required of reporters) and improve agency implementation of the rule. For example, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify the EPA's policies allowing reporters to cease reporting under Part 98. The existing provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i) provide options for reporters to discontinue reporting when annual emissions are less than certain thresholds, or if process operations are permanently shut down. We are proposing to clarify when these requirements apply for suppliers, processes or operations that cease operation in the reporting year, and facilities where the operations are changed such that a process or operation no longer meets the “Definition of Source Category” for a subpart. These provisions are anticipated to streamline reporting by specifying when reporters are no longer required to report for a particular process or operation.
We are proposing similar changes to Part 98 which would improve the efficiency of the reporting process. The specific changes that we are proposing that are intended to streamline Part 98, as described in this section, are described for each subpart, as appropriate, in sections III.A through III.Y of this preamble.
B. Revisions To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory
The EPA is also proposing amendments in this action that would improve the existing applicability, monitoring, or reporting requirements of Part 98 in order to enhance the quality and accuracy of the data collected under the GHGRP, improve verification of collected data, and provide additional data to help improve estimates included in the U.S. GHG Inventory.
Several of the amendments in this action are being proposed to improve the quality of the data collected under the GHGRP. The data collected under Part 98 are used to inform the EPA's understanding of the relative emissions and distribution of emissions from specific industries, the factors that influence GHG emission rates, and to inform policy options and potential regulations. Following several years of implementation of the rule, the EPA has identified certain areas of the rule where clarifying amendments to source category definitions, revisions to calculation methodologies or monitoring methods, and revisions or additions to reporting requirements are needed to ensure that accurate data are being collected under the rule. For example, we are proposing revisions to subpart FF to revise the monitoring requirements for methane liberated from ventilation systems to remove the option to use quarterly testing by the MSHA. This change is being proposed because we have determined that the quarterly flowrate data gathered by
MSHA cannot be used to reliably estimate coal mine emissions for GHG reporting purposes. Instead, coal mines will be required to use one of the other existing methods to measure emissions from ventilation, either collection of grab samples or use of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). In proposing this change, the EPA is seeking comment on whether other alternatives, such as surface level samples taken at the fan mouth, would achieve the same objectives for improved data quality from mine ventilation systems. The EPA is also seeking comment on increasing the frequency with which grab samples must be taken at underground coal mines. Currently coal mines must take grab samples on a quarterly basis and report methane liberation on a quarterly basis. In this action, the EPA is seeking comment on increasing the frequency of grab samples to monthly sampling in order to provide more transparent and reliable measurement of methane emissions from ventilation systems while more closely aligning the monitoring requirements for mine ventilation with those for degasification systems. The EPA also seeks comments on other monitoring frequencies higher than monthly (such as biweekly) or monitoring frequencies higher than quarterly but less than monthly (such as bimonthly). For comments on increasing the monitoring frequency and the availability of other alternative monitoring methods, the EPA encourages commenters to submit studies, data, and background information on multi-year ventilation system monitoring on a basis that is more frequent than quarterly. This information will help determine the appropriate frequency of monitoring for ventilation emissions that is needed to ensure reliable and accurate measurements.
In another case, we are proposing to revise existing reporting requirements to collect more detailed facility data. For example, we are proposing to amend the reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart O (HFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction) to require reporting of the information under 40 CFR 98.156(a) at a process level. Currently, reporters are required to submit the annual mass of HCFC-22 produced, the annual mass of reactants fed into the process, the annual mass of HFC-23 emitted, and additional information under 40 CFR 98.156(a) at the facility level. Collecting this information on a process-level basis would further our understanding of emissions from HCFC-22 production processes and provide a more accurate emissions profile for this sector.
Some of the proposed amendments include revisions to existing reporting requirements to clarify the data that are currently reported or improve verification of reported data. For example, we are proposing amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH to add a requirement for landfills with gas collection systems to report the number of hours active gas flow was sent to each destruction device instead of the annual operating hours for each destruction device. This revision is needed in order for the EPA's reporting tool to accurately calculate a key variable in certain equations used to calculate emissions. Although the proposed change would require different data to be reported, it would improve verification of the existing data by reducing the number of reporters that override their equation results, resulting in fewer verification errors and follow-up messages to reporters.
We are also proposing several amendments to ensure data collected by the GHGRP adequately support the U.S. GHG Inventory. As described in the preamble of the proposed GHG Reporting Rule (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), the GHGRP is intended to supplement and complement the U.S. GHG Inventory by advancing the understanding of emission processes and monitoring methodologies for particular source categories or sectors. Specifically, the GHGRP complements the U.S. GHG Inventory by providing data from individual facilities and suppliers above certain thresholds to improve the assumptions and emissions values used in the U.S. GHG Inventory. The collected facility, unit, and process-level GHG data from the GHGRP provide and confirm the national statistics and emission estimates presented in the U.S. GHG Inventory, which are calculated using aggregated national data. These proposed amendments include clarifications to source category definitions, revisions to calculation methodologies, and revisions or additions to reporting requirements that will improve the accuracy of the data included in the U.S. GHG Inventory and improve our ability to inform the development of GHG policies and programs. For example, we are proposing revisions to 40 CFR part 98, subpart E (Adipic Acid Production) and 40 CFR part 98, subpart V (Nitric Acid Production) that would require reporting of the date of installation of any abatement systems (if applicable). The addition of these data elements would help improve the accuracy of trend estimates for these sectors in the U.S. GHG Inventory. Specifically, the proposed data elements would allow the agency to apply emission factors with and without abatement systems over the correct time periods using the reported dates.
The specific changes that we are proposing for each subpart, as appropriate, are described in sections III.A through III.Y of this preamble.
C. Other Amendments
In addition to the amendments described in sections II.A and II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing other amendments to certain subparts of Part 98. Through outreach and communication with stakeholders, the EPA has identified certain aspects of the rule that may require substantive revision, such as amending calculation, monitoring, or measurement methods to provide flexibility for certain facilities, or to more accurately reflect industry processes and emissions. These changes would respond to comments raised by stakeholders in prior rulemakings and issues raised by petitioners for certain subparts, and would more closely align rule requirements with the processes conducted at specific facilities. For example, for 40 CFR part 98, subpart TT (Industrial Waste Landfills), we are proposing to add several waste types for pulp and paper, including associated degradable organic content (DOC) and k-values, to Table TT-1 of subpart TT to include common industrial waste subtypes. The EPA is proposing these revisions following comments on 2013 Revisions Rule, in which stakeholders requested the EPA add these common waste types to Table TT-1 of subpart TT. These proposed revisions would improve the accuracy of calculated emissions reported by these facilities.
Additional details for the amendments described in this section are discussed for each subpart, as appropriate, in sections III.A through III.Y of this preamble.
D. Minor Corrections, Clarifications, and Harmonizing Revisions
The EPA is proposing additional minor corrections, clarifications, and harmonizing revisions that would improve understanding of the rule. These revisions primarily include simple revisions of requirements to better reflect the EPA's intent, such as clarifying changes to definitions, calculation methodologies, monitoring and quality assurance requirements, missing data procedures, and reporting requirements. Some of these proposed changes result from questions raised by reporters through the GHGRP Help Desk or e-GGRT and are intended to resolve
uncertainties in the regulatory text. The proposed changes would reduce confusion for reporters and correct inconsistencies in the rule.
In some cases, we are proposing minor amendments that would clarify general monitoring requirements, measurement methods, or reported data elements. These revisions include less substantive changes, such as simple corrections to calculation terms, revisions of cross-references, harmonizing changes (such as changes to terminology within a subpart for consistency), simple editorial corrections, and removal of redundant text. As discussed earlier in section II of this preamble, these less substantive revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
III. Proposed Amendments to Each Subpart
This section summarizes the specific substantive amendments proposed for each Part 98 subpart, as generally described in section II of this preamble. Sections III.A through III.Z of this preamble also identify where additional minor corrections to a subpart are included in the Table of Revisions.
A. Subpart A—General Provisions
In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to subpart A of Part 98. This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart A; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart A To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing several amendments that are intended to simplify and streamline the requirements of subpart A and increase the efficiency of the report submittal process. First, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify the EPA's 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 mtCO
2
e for five reporting years or less than 15,000 mtCO
2
e 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. The EPA's 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). The EPA is adding a new paragraph to 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify this point. We are proposing to retain the current language in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) (i.e., “reported emissions”) to continue to refer to direct emitters and to add new paragraph 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to clarify that the provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) apply to suppliers (i.e., by specifying in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) that 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) apply to suppliers by substituting the term “quantity of GHG supplied” for “emissions” in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2)). For example, a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases might qualify under proposed 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting as an exporter of industrial greenhouse gases because GHG exports are less than 25,000 mtCO
2
e for five reporting years (i.e., as provided in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1)). Further, we have clarified that, for suppliers, these off-ramp provisions apply individually to each importer, exporter, petroleum refinery, fractionator of natural gas liquids, local natural gas distribution company, and producer of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), or fluorinated greenhouse gases. For example, regarding the example above where a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases qualifies under proposed 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting as an exporter of industrial greenhouse gases, this same supplier would still be required to report as an importer if they also report GHG imports that do not qualify under proposed 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting because GHG imports are not less than the thresholds specified in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2). Likewise, a company might qualify under 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting as a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases under subpart OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases) because the reported quantity of industrial greenhouse gases supplied is less than 15,000 mtCO
2
e for three reporting years (i.e., as provided in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(2)), but the company might still be required to report as a supplier of carbon dioxide under subpart PP because the reported quantity of carbon dioxide supplied is not less than the thresholds specified in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2). Additionally, the proposed off-ramp requirements for suppliers would be applied separately from those for direct emitters. This would occur whether the supplier and direct emitter report as two separate entities in e-GGRT or, for simplicity, as one entity in e-GGRT. For example, if a facility reports under subpart Y (a direct emitter subpart) and subpart MM (a supplier subpart), and the facility meets the off-ramp requirements in proposed 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) for the GHG quantities reported under subpart MM but does not meet the off-ramp requirements in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2) for GHG emissions under subpart Y, then the facility may cease reporting under subpart MM while still reporting under subpart Y. If the subpart MM and subpart Y data were submitted in two different annual reports under two different e-GGRT identification numbers, the facility would discontinue submitting reports for subpart MM all together while continuing to submit reports for subpart Y. If the subpart MM and subpart Y data were submitted in one annual report under one e-GGRT identification number, the facility would continue to submit reports under that e-GGRT identification number with the subpart Y data and without the subpart MM data.
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. For example, if a facility previously reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) and 40 CFR part 98, subpart T (Magnesium Production) removes all of their combustion sources, but continues their magnesium casting operations under subpart T, the proposed revision to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) would clarify that this facility is exempt from the subpart C reporting of the combustion processes in the reporting years following the year in which the combustion sources ceased
operation. Note 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. A similar change is being proposed to streamline reporting for operators of underground coal mines subject to 40 CFR part 98, subpart FF. Specifically, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to delete an exclusion for abandoned underground coal mines that precludes them from the off-ramp. Data submitted by closed and abandoned mines during the first four years of the GHGRP have improved the EPA's understanding of emissions from these mines and have shown that they produce GHG emissions in quantities well below the reporting threshold. This change is further discussed in section III.R.1 of this preamble.
In addition, there has been confusion regarding how Part 98 addresses situations where a facility no longer meets the “Definition of Source Category” specified in an applicable subpart. For example, subpart II of Part 98 (Industrial Wastewater Treatment) applies to anaerobic processes that treat wastewater from either meat processing operations (NAICS 3116) or fruit and vegetable processing (NAICS 3114). If a facility were subject to subpart II because it processes meat byproducts into human food, but switched its operations to producing animal food or to processing seafood rather than meat byproducts, then the processing plant would no longer meet the source category definition of “industrial wastewater treatment” in 40 CFR 98.350 because it no longer falls under the classification of NAICS 3116. The facility, therefore, would not be subject to reporting under subpart II. 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.
Lastly, the EPA is proposing to limit resubmittal of reports to five years prior to the current reporting year. For example, in RY2016, resubmittal of reports from RY2011-2015 would be allowed, but a resubmittal of a RY2010 report would no longer be permitted. The EPA currently requires facilities to resubmit past year reports for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule in which a substantive error is identified, and allows resubmittals going back to the first year of the program. Based on the resubmittals to the program to date, the EPA has determined that the number of reports that are resubmitted falls drastically after the active verification period of 6 months, and continues to fall over time. Because there is significant burden to the EPA for maintaining the reporting forms needed for facilities to resubmit reports for past years, the EPA is seeking comment on limiting the resubmittals to 5-years prior to the current reporting year. The EPA would set the limit at five years in part because there is a 5-year recordkeeping requirement in Part 98.
3
The EPA has determined that 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. While this change would not require a revision to the regulatory text, the EPA wishes to seek input from stakeholders prior to implementing this policy. As a result, in this action, the EPA is asking for comment on limiting resubmittal of reports to five years before the current reporting year.
3
According to 40 CFR 98.3(g), facilities using the Inputs Verification Tool are required to maintain all records at the facility for five years. Facilities that are not required to use the Inputs Verification Tool for any subparts under which they are reporting are required to maintain records for three years.
2. Revisions to Subpart A To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98
The EPA is proposing several amendments to subpart A that would improve the quality of the data collected under the GHGRP. For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, these proposed revisions are intended to collect data that would improve the EPA's understanding of sector GHG emissions, and are anticipated to generally result in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.
First we are proposing revisions to 40 CFR 98.3(c) to revise the content of the annual report to include three new data elements to uniquely identify individually reported fluorinated GHGs and fluorinated heat transfer fluids (HTF): Chemical name, CAS registry number, and the linear chemical formula. Currently, 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(iii)(E) and (F) require reporting of each fluorinated GHG and fluorinated HTF from applicable source categories, and 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5)(ii) requires the reporting of each fluorinated GHG from suppliers. The rule, however, does not specify how to identify each compound; instead, only the name of a GHG is required in a facility's annual report. Generally, reporters identify the GHGs in their annual report from Table A-1 of subpart A, which provides a list of fluorinated GHG along with the GWP of each gas, a registry number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), and the chemical formula. When newly developed compounds are not listed in Table A-1 of subpart A, reporters classify the GHG as “other” and provide a chemical name. In these situations, different reporters sometimes refer to the “other” gas by different names (
e.g.
, a standard IUPAC name as well as one or more common or trade names), especially when compounds have more than one name that is scientifically valid. This also results in facilities reporting the same gas under a different name from year to year. As an example, in prior reporting years, separate facilities under 40 CFR part 98, subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing) have reported emissions of the same fluorinated GHGs under multiple common names (
e.g.
, octafluorotetrahydrofuran may be reported separately as octafluorotetrahydrofuran, perfluorotetrahydrofuran, and c-C
4
F
8
O). Further, with the fast pace of technology development, new fluorinated chemicals are routinely being developed. Because of the rapid pace at which new chemicals enter the marketplace, it is not feasible for the EPA to update Table A-1 or the fluorinated GHG and fluorinated HTF lists in the GHGRP's electronic reporting system fast enough to keep pace with all chemicals in use at any point in time. If a fluorinated GHG were to be reported under a different name in a future reporting year, it could result in delays or errors in data analysis and trends if the GHGRP dataset contains information for the GHG associated with two different names.
To improve the usefulness of the emissions and supplier data reported, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) and (5) to include two additional identifiers of fluorinated
GHGs and fluorinated HTFs so that each compound can be identified unambiguously. To the extent available, we propose to require chemical identifiers provided by national consensus organizations. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) provides a naming convention that can be used for all organic chemicals. The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) of the American Chemical Society assigns a chemical registry number that is widely used in industry and academia to identify individual chemical compounds. However, even with these two standardized services, we have learned that chemicals often are reported under different names for a variety of reasons. Therefore, knowing the linear chemical formula would help the EPA to classify compounds consistently. (We are proposing to require reporting of the linear chemical formula rather than the condensed chemical formula because the former provides information on the structure of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that is useful for identifying the compound and distinguishing it from other fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs that have the same number of atoms of each element in different arrangements.) Accordingly, we are proposing to require reporting all three of the following data elements to ensure that the EPA can properly classify and identify each unique compound reported:
• Chemical name. If a chemical is not included in Table A-1 of subpart A (or not listed in the Web forms in the EPA's reporting tool), then facilities or suppliers would be required to report the name using the chemical naming convention provided by IUPAC.
• CAS Registry Number. If a CAS number is not assigned or if the CAS number is not associated with a single fluorinated GHG or fluorinated heat transfer fluid, then reporters would report an identification number assigned by the EPA's Substance Registry Services.
4
4
Substance Registry Services (SRS) is the EPA's central system for information about substances that are tracked or regulated by EPA or other sources. It is the authoritative resource for basic information about chemicals, biological organisms, and other substances of interest to EPA and its state and tribal partners. See http://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/substreg/home/overview/home.do.
• Linear chemical formula.
Next, we are proposing to add a sentence to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(8) to clarify the missing data provisions. The proposed revision explains that missing data provisions apply not only to reported parameters, but to any parameter used to monitor or calculate emissions. Use of missing data procedures can affect the accuracy of an emission estimate regardless of whether that parameter is reported. It is the EPA's intention that the effect be documented, such that the accuracy of the reported emissions may be better understood.
We are proposing a change to 40 CFR 98.4(i) to update the content of the certificate of representation (COR). For each facility or supplier, all GHG reports and other communications are submitted by a “designated representative” of the owners and operators of the facility or supplier. The designated representative (DR) acts as a legal representative between the facility or supplier and the agency. The DR is appointed by submitting to the EPA a COR at least 60 days prior to the deadline for submission of the initial annual GHG report. Currently, 40 CFR 98.4(i) specifies that the COR must contain the following information:
• Identification of the facility or supplier;
• Name and contact information for the DR;
• A list of the owners and operators of the facility or supplier;
• Certification statements that the DR was appointed by a binding agreement with the owners and operators, that the DR has the necessary authority to carry out the duties and responsibilities on behalf of the owners and operators, and that the owners and operators are bound by the representations, actions, inactions, or submissions of the DR; and
• Signature of the DR.
We are proposing the addition of one item to the COR, which is a list of all the 40 CFR 98 subparts under which the facility or supplier intends to report. The information on the subparts anticipated to be reported is for the EPA's internal planning and management purposes, and would streamline the EPA's internal processes related to preparing for upcoming reporting seasons. This new COR requirement would impose no new burden on reporters. The revised content of the COR would apply only to newly submitted CORs for facilities that have not previously reported to the GHGRP. The DR would not be required to re-submit a previously submitted COR to add the new information. For example, the new information would not be required for a revised COR that is submitted to change the DR, address, or list of owners. The information submitted on anticipated subpart applicability would be based on whatever applicability analysis the facility or supplier has conducted on their own to determine that Part 98 applies, and on best engineering judgment as to the specific subparts that apply at the time that the COR is submitted. There would be no legal obligation to include GHG data for a particular subpart in the annual GHG report only because that subpart was included in the list of subparts submitted in the COR. Rather, the annual report must include all of the subparts that the DR determines meet the applicability requirements of 40 CFR 98.2 at any time during a reporting year. Also, the facility or supplier is not required to maintain any records to support the listing of subparts in the COR.
Finally, we are 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. In general, the rule currently requires a facility reporting under an e-GGRT identification number to have a valid reason for discontinuing reporting under that e-GGRT identification number and to notify the EPA of that valid reason. The e-GGRT system is set up to collect such notification from the discontinuing reporter, and the EPA routinely follows up with all facilities that have discontinued reporting without providing a valid reason. On several occasions, a facility that was discontinuing reporting under its e-GGRT identification number contacted the GHGRP Help Desk in an attempt to notify the EPA that the emissions would be reported under another e-GGRT identification number. In those cases, the discontinuing reporter was looking for a formal way to transfer the reporting obligation to the other facility and confirm that the reporter was no longer responsible for reporting those emissions. 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, we are 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. In other words, whenever a business relationship such as an acquisition, merger, or joint venture abrogates a facility or supplier that previously registered in e-GGRT and submitted an annual GHG report, the designated representative for the subsumed facility or supplier would have to report the e-GGRT identification number of the reconstituted facility or supplier. The facility identification number should be readily available to the reporter, and this change would allow the EPA to better assess compliance with the Program while providing the subsumed facility or supplier a formal method of notifying the EPA of their valid reason for discontinuing reporting. This provision would not include Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production Facilities reporting under subpart W, consistent with FAQ 749,
5
which currently does not require these facilities to notify the EPA when they discontinue reporting because of a change in ownership of all wells and associated equipment in a basin. In proposing this change, the EPA is seeking comment on whether requiring the reconstituted entity to report the e-GGRT identification number of the subsumed facility or supplier would impose less burden on the regulated community while achieving the same objectives.
5
The EPA publishes Frequently Asked Questions to provide general and administrative information about 40 CFR part 98. FAQ 749 is available at:
http://www.ccdsupport.com/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=198705183
.
For more information on subpart A confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.
3. Other Amendments to Subpart A
For reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.3(h)(4) to simplify the process for requesting an extension for the reporter to respond to the EPA's questions on a submitted report or submit a revised report to correct a reporting error identified by the EPA during report verification. 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. We are 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.
We are also proposing two amendments to subpart A of Part 98 to clarify a definition in 40 CFR 98.6. We are proposing to amend the definition of “gas collection system” to clarify that active venting systems that convey landfill gas to the surface of the landfill by mechanical convection, but the landfill gas is never recovered or thermally destroyed prior to release to the atmosphere, are not considered a landfill gas collection system. The requirements in subpart HH for gas collection systems are specific to landfill gas that is recovered or destroyed, but “active venting” systems appear to meet the definition of gas collection systems. The proposed revision clarifies that “active venting systems” are not subject to the monitoring and calculation requirements for landfills with gas collection systems.
The EPA is proposing to amend the definitions for “ventilation hole or shaft” in 40 CFR 98.6 to clarify that the term “vent hole or shaft” for mine ventilation systems includes mine portals, adits, and other mine entrances and exits used to move air from the ventilation system out of the mine. The proposed change is prompted by questions that we have received from reporters during the first four years of implementation, seeking guidance on whether these ventilation system components are considered part of the source category definition. Portal and adit are terms sometimes used to describe mine entries and shafts. The intent of the rule is to capture all points in the ventilation system where methane emissions may exhaust to the atmosphere. Adding these terms should provide clarity for reporters. We do not expect this rule change to result in an additional burden to reporters; it is a clarification to provide further guidance in applicability. However, the EPA does expect this proposed change to improve the accuracy of reporting.
4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart A
For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several minor corrections and clarifications to subpart A of Part 98, including clarifications to definitions, editorial changes, and clarifications to reporting requirements. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
B. Subpart C—General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources
In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to subpart C of Part 98. This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart C; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart C To Improve Quality of Data Collected in Part 98
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA's ability to verify data under Part 98, while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. First, the EPA is proposing to require reporting of the moisture content used to correct the default high heating value (HHV) for wood and wood residuals (dry basis) in Table C-1, in accordance with the procedures of footnote 5 in Table C-1. 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 combusted. Applying the wet weight of the wood to the dry basis HHV overestimates emissions, as a portion of the weight that is combusted is water.
Facilities raised this concern through the GHGRP Help Desk and the EPA responded by adding footnote 5 to Table C-1 in the 2013 Revisions Rule, which allowed reporters to correct the default dry basis HHV to a wet basis. Currently e-GGRT and IVT require the use of the default dry basis HHV when reporting wood and wood residuals using Equations C-1 and C-8. For reporters that need to correct their HHV, the only option available is to override the e-GGRT or IVT calculated value, which is on a dry basis.
The EPA is proposing to add the moisture correction calculation as a reporting element, as well as a data element that would be entered into IVT for those reporters using IVT. This would allow the EPA to verify the accuracy of the moisture content and resultant emissions. Based on current reporting year data, approximately 132 facilities (167 units) would be affected by this new data element. The EPA anticipates that the impact of this new data element will be minimal, as moisture content is already determined by the facilities that correct the HHV of their wood products.
Because the new data element is an input to an emission equation, the EPA evaluated the data element to determine if its public release would cause disclosure concerns as was done for all inputs to equations through a previous action (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014).
6
In the evaluation conducted for the October 24, 2014 action, the EPA described in section 2.2 of Part 2 of the memorandum “Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of `Inputs to Equations' Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015,” September 2014 (available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929) that data related to “process design, process performance, and/or cost to do business” could be detrimental to a firm's competitiveness. After considering this newly proposed data element, we have determined that for those subpart C combustion sources that do not meet the criteria specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f),
7
this data element fits the description of being related to “process design, process performance, and/or costs to do business.” Specifically, for industrial facilities that produce wood and wood residuals as a production process byproduct (
e.g.
, pulp and paper production), the moisture content of the wood and wood residuals affects the heating value of the wood fuel used to produce steam for the production process. As such, moisture content could reveal information about process efficiency and the cost to produce a product. However, given the wide range of industries subject to the wood and wood residuals reporting requirements under subpart C, it is possible that there are industries that do not have concerns disclosing the proposed new data element. In light of the above, we propose to allow reporters to elect under 40 CFR 98.3(d)(3)(v) and 40 CFR 98.36(a) (for subpart C sources that do not meet the criteria specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f)) to either enter the moisture content into IVT or, if potential disclosure is not a concern to the reporter, report the data.
8
If a reporter were to elect to enter the data into IVT, the reporter would also be required to keep a record of the data as specified in proposed new 40 CFR 98.37(b)(37).
6
The October 24, 2014 action used the process established in the notice “Change to the Reporting Date for Certain Data Elements Required Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule” (76 FR 53057, August 25, 2011, hereafter referred to as the “Final Deferral Notice”) and the accompanying memorandum entitled “Process for Evaluating and Potentially Amending Part 98 Inputs to Emission Equations” (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929) to determine if there are any associated disclosure concerns. In the “Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under the GHGRP” (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014, hereafter referred to as the “Final Inputs Rule”), the EPA finalized an approach for addressing disclosure concerns associated with inputs to emissions equations, in which the inputs for which disclosure concerns were identified are entered and verified in the EPA's inputs verification tool (IVT). IVT is a software tool that verifies emissions without the inputs being reported to EPA. Inputs to emissions equations for which disclosure concerns have been identified are entered into the tool. IVT uses the entered inputs to calculate emission equation results. IVT does not retain the entered inputs but conducts certain checks of the inputs and calculated emissions values and generates a verification summary. The same process was used for the evaluation of this new input to equation data element.
7
40 CFR 98.36(f) specifies the following criteria for combustion sources: (1) The stationary fuel combustion source contains at least one combustion unit connected to a fuel-fired electric generator owned or operated by an entity that is subject to regulation of customer billing rates by the public utility commission (excluding generators that are connected to combustion units that are subject to subpart D of this part); and (2) the stationary fuel combustion source is located at a facility for which the sum of the nameplate capacities for all electric generators specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section is greater than or equal to 1 megawatt electric output.
8
If a reporter elects to report the moisture content of wood and wood residuals for a source that does not meet the criteria specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f), e-GGRT will require the reporter to waive the right to make confidentiality claims before reporting the moisture content via e-GGRT.
After considering whether disclosure concerns exist for those sources that meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.36(f), the EPA has determined that the moisture content of the wood and wood residuals would not reveal any proprietary information about facility or process performance, design, and operation; cost to do business; raw material usage; or production. Site-specific fuel characteristics do not vary significantly from publicly-known average values. Additionally for the electric utilities, this sector has experienced a high level of transparency due to the practice of passing fuel costs through to paying customers. The EPA is proposing that, for sources that meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.36(f), there are no disclosure concerns and the moisture content of the wood and wood residuals must be reported in e-GGRT.
For emissions reported using the aggregation of units (GP) and common pipe (CP) configurations, the EPA does not currently have the ability to compare emissions to the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for the units in the configuration. This information is important for verifying these emissions. The EPA is proposing to resolve this gap in verification by requiring reporting of the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all units (within the configuration) that have a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr).
When originally promulgated, 40 CFR 98.36(c) required the cumulative heat input capacity for all units in GP and CP configurations. These requirements were removed in December 2010 amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (75 FR 79092, December 17, 2010). 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” (75 FR 79117). Although the highest maximum rated heat input capacity of any unit in these configurations is useful in verifying compliance with the rule requirements, it does not provide enough information to assess the quality of emissions reported under these configurations.
Currently over 50 percent non-biogenic CO
2
reported under subpart C is reported using GP and CP configurations. Therefore, we have identified the need to obtain additional information on these reporting configurations to further assess data quality for these reported emissions. The cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity will be used to verify that emissions data are not over or under reported for GP and CP configurations.
In the December 2010 amendments (75 FR 79117), commenters highlighted the burden associated with determining the maximum rated heat input capacity and maintaining an equipment count for small domestic combustion sources (
e.g.
, water heaters, furnaces, space heaters) located at large industrial facilities. The EPA agrees with the commenters' position and believes that meaningful data verification can be achieved without requiring information on small domestic combustions sources, as GHG emissions data are typically dominated by larger emission units.
There were approximately 7,000 GP and CP configurations reported in 2014, out of the total 18,000 configurations reported in subpart C. Of these, approximately 2,250 reporting configurations reported that the highest maximum rated heat input capacity of
any unit in the configuration was less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). The total non-biogenic CO
2
reported from these 2,250 configurations was approximately 2 percent of the total non-biogenic CO
2
reported for all 7,000 GP and CP configurations. The remaining 98 percent of non-biogenic CO
2
reported came from the 4,750 GP and CP configurations that identified the highest maximum rated heat input capacity of any unit as greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). These data provide evidence that using the heat input capacity information from units greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr will allow for meaningful data validation without mandating over-burdensome requirements for reporters.
When reporting the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity, reporters will not be required to account for units less than 10 mmBtu/hr. For GP configurations, this means that the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity will be determined as the sum of the maximum rated heat input capacities for all units in the group that are greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr) and less than or equal to 250 (mmBtu/hr). Units with a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than 250 mmBtu/hr are not allowed to use the GP configuration. For CP configurations, the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity will be determined as the sum of the maximum rated heat input capacities for all units served by the pipe that are greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). Note that fuel use and corresponding emissions are still required to be reported for units with a maximum rated heat input capacity less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). Emissions reporting of GHGs for GP and CP configurations will remain unchanged.
Approximately 2,250 existing GP and CP reporting configurations will not be affected by this new requirement. Approximately 4,750 GP and CP reporting configurations will be required to determine and report cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity. This equates to approximately 3,540 affected facilities (out of the roughly 5,925 reporting in subpart C). However, many of these affected facilities will likely benefit from not having to account for units with a heat input capacity less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). The EPA believes that the burden associated with determining the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for GP and CP configurations will be minimal. Existing air permits and compliance records for other federal and state regulations likely contain heat input capacity data for many of the affected sources (
i.e.
, units greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr). The proposed requirement for 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.
For more information on subpart C confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.
2. Other Amendments to Subpart C
For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are proposing revisions to the requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) to (1) clarify the reporting requirements when the results of HHV sampling are received less frequently than monthly for certain sources; (2) streamline the conversion factors used to convert short tons to metric tons; and (3) revise Tables C-1 and C-2 to more clearly define emission factors for certain petroleum products.
First, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 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 CFR 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 “(HHV)
I
,” “(Fuel)
I
,” and “n” with the term “samples.”
We are proposing changes to Tables C-1 and C-2 to remove duplication and to further classify several fuels to provide clarity. These changes are minor clarifications to existing rule requirements and, therefore, do not impact the burden on reporters. The first change that we are proposing to Table C-1 is to remove duplication of default HHV and CO
2
emission factors for petroleum coke. Petroleum coke is currently listed under both the “Petroleum products” category and “Other fuels—solid” category. To avoid confusion with the classification of this fuel, we propose to remove petroleum coke from both of these categories and to include the fuel under a new category entitled “Petroleum products—solid.”
The second change to Table C-1 proposed is to move the fuel propane gas from the “Other fuels—gaseous” category into a new category entitled “Petroleum products—gaseous.” Propane is also included under the “Petroleum products” category, and we are not proposing to remove propane from this category as a majority of reporters use this fuel type when reporting use of propane. To help clarify that all fuels in the “Petroleum products” category are liquid fuels, we propose to rename this category to “Petroleum products—liquid.” In conjunction with the changes to Table C-1 for propane and petroleum coke, we are also proposing to change Table C-2 to further clarify that these fuels are considered petroleum products and their methane (CH
4
) and N
2
O emissions should be calculated and reported accordingly. Therefore we propose to change the “Petroleum (All fuel types in Table C-1)” category to “Petroleum Products (All fuel types in Table C-1),” which will encompass all liquid, solid, and gaseous petroleum products.
We are also proposing another change to Table C-2 to further streamline the CH
4
and N
2
O emission factors for fuels in the “Other fuels—solid” category. With the proposed reclassification of petroleum coke from this category to a new solid petroleum products category, the remaining fuels are municipal solid waste (MSW), tires and plastics. Both MSW and tires are listed in Table C-2 and have identical CH
4
and N
2
O emission factors, however plastics are not included in the table. We are proposing to combine the MSW and tire line items into an “Other fuels—solid” category, which would encompass all three solid fuels (
i.e.
, MSW, tires and plastics).
Finally, we are proposing to update the Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples using Radiocarbon Analysis (ASTM D6866-08) to the current standard (ASTM D6866-12). The proposed change would revise references to the method in 40 CFR 98.34(d) and (e), 40 CFR 98.36(e)(2), and include a harmonizing change to 40 CFR 98.7(e)(33).
3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart C
In addition to the substantive changes proposed, as described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing minor revisions that are intended to clarify specific provisions in subpart C. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
C. Subpart E—Adipic Acid Production
In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart E of Part 98 (Adipic Acid Production). This section discusses all of the proposed amendments to subpart E.
1. Revisions to Subpart E To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing one amendment that is intended to simplify and streamline the requirements of subpart E and increase the efficiency of the report submittal process. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.53(a)(2) to remove the annual approval for an alternative method for determining N
2
O emissions request by the reporter and the annual request approval by the EPA if the reporter's methodology has not changed.
Reporters that are subject to subpart E are allowed to use an alternative method to calculate N
2
O emissions from the production of adipic acid. The alternative method must be approved by the EPA before being used to comply with subpart E. Currently, reporters who choose to use the alternative method are required to request approval on an annual basis and provide the following information:
• The calculation method for determining annual N
2
O emissions;
• associated data collection procedures (parameters, how the parameters will be determined, frequency of data collection);
• initial and ongoing monitoring and quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) procedures;
• missing data procedures that will be applied in the event that quality-assured parameters are unavailable (
e.g.
, if a CEMS malfunctions during a unit operation);
• any N
2
O emissions abatement technology that is being used on this unit or process;
• any specific test methods or industry consensus standards that would be applied (ASTM, EPA, etc.) for data collection or monitoring; and
• any data reporting elements, in addition to the elements required in the rules, which would be provided to the EPA to verify the calculated emissions using the alternative method.
In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to allow additional flexibility in the use of alternative methods by removing the annual approval request. Unless there have been changes in the reporter's methodology. If a reporter received approval to use an alternative method in the previous reporting year and the methodology has not changed, the EPA is proposing that the request for use of the alternative method be automatically approved for subsequent reporting years. For most reporters, the alternative method is based on innovative methodologies that are already in practice at the facility, so the underlying monitoring, data collection, and QA/QC procedures used are unlikely to change from one reporting year to the next. The reporter would only need to notify the EPA that it is using an already approved alternative method. This notification would be included in the annual report submission. If, however, a reporter makes any changes to the previously-approved alternative method, then it must request permission to use the revised method as stated in 40 CFR 98.53(a)(2). Not only would this proposed change add flexibility to the reporters, it would also reduce the burden for reporters to comply with subpart E. By requiring requests only for new approvals or for methodologies that have changed since prior approval, the EPA burden required to review and approve the methodologies would also be reduced.
2. Revisions to Subpart E To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing one amendment that is intended to improve the quality of data collected under subpart E while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.56(f) to require reporting of the date of installation of any N
2
O abatement technology (if applicable). This information is readily available or already collected by reporters, and would not require additional data collection or monitoring. This data element could be carried over from one reporting year to the next. The reporter would not be required to make changes unless additional abatement technology is installed at a later date. The addition of this data element would help improve our understanding of the use and trends in emissions reduction technologies and the accuracy of the U.S. GHG Inventory by improving the accuracy of trend estimates for this sector. Specifically, the proposed data element would allow for improved analysis of emissions by enabling the EPA to more accurately apply the applicable emission factors over specific time periods, depending on whether the emissions were exhausted to an N
2
O abatement technology during that time period. For more information on subpart E confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.
D. Subpart F—Aluminum Production
In this action, we are proposing several technical amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart F (Aluminum Production). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart F; additional minor corrections and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart F To Improve Quality of Data Collected in Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing several amendments to 40 CFR 98, subpart F to improve the quality of the data collected under Part 98 and improve the U.S. GHG Inventory. We are proposing to require reporting of two data elements that influence perfluorocarbon (PFC) emissions from aluminum production: annual average anode effect minutes per cell-day and annual smelter-specific slope coefficients. These proposed revisions are intended to collect more accurate and informative data. As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, these proposed revisions would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA's understanding of GHG emissions from aluminum production while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.
The annual average anode effect minutes per cell day is a measure of the fraction of the time during which aluminum electrolysis cells are operating that the cells are experiencing process disturbances known as anode effects. PFC emissions from aluminum production are closely associated with the frequency and duration of anode effects.
9
Smelter-specific slope coefficients are a measure of the relationship between average anode effect minutes per cell day, aluminum production, and PFC emissions at individual smelters.
9
Recent research has revealed that PFC emissions may also occur from some aluminum smelters in the absence of anode effects as those are traditionally defined. These “non-anode-effect emissions” are particularly prevalent in recently built smelters that use very large cells, i.e., cells containing 40 or more anodes. Most U.S. smelters do not use such large cells.
Both data elements were included in the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. However, in the Final Deferral Notice published on August 25, 2011, we deferred reporting of the data elements because they were classified as inputs to emission equations (76 FR 53057).
10
The two data elements were
considered inputs into Equation F-2. In the Final Inputs Rule (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014), we decided not to collect these data elements and to include the inputs into Equation F-2 in IVT. However, after further investigation, we have determined that for average anode effect minutes per cell day, the actual input in Equation F-2 is a monthly average, while the removed reporting element is an annual average.
11
Consequently, annual average anode effect minutes per cell day is not an input to an emission equation and, if restored as a reporting element, would be eligible for confidential treatment. As discussed in section IV of this preamble, we are proposing to determine that the annual average of the anode effect minutes per cell day is CBI.
10
See the final rule titled “Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, and Confidentiality Determinations Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program,” (79 FR 63753-54, October 24, 2014) for a full discussion of the
history of EPA's treatment of inputs to emission equations under the GHGRP.
11
Although a monthly total of metal production is used in Equation F-2, the annual total metal production is used in Equations F-5 and F-6; thus, we are not proposing to collect annual metal production.
IVT currently requires the entry of monthly anode effect minutes and smelter-specific slope coefficients (along with monthly metal production), allowing PFC emission estimates from smelters to be verified. However, our interest in anode effect minutes and slope coefficients goes beyond verification of emission estimates. Specifically, the annual average of anode effect minutes is of interest because it provides insight into one of the key drivers of PFC emissions from primary aluminum production at the facility and U.S. level. This data element helps us to understand why emissions have increased or decreased in a particular year or over longer periods. Thus, it is important for informing the development of future GHG policies and programs. In addition, it is important for explaining U.S. emission trends through the U.S. GHG Inventory. Before the GHGRP became effective, anode effect minutes (as well as smelter-specific slope coefficients) had been provided to the EPA by most U.S. smelters under the Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership (VAIP), although anode effect minutes was reported as a company-wide (rather than smelter-specific) average by some companies in some years.
12
12
Although the VAIP program continues, GHGRP reporting supplanted reporting under the VAIP.
Smelter-specific slope coefficients also influence emissions. Because they are relatively stable over time (under subpart F, they are required to be re-measured every ten years), they do not drive trends in the same way that metal production and anode effect minutes do. However, they do contribute to differences in emission rates from different smelters and are therefore of interest for purposes of informing GHG policies and programs.
Smelter-specific slope coefficients are inputs to emission equations (i.e., to Equation F-2). In the analysis titled, “Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of “Inputs to Equations” Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015” (September, 2014, available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929), we concluded that smelter-specific slope coefficients provided data related to process efficiency and also provided data that could be used to calculate the mass of aluminum produced if both the anode effect minutes and reported GHG emissions were also known. (The product of the slope coefficient, monthly metal produced, and monthly average anode effect minutes is the CF4 emissions from the smelter or potline.) However, we are now revisiting this conclusion in light of our proposed determination that the annual average of the anode effect minutes is CBI. Without data on anode effect minutes, data on smelter-specific slope coefficients pose few, if any, disclosure concerns. Most variability in process efficiency is driven by anode effect minutes, not smelter-specific slope coefficients, and it is not possible to back-calculate metal production without anode effect minutes.
13
Therefore, in conjunction with our proposed determination that the annual average of the anode effect minutes is CBI, we are proposing to revise the findings in the Final Inputs Rule and to now find no disclosure concerns associated with this input to equation, and are proposing to collect this data. Note that we would continue to use IVT to verify the results of Equation F-2 because we would be collecting only one of the three inputs to this equation.
14
13
A review of the slope coefficients and anode effect minutes provided under the VAIP showed that the relative standard deviation of smelter-specific slope coefficients was 32 percent, while the relative standard deviation of anode effect minutes was 95 percent. The comparison was made for the year 2007 because that is the most recent year for which detailed smelter-specific slope coefficients were available.
14
IVT will use the data element reported to e-GGRT to calculate the emissions value.
2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart F
In addition to the substantive changes proposed, as described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing minor revisions that are intended to clarify specific provisions in subpart F. These minor corrections are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
E. Subpart G—Ammonia Manufacturing
In this action, we are proposing multiple amendments to subpart G of Part 98 (Ammonia Manufacturing). This section discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart G.
1. Revisions to Subpart G To Improve Quality of Data Collected in Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA's understanding of GHG emissions from ammonia manufacturing while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. Specifically, we are proposing to add three data reporting elements. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.76(a) to require reporting of annual ammonia production for facilities where a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions, 40 CFR 98.76(b)(2) to require reporting of annual feedstock consumption, and 40 CFR 98.76(b)(7) to require reporting of annual average carbon content. These data elements are readily available so these proposed changes would have no impact on burden for the reporters.
The addition of these data elements would improve the EPA's ability to verify reported GHGRP emissions, and enable the EPA to transparently apply more advanced calculation methods
15
(based on total fuel requirements) for determining emissions from ammonia production within the U.S. GHG Inventory, using aggregated facility level GHGRP data. Currently, the annual U.S. GHG Inventory emissions estimates are based on multiplication of a technology-feedstock type specific default emission factor and national ammonia production. Further data on feedstock consumption and associated carbon contents would assist the EPA in reconciling CO
2
estimates of non-energy use of fuels in the energy sector and CO
2
process emissions from ammonia production. Finally, collecting annual ammonia production from facilities where a CEMS is used to measure CO
2
emissions ensures data completeness if ammonia manufacturers begin employing CEMS in the future, and enhances the EPA's ability to verify
reported information. Currently, annual ammonia production is collected on a facility basis, but only for facilities without CO
2
CEMS. For more information on subpart G confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.
15
See Equation 3.4 (Tier 3), p. 3.13 and 3.15. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Inventories, Volume 3, Chapter 3, Section 3.2: Ammonia Production; Section 4.5 (p. 4-20) of U.S. Inventory. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Chapter-4-Industrial-Processes.pdf.
2. Other Amendments to Subpart G
For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are proposing multiple amendments to Subpart G to clarify the EPA's intentions related to the reporting of annual ammonia production and annual methanol production. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.74(f) to read, “You may use company records or an engineering estimate to determine the annual ammonia production and the annual methanol production.” We are also proposing to clarify the requirement to report annual methanol production for each process unit in 40 CFR 98.76(b)(15) by adding that this information must be reported “regardless of whether the methanol is subsequently destroyed, vented, or sold as product.” These amendments will clarify the original intent of the requirements and reduce uncertainty from reporters by addressing multiple Help Desk questions, including questions related to the reporting of methanol that were raised during the RY2014 reporting period.
F. Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing
In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to subpart I of Part 98 (Electronics Manufacturing). The reporting requirements for the electronics manufacturing sector were initially promulgated under subpart I on December 1, 2010 (75 FR 74774). Since the promulgation of that final rule, the EPA has published several rules to amend the calculation, monitoring, and reporting provisions of subpart I to respond to concerns raised by reporters and representatives from the semiconductor industry. Notably, the EPA finalized substantial amendments to provisions in subpart I on November 13, 2013 (78 FR 68162). These amendments included significant revisions to the methods for calculating GHG emissions, including revised default emission factors and the addition of a new stack test methodology, as well as substantial revisions to monitoring methodologies, data reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and clarifications to terms and definitions. These amendments became effective on January 1, 2014, and reporters used the revised requirements in the submittal of their annual reports for RY2014.
In this action, we are not proposing revisions that would include significant changes to the calculation methodologies, monitoring provisions, or data reporting and recordkeeping requirements of subpart I. Rather, we are proposing revisions that we have identified following implementation of the November 13, 2013 final rule and through discussions with industry stakeholders on how to improve the emissions estimates from the electronics manufacturing sector. These 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.
This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart I; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart I To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several amendments to subpart I that would improve the quality of the data collected under the GHGRP. As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect more accurate and detailed data which would improve the EPA's understanding of sector GHG emissions, while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.
First, the EPA is proposing to revise Equation I-24, including revising the name to Equation I-24A, which calculates the weighted-average fraction of a fluorinated GHG destroyed or removed in a fab using the stack testing methodology in 40 CFR 98.93(i), to incorporate two changes. First, instead of calculating the weighted-average fraction of gas destroyed or removed weighted by the consumption of that gas in different process types, the EPA is proposing to revise the equation so that the average fraction destroyed or removed is weighted by the estimated uncontrolled emissions of that gas from different process types. This change is needed to address the fact that the same gas can have different emissions when used in different process types, and these differences could potentially lead to errors in the calculation of the fraction of gas destroyed or removed, especially at facilities with a large percentage of tools fitted with abatement. To calculate the estimated uncontrolled emissions of each gas, the EPA is proposing to use the input gas emission factors from Tables I-3 to I-7 of subpart I and the consumption of each gas in each process type for each fab.
The second proposed change is to create a second equation (Equation I-24B) in 40 CFR 98.93(i) to calculate the weighted-average fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product gas “k” destroyed or removed in abatement systems in each fab using the stack testing methodology. This change is needed to clarify how the term d
kf
, which is used in several other equations in subpart I, should be calculated. This second equation would also address the fact that the same by-product gas can be formed at different rates from different input gas and process combinations, which could potentially lead to errors in the calculation of the average fraction of by-product gas destroyed or removed, especially at facilities with a large percentage of tools fitted with abatement. The EPA is also proposing conforming changes throughout Subpart I to the rule sections where Equation I-24A and I-24B should be referenced.
Finally, for the triennial technology report required of certain facilities as specified in 40 CFR 98.96(y), the EPA is proposing to specify that reporters that are providing any utilization and by-product formation rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency data must also include information on the methods and conditions under which the data were collected, where such information is available. The triennial report would describe, for any utilization, by-product formation rate, and/or destruction or removal efficiency data submitted: the methods used for the measurements, the wafer size, film type being manufactured, substrate type, the linewidth or technology node, process type, process subtype for chamber clean processes, the input gases used and measured, the utilization rates measured, and the by-product formation rates measured, where this information is available. All of these data elements, with the exception of substrate type and linewidth, were submitted with the emission factor measurements provided to the EPA by semiconductor manufacturers during the development of the 2010 and 2013 final rules. This information is necessary 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. Without collecting this data, the agency would not be able to effectively evaluate how emissions may vary by
wafer size, film type, substrate type, linewidth or technology node, and process type or process subtype. The current subpart I is based on the recognition that emission factors vary significantly by wafer size and process type and subtype, and given the high rate of technical evolution in this sector, film type, substrate type, and linewidth may also increasingly affect emission factors. Additionally, the input gases used, methods used for measurement, and measured utilization rates and byproduct formation rates are vital for the development of accurate and useful emission factors.
For more information on subpart I confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.
2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart I
For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several minor corrections and clarification to subpart I of Part 98, including editorial changes, harmonizing changes, and clarifications to reporting requirements. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
G. Subpart N—Glass Production
In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart N of Part 98 (Glass Production). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart N; additional minor corrections are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are proposing amendments that are intended to clarify the rule requirements in subpart N, while resulting in no impact on burden for reporters. Specifically, the changes clarify 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. 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. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.144(b), 40 CFR 98.144(c), 40 CFR 98.144(d), 40 CFR 98.146(b)(5), and 40 CFR 98.146(b)(7) to clarify that no further chemical analysis is required if the default value of 1.0 is selected. These amendments will clarify the original intent of the requirements and address multiple Help Desk questions. Additional minor editorial corrections may be found in the Table of Revisions in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
H. Subpart O—HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction
In this action we are proposing several amendments to subpart O of Part 98 (HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction). This section discusses all of the changes to subpart O.
1. Revisions to Subpart O To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing several amendments to subpart O that are intended to simplify and streamline GHGRP requirements and increase the efficiency of the report submittal process, generally resulting in a decrease in burden on reporters. We are proposing to revise subpart O to remove three reporting requirements related to the revised destruction efficiency that facilities are required to calculate in the event that the HFC-23 concentration that they annually measure at the outlet of the destruction device exceeds the concentration measured during the performance test that is the basis for the current destruction efficiency. The reporting requirements are found at 40 CFR 98.156(d)(2), (3), and (4) and include, respectively, the concentration (mass fraction) of HFC-23 at the outlet of the destruction device, the flow rate at the outlet of the destruction device in kilograms per hour (kg/hr), and the emission rate (in kg/hr) calculated from these two parameters. These reporting requirements were originally intended to allow us to verify the calculation of a revised destruction efficiency. However, the requirements to report the revised destruction efficiency (the result of the calculation) and the flow rate of HFC-23 being fed into the destruction device (another input into the calculation) were removed by the Final Inputs Rule, and verification of HFC-23 emissions, including their destruction, is now conducted by the IVT. Thus, reporting these data elements to the EPA is no longer needed.
2. Revisions to Subpart O To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory
We are also proposing revisions to subpart O to (1) reinstate in 40 CFR 98.156(d) reporting of the method used to calculate the revised destruction efficiency, and (2) require facilities to report HCFC-22 production and HFC-23 emissions for each HCFC-22 production process rather than for the facility as a whole. As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA's understanding of GHG emissions from HCFC-22 production and HFC-23 destruction while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.
The requirement to report the method used to calculate the revised destruction efficiency (not an input to emission equation) was inadvertently removed by the Final Inputs Rule. We are proposing to reinstate this requirement because it is useful for understanding data quality, specifically, the rigor of the method used to revise the destruction efficiency.
Subpart O currently requires facilities to report production and emissions information at the facility level although these quantities are monitored and calculated at the process level. We are proposing to revise the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.156(a) to require that facilities report production and emissions information for each HCFC-22 production process. At the time the EPA finalized the subpart O requirements (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), we had intended to collect data on individual HCFC-22 processes, with the understanding that each facility had one HCFC-22 process. We have learned since that time that some facilities may have more than one HCFC-22 process and we are proposing to revise the rule to require reporting for each individual process. In the event that a facility has more than one HCFC-22 production process, this would provide more precise information that would allow us to better verify emissions and understand HFC-23 trends.
Reporters in this subpart already monitor, estimate, and record process and emissions data on a process basis per 40 CFR 98.153; therefore, these proposed rule revisions to report the production and emissions data on a process basis are not expected to significantly increase burden. For more information on subpart O confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.
I. Subpart Q—Iron and Steel Production
In this action we are proposing amendments to subpart Q of Part 98 (Iron and Steel Production). This section discusses one substantive change to subpart Q; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
A revision is being made to align with revisions being proposed for subpart Y
(Petroleum Refineries). Under 40 CFR 98.172(b), facilities that report to subpart Q are referred to provisions in 40 CFR part 98, subpart Y for reporting CO
2
emissions from flares that burn blast furnace gas or coke oven gas. Subpart Q reporters should refer to section III.M.1 of this preamble for proposed revisions to subpart Y that would clarify that facilities should exclude pilot gas from the flare gas GHG emissions. As discussed in section II.A of this preamble, the proposed revisions would simplify data collection and may decrease the burden associated with monitoring the flare gas.
J. Subpart S—Lime Manufacturing
In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart S of Part 98 (Lime Manufacturing). This section discusses all the proposed amendments to subpart S.
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several revisions to subpart S to improve the quality of data collected under Part 98. We are proposing to require reporting of three data elements that influence CO
2
emissions from lime manufacturing: 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. As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data to improve the EPA's understanding of GHG emissions from lime manufacturing and the U.S. GHG Inventory while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.
Similar data elements were included in the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule; however, these data elements were monthly values, listed in 40 CFR 98.196(b)(2), 40 CFR 98.196(b)(3), and 40 CFR 98.196(b)(5). However, in a final rule published on August 25, 2011, we deferred reporting of the data elements because they were inputs to emission equations (76 FR 53057). In the Final Inputs Rule (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014), we identified disclosure concerns with these data elements and therefore decided not to collect these monthly data elements and to include the inputs from Equations S-1 and S-2 in IVT.
IVT currently requires the entry of monthly calcium oxide and magnesium oxide content for Equation S-1, outputting the monthly emission factor for lime type; monthly calcium oxide and magnesium oxide content for Equation S-2, outputting the monthly emission factor for calcined lime byproduct/waste type sold; calcium oxide and magnesium oxide content, and annual weight or mass of calcined byproducts or wastes for lime type that is not sold for Equation S-3, outputting the annual CO
2
emissions for calcined lime byproduct or waste type that is not sold; and monthly weight or mass of lime type produced, monthly weight or mass of calcined byproducts or wastes sold for Equation S-4, outputting the annual CO
2
process emissions from lime production from all lime kilns. The IVT inputs allow us to verify CO
2
emissions from lime kilns.
Collecting the 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 would allow us to understand why emissions have increased or decreased in a particular year or over longer periods. Thus, they are important for informing the development of future GHG policies and programs. In addition, they are important for explaining U.S. emission trends through the U.S. GHG Inventory. These annual values are not inputs to equations; as described in section IV of this preamble, we are proposing that these data elements be eligible for confidential treatment.
For more information on subpart S confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.
K. Subpart V—Nitric Acid Production
In this action, we are proposing three amendments to subpart V of Part 98 (Nitric Acid Production). This section discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart V.
1. Revisions to Subpart V To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing one amendment that is intended to simplify and streamline the requirements of subpart V and increase the efficiency of the report submittal process. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.223(a)(2) to conditionally remove the annual approval request by the reporter and the annual request approval by the EPA. As further discussed in section III.C of this preamble for subpart E, the EPA is proposing that the request for use of the alternative method be automatically approved for the next reporting year if the reporter received approval to use an alternative method in the previous reporting year and the method has not changed.
2. Revisions to Subpart V To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing two amendments that are intended to improve the quality of data collected under subpart V that would result in a moderate increase in burden for reporters. First, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.220 to change the definition of the source category to require reporting from all reporters that produce nitric acid, regardless of the nitric acid strength. The subpart V definition was based on the Standards of Performance for Nitric Acid Plants in 40 CFR part 60 (77 FR 48433, August 14, 2012) which covers the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
X
) from the production of weak nitric acid (specifically between 30 percent and 70 percent in strength). Weak nitric acid is produced through a three step process. The majority of N
2
O emissions from nitric acid production occur during ammonia oxidation, which is the first step in the process.
High-strength nitric acid is produced by two different methods. The first method begins with producing weak nitric acid and then uses extractive distillation to concentrate the nitric acid. Since N
2
O emissions occur only during weak nitric acid production and the production of weak nitric acid is covered by the existing source category definition, N
2
O emissions from this high-strength nitric acid production method are covered by the existing nitric acid source category definition. The second method is an extended version of the weak nitric acid production process, meaning that the high-strength nitric acid is produced in a single nitric acid train rather than two separate processes. This combined process is not currently covered by the existing source category definition, even though the amount of N
2
O emissions from the process would be similar to the weak nitric acid production process.
When the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule was published in 2009, only one nitric acid plant in the United States produced nitric acid greater than 70 percent in strength. In the interim, further research has indicated the existence of three other nitric acid trains capable of producing high-strength nitric acid, including one existing plant and two potential plants becoming operational as early as the end of 2015. See the memorandum, “Re: Strong Nitric Acid Facilities in the U.S.” from
Natalie Tang, EPA to Alexis McKittrick and Mausami Desai, EPA, dated January 29, 2015, in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
Because of increased usage of the high-strength nitric acid process in the United States, we are proposing that the definition of nitric acid be updated to apply to all nitric acid strengths to ensure that subpart V reporting captures all N
2
O emissions related to the production of nitric acid. By revising the definition, the rule would avoid confusion and ensure that all nitric acid trains and all N
2
O emissions are subject to subpart V. The applicability change would help improve the completeness of reporting under subpart V and further standardize Part 98 to be consistent with Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) guidance.
We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.226(h) to require reporting of the date of installation of any N
2
O abatement technology (if applicable). This date is readily available or already collected by reporters, and would not require additional data collection or monitoring. This data element could be carried over from one reporting year to the next. The reporter would not be required to make changes unless additional abatement technology is installed at a later date. The addition of this data element would help improve the accuracy of the U.S. GHG Inventory by improving the accuracy of trend estimates for this sector, while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden. Specifically, the proposed data element would allow for improved analysis of emissions by enabling the EPA to more accurately apply the applicable emission factors over specific time periods, depending on whether the emissions were exhausted to an N
2
O abatement technology during that time period. For more information on subpart V confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.
L. Subpart X—Petrochemical Production
In this action we are proposing several amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart X (Petrochemical Production). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart X; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart X To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing amendments to subpart X that are intended to simplify, streamline, and align with other proposed GHGRP requirements, which would generally result in a decrease in burden for reporters. Under 40 CFR 98.243(c), facilities that report to subpart X are referred to provisions in subpart Y for reporting CO
2
, CH
4
, and N
2
O emissions from flares. Subpart X reporters should refer to section III.M.1 of this preamble for proposed revisions to subpart Y that would clarify that facilities have the option to exclude pilot gas from the flare gas GHG emissions. As discussed in section II.A of this preamble, the proposed revisions would simplify data collection and may decrease the burden associated with monitoring the flare gas.
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 of EDC 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.
Subpart X currently 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. In a letter received from Occidental Chemical Company titled “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,” dated July 10, 2015, industry representatives indicated that an integrated EDC/VCM process is a continuous process with EDC produced as an intermediate that is not stored or measured. As an alternative to incurring the burden of modifying the process to enable measurement of the intermediate EDC stream, Occidental Chemical Company has requested that subpart X reporters be allowed to perform the mass balance over the entire integrated process and, for the quantity of petrochemical produced, report the quantity of VCM produced instead of the amount of EDC produced. Conducting the mass balance over the entire integrated process is acceptable to the EPA because the CO
2
process emissions (from oxidation of ethylene in the oxychlorination process to produce EDC) and emissions from combustion of vent gases from the EDC operations are calculated under both methods. The alternative method also would estimate additional CO
2
emissions for combustion of both vent gases and liquid wastes from the VCM
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.